Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Erana]

When the UN banned firebombs, the US didn't give them up. >.>

I don't think we've used them within the past forty years or something like that, but still, it scares me a bit. Incendiaries are nondiscriminatory, which is why, in our world of increasingly precise weaponry, they shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Zac Smith]

Lot of people saying you don't suffer with a bullet the same as a flame thrower, clearly they have never been shot and got an infection because of it.

I think if someone invades your country and killing your people, you have the right to cause them as much pain as you want. I think banning of flame throwers does mean less collateral though

 

[Nerfherder17]

No, but only because I think all wars should be fought with hand to hand combat only.

 

[The Lugz]

Intentionally burning the enemy to death? Sounds inhumane to me.

intentionally killing anyone sounds pretty bad to me, but there you go

 

[Blatherscythe]

A bullet can kill you reletivly quickly with only minimal suffering unless you survive and it get's infected but that's a given, getting beaten to death or stabbed to death lasts longer and is more painful if the enemy wishes it to be. The flamethrower, while effective at smoking out enemies and burning away the bush in a gurrila war is a very nasty weapon. You literaly burn to death, it takes longer than a bullet and a stab wound and you feel every agonizing second of it, if getting a burn hurts imagine being lit ablaze for a moment. The flame thrower is just nasty.

It's good for clearing bunkers and killing people hiding in the jungle, but it's still one of the worst ways to kill somebody.

 

[Agayek]

Considering the entire point of war is to eliminate the enemy with extreme prejudice and walk out with as many of your own people intact as possible, I see every reason to continue the use of flamethrowers. They are one of the single most demoralizing weapons that have ever existed.

For everyone rambling about how inhumane they are, realize that inhumanity is the entire purpose of war. War is nothing more than "kill the other dude before he can kill you". Any and all weapons you can get your hands on are permissible.

 

[Tiger Sora]

If there's ever another war like Vietnam or WW2 fighting in the Pacific like. You can bet flamethrowers will be back. Urban combat sure useful but to hazardous to their own troops.

 

[CrashBang]

The title of the thread made me lol but I have no idea about the actual subject... I just got strangely excited by something that just said "Poll: Flamethrowers..."

 

[jumjalalabash]

Honestly they should only be used for clearing bunkers and underground bases Vietnam style.

But then what stops soldiers from using it for other situations (even though it's tactically stupid)?

Bullets to the head from 30 meters thats what.

 

[HotFezz8]

Reading up on the Battle of Sedan (1940) led me to wonder...

Question: are you in support of the illegality of the use of flamethrowers in the context of war (even asymmetrical war)?

no. its a horrible weapon. besides nowadays the flamethrowers main useful purpose (killing bunkers) has been replaced with what is arguably a more humane weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL

 

[JUGGERNAUTBITCH]

it is absolutely retarded from a tactical standpoint. if you get shot in 1 of the fuel tanks you'll get blown up and possibly your comrades who stand next 2u2.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

If there's ever another war like Vietnam or WW2 fighting in the Pacific like. You can bet flamethrowers will be back. Urban combat sure useful but to hazardous to their own troops.

This is a good point. Most wars today are fought in Urban zones. Places where a small fire can engulf an entire city (where friendly troops are stationed) in a fiery inferno. Like Kabul, or Tripoli, or Gaza......

.....and speaking of Gaza, it's not like Incendiary Weapons AREN'T used at all in the modern world *Cough*WhitePhosphorus*COUGH* Ahem.

 

[Artina89]

I dont like the idea of torturing someone by burning them to death. The death is slow and painful and it is not an efficient way of dispatching an enemy. Not to mention, if there is a flammable environment, the collateral damage would be high, not to mention the person wielding the flamethrower could be badly injured as well. So no. It's a bad idea to use a flamethrower in warfare, at least in my opinion.

 

[YawningAngel]

There are more efficient ways to fulfil the same role.

 

[tsb247]

I can think of MUCH more terrifying weapons than a flamethrower. They are low on my list of terrible weapons. Higher on my list of terrifying weapons are weaponized strains of Ebola and smallpox, Nuclear weapons, and old-fashioned IEDs. I would also argue the the first two would cause far more severe and prolonged suffering than being burned to death.

Since when does anyone follow rules of conduct during times of war anymore? This is especially true in the age of asymmetric warfare that we live in.

The best reasons I can think of to NOT use a flamethrower has more to do with the safety of the operator than the victim. They are also not terribly practical at this point in time. A hand grenade or two can do the same job, and if the bunker is too big, call in a bomber with a M.O.P.

 

[Mechsoap]

Would you like to die in a scorching hot, hell of flames, while your skin melts away?

No. I don't care how much of an asshole you're fighting, burning them alive makes you the greater asshole.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Depends on the usage.

I can think of a few areas where a flamethower would be very effective, more so than a gun.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well, the only problem is that a flame thrower is completely obsolete. why torch a bunker when some c4 can blow the thing to hell and back.

But on the bright side...civilians can own one. what does this have to do with it? nothing, just an interesting fact.

 

[Zuljeet]

Dangerous to use, bulky, heavy, crap range, makes the user a target AND it is cruel. Nope. Not worth it.