Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't they still be quite effective? As in say you have some terrorists hold up in a building just use the Flamethrower to torch the building then if they don't die due to the fire then it would be easy to just shoot those that do run out?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerobime227
Wouldn't they still be quite effective? As in say you have some terrorists hold up in a building just use the Flamethrower to torch the building then if they don't die due to the fire then it would be easy to just shoot those that do run out?
They are classed as incendiary weapons and therefore subject to the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 1980.
There are the wounded, enemy soldiers who are horribly burned but still alive. These wounded have to be treated. Now imagine you’re the doctor or medic trying to deal with that in a war zone...there is your answer.
When has ANYTHING subjected to the UN been good for anyone?
Interestingly, the definition of war crimes and the avoidance of war crimes not an issue that US military leaders have a problem with. US military leaders don't want to command barbarians.
I have no doubt, when you will have REAL war, they will be undusted and used again.
Though, during WW2, flamethrower operators or FT tank crews were not subject to international POW laws and disposed of on site, due to general hatred, soldiers had towards them. That's a very cruel weapon.
What didn't prevent US from using them in Nam.
So, as I said. Just wait for a real war. Not those skirmishes.
Otherwise, there are much more efficient weapons systems, that have more massive damage effect and without fancy fireworks involved. Hypobaric gas/aerosol is one of them.
I have no doubt, when you will have REAL war, they will be undusted and used again. Though, during WW2, flamethrower operators or FT tank crews were not subject to international POW laws and disposed of on site, due to general hatred, soldiers had towards them. That's a very cruel weapon.
What didn't prevent US from using them in Nam.
So, as I said. Just wait for a real war. Not those skirmishes.
Every war is a REAL war when you're the one fighting it. You can be just as dead in a "skirmish" as in a "real war."
Quote:
Otherwise, there are much more efficient weapons systems, that have more massive damage effect and without fancy fireworks involved. Hypobaric gas/aerosol is one of them.
And "much more efficient" is a large part of the point.
Flamethrowers are very dangerous to the user, and you have to get close to the target to be effective. At that range, it's easy to get shot by the enemy, which is no fun when you are wearing a pressurized tank full of highly flammable substances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
