I'm guessing you're not a fan of Dexter? But in all seriousness, how does doing harm to innocents= doing less harm to guilty people?Mechsoap said:
Poll: Flamethrowers...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But explosives are much more dangerous to the user.In the case of a bunker,you would need to put enough explosives to kill the enemy inside with pressure.You would need more than a simple grenade to do so.If you use more explosives,you need to requisition some,strap a detonator to it throw it into the bunker,get far enough to be safe from the blast,and you can finally make it blow.During that time,the enemy in the bunker is shooting at you and your guys.manythings said:
All that could be avoided by a simple incendiary weapon.It doesn't have to be a flamethrower,those things are outdated,but another type of weapon that can use chemicals like phosporous or chlorine.
The way things work these days, the majority of people are sitting here with their noses in the air talking about humane weaponry... The wars these days are fought with countries who will pull any and every dirty trick in the book to kill our soldiers.
If a situation could use a flamethrower or flame based weaponry, fair game I say.
Obviously there isn't many situations where it is appropriate and the actual practicalities of using them are iffy at best, but if any troops want them, train 'em up and give them some I say.
If a situation could use a flamethrower or flame based weaponry, fair game I say.
Obviously there isn't many situations where it is appropriate and the actual practicalities of using them are iffy at best, but if any troops want them, train 'em up and give them some I say.
I have mixed feelings, back in World War 2 they were an essential tool on the battlefield in the Pacific Theater, now though I don't think they would be very useful. They also are pretty fucking horrid weapons, though in war thats kind of a irrelevant point. The US doesn't really care to much about much of those international "laws" anyway seeing as we still use claymores and white phosphorous.
Flamethrowers in WW2 were used to smoke out the German bunkers.
Nowadays we have guided penetration bombs that can do the job much better, have a much longer distance and are much more stable.
Im all for flamethrowers, but thier useage in modern day warfare is simply outdated. Unless someone comes up with a device that can project fireballs with perfect accuracy over a distance of 3 miles, they arent coming back soon.
Nowadays we have guided penetration bombs that can do the job much better, have a much longer distance and are much more stable.
Im all for flamethrowers, but thier useage in modern day warfare is simply outdated. Unless someone comes up with a device that can project fireballs with perfect accuracy over a distance of 3 miles, they arent coming back soon.
Ignoring ALL morality, they have absolutely no practical usage in modern warfare.
They are very effective weapons in clearing out trenches and bunkers, but otherwise are total liabilities to the side using them. Nobody has used trench warfare since WW1 (thank god) and there are far less... dangerous and messy ways of clearing bunkers these days.
Should they be banned? Hell no. If a country decides to go to war then I believe any discussions over the morality of individual weapons is hypocritical and ridiculous. If it is war then you destroy your enemy by the most efficient means available. But I fail to see a single situation in which a soldier equipped with a flamethrower (which are very heavy and very volatile) could not be outclassed by a soldier with a rifle, frag and flash grenades, and good training.
They are very effective weapons in clearing out trenches and bunkers, but otherwise are total liabilities to the side using them. Nobody has used trench warfare since WW1 (thank god) and there are far less... dangerous and messy ways of clearing bunkers these days.
Should they be banned? Hell no. If a country decides to go to war then I believe any discussions over the morality of individual weapons is hypocritical and ridiculous. If it is war then you destroy your enemy by the most efficient means available. But I fail to see a single situation in which a soldier equipped with a flamethrower (which are very heavy and very volatile) could not be outclassed by a soldier with a rifle, frag and flash grenades, and good training.
Burning is not a good way to die.
It's a weapon that is highly effective as but an anti-personnel piece and it can provide decent visual cover. It's also a psychological deterrent. Its close quarters effectiveness is overshadowed by the risks that coincide with handling such a weapon. I think it shouldn't be used. It's one step short of chemical/poison based weaponry.
It's a weapon that is highly effective as but an anti-personnel piece and it can provide decent visual cover. It's also a psychological deterrent. Its close quarters effectiveness is overshadowed by the risks that coincide with handling such a weapon. I think it shouldn't be used. It's one step short of chemical/poison based weaponry.
No. Personally, I couldn't caer less about how humane they are. We're talking about war here; buck up, boys. I'm more worried about their inefficiency and the fact that they're a liability to soldiers.
Actually, I was going to put "giant cockroach army" but I figured they'd be pretty resistant to flame throwers, so I went for the squishier spider army instead. SCIENCE BITCHES!warcraft4life said:k-ossuburb said:
Have you taken inspiration from somewhere?
To quote general Sherman: "War is cruelty."
if the choice comes down to leading your platoon on glorious but futile charge up against a box of concrete and machine guns and making the poor bastards, who are trying to kill you, suffer by turning their defenses into an oven, well.... frankly i hope our armies make the choice that keeps their men alive.
That having been said, they are never going to come back as a conventional weapon, not for a moral reason but for practical ones. A flamethrower's range sucks, fifty yards at the best, most marine can put a bullet between your eyes at a few thousand with their iron sights. They weigh a ton. They have a horrid survival rate since if your carrying one you get sent into the most dangerous circumstances, and since everyone fears them all of your enemies will be gunning for you. Oh, and lets not forget, they tend to explode.
if the choice comes down to leading your platoon on glorious but futile charge up against a box of concrete and machine guns and making the poor bastards, who are trying to kill you, suffer by turning their defenses into an oven, well.... frankly i hope our armies make the choice that keeps their men alive.
That having been said, they are never going to come back as a conventional weapon, not for a moral reason but for practical ones. A flamethrower's range sucks, fifty yards at the best, most marine can put a bullet between your eyes at a few thousand with their iron sights. They weigh a ton. They have a horrid survival rate since if your carrying one you get sent into the most dangerous circumstances, and since everyone fears them all of your enemies will be gunning for you. Oh, and lets not forget, they tend to explode.
I'd argue the safest method would be either naval bombardment or an airstrike. And while being sufficiently inland can prevent bombardment, airstrikes using sufficiently heavy munitions are almost always a viable tactic. The circumstances under which they're not usually end up precluding the use of flamethrowers as well.darkrat666 said:
The problem is this, if you're talking about a bunker under a residential area, that means you're worried about violating Just War doctrine (under some name), and that also precludes the use of flamers. If you need to extract something from there, a flamer will obliterate whatever you're after. If you're worried about Just War, flamers violate the discrimination standard pretty easily.
So that's the question: Is it a pillbox or a command bunker? If it's a pillbox, then you can just bombard the damn thing. If it's a command bunker, you can't use flamethrowers because they'll destroy potential intelligence.
Armies shouldn't use them. Fire can't kill humans any better than bullets can. Sure it can kill more at once with spread damage, but that's why you move in squads and platoons. If your opponent decides to use flamethrowers, still refuse to do so. And you'll come out looking like the better army.
The local Police and Fire Departments on the other hand? Yes. Why? Bees. [http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html#ixzz1OFNnys00]
The local Police and Fire Departments on the other hand? Yes. Why? Bees. [http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html#ixzz1OFNnys00]
Cracked.com said:
They're cool videogame weapons, but not in real life. Not only are they bulky and difficult to use, but it's kind of sick: forcing your enemy to burn to death. There's a pretty well defined line between killing your enemy and forcing them to suffer horrendously. Flamethrowers are on the 2nd side of the spectrum. It's like spraying people with sulfuric acid: it's just brutal.