Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Adam Galli]

Flamethrowers are aweful weapons that should never be used against humans ever again.

 

[Grathius22]

While flamethrowers cause tremendous suffering and pain, and it is a bit inhumane...

You will not see a bunch of heavily armed and armored men run out of a bunker faster without the use of one.

So... I'd say it's okay to use them, as long as they aren't overused.

 

[Dawns Gate]

To dangerous for the users own guys, no one wants it to get hit and be partially responsible for the death - or at least the wounding - of most of their section

 

[amadhatter]

If you want inhumane, look up the "flame fougasse". It was a WW2 flamethrowing landmine.

 

[hydrahh]

They don't use them because they aren't efficient enough killing platforms.

If they worked really well, they would still be in use.

It's an efficiency matter, and countries would probably collectively say "Go fuck your hat" to a flamethrower law, if flamethrowers were going to be a game changer.

This thing about being inhumane is rediculous. What about a nuclear bomb? Sure you kill a certain abount of people instantly. Then the rest either slowly die from radiation poisoning or their future generations end up ruined due to the chromosome damage affecting offspring.

Or even a gut shot from a gun. You could take hours to die from that. This isn't Modern Warfare where everyone is getting headshots from their aimbots. This is real life, and sometimes life sucks.

 

[Ithera]

The human species is already incredibly adept at killing each other. There is little need for such a outdated and sadistic device. Of course, if the aim with the conflict is to heap as much pain and misery on the enemy as possible? Then by all means.

If not? Then we have a 100000 other tools at our disposal that are way better. There is no room in modern warfare for the flamethrower.

oh yah, and I pity the fool who gets to operate it. Gonna be some nice payback if the enemy get a hold of you. Death by napalm enema, courtesy of an enraged lynch mob.

 

[Caligulove]

Flamethrowers probably work best as weapons of fear- but theyre absolutely brutal in use. Not to mention the hazard to the operator, possibly suffering from burning themselves, and just how volatile their own weapon was- life expectancy for a flamethrower user in WWII were far below the average rifle/infantryman. It just seems like a cruel fate to befall any other human being- to be savagely burned alive or to have your entire oxygen supply burned up til you suffocate.

 

[Inkidu]

I don't think they should be used. I won't argue their use in completely clearing caves and buildings. You don't saddle a man with that kind of burden. The average life expectancy of a flamethrower was measured in minutes in combat. There's also the other side, burning people is never a good thing, even in war.

 

[Rhymenoceros]

No, there's a massive difference between shooting someone who's shooting at you and burning them alive.

 

[Freechoice]

Flamethrowers are one of the most inhumane weapons ever conceived, which is why I fully support their use.

Cooler than the marauder!

 

[Hafnium]

Shouldn't be allowed, too nasty of a weapon. It's not as bad as biological warfare, but it's up there.

And would you stop making a question in the post which is the opposite of the yes/no in the poll??

 

[signingupforgames]

The thing with flamethrowers is, despite how awesome they look, they damage the area more than the combatant. Spreading fire might seem good, but it leaves the land barren, and depending on the terrain that is being fought on it might even hamper your side as well. Using flamethrowers seems like a good way to destroy a nation's crops, but even that seems odd, since the soldier using it would have to keep their attention on the crops, leaving them wide open.

Summary: Flamethrower:Awesome(idea) but impratical and possibly dangerous to your own side.

EDIT: Also the range is so small using a normal pistol would probably kill better.

 

[Goofguy]

Putting aside the cruelty debate on this, there is also the issue of the flamethrower's impracticality on today's battlefields. We're looking at a mix of conventional and asymmetric warfare with the latter being more prevalent.

Looking at the conventional warfare in recent conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan), you've got two factions fighting on the open field from dozens, hundreds of meters apart. These battles are won with the proper application of indirect fire (artillery) and direct fire (combat teams consisting of maneuvering armoured and infantry elements). The Western countries clearly have the superior firepower at range so it never really comes to the up close and personal that the flamethrower is effective at.

Now, looking at the asymmetric portion of the same recent conflicts, we're seeing a combination of guerrilla and urban warfare. The use of IEDs and their variants (VBIED, RCIED and VOIED) make the use of flamethrowers irrelevant. Also, fighting in an urban environment means there are most likely innocent civilians around. The indiscriminate use of the flamethrower could result in unacceptable and avoidable collateral damage with the ultimate loss of the initiative on the political stage and in the eyes of the public and the media.

Does that mean the flamethrower is completely useless? Not necessarily. I haven't the foggiest on how many ops ISAF is running in the mountain caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. However, those seems like the only places to effectively use a flamethrower...

 

[AWDMANOUT]

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/8/86/JangoFlamethrower-AOTC.jpg

Jango says yes.

I agree.

 

[rutger5000]

There are very few situations where a flamethrower is the most practical weapon. However, interrogating "insurgents" is apparently still legal, even if they were captured in their own home. At least on the battlefield you can be sure of who your enemy is. I'm not saying I think the flamethrower is a humane weapon of war...but then again, that's a contradiction in terms anyway. I think anything is fair game in war, because the only way we'll ever end war is by seeing how horrible it is.

Sorry to say, but how naive can you get? War is part of human nature, for as long as our species existed it has waged war, and it will be doing so for as long as we exist.

 

[iDoom46]

I hit 'yes' as a joke (and because flamethrowers are awesome), but now I feel bad about myself.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Flamethrowers also pose as psychological warfare, since it is a fearsome weapon.
Nobody wants to be burned alive, but on the other hand losing a leg due to sharpnel isn't humane at all.
Most weapons in the modern age, whenever real armies might clash are designed to mame the enemy and not kill them, so that after the war is over the injured will be a burden to society.

Well said, and pretty much what I was going to state myself. The weapon is psychological, and modern warfare is psychological, not physical. Democracies seem to forget that, instead focusing on 'things' that will win the war, rather than the core dynamic of how wars are won or lost. When you kill a soldier, you remove one soldier, when you wound him, you remove the soldier, and the one that carries him back, and the one that treats him, and the doctors who treat him, and the staff that have to care for him.

 

[Agayek]

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.

Flamethrowers in and of themselves are outdated and next to useless, you're right there. Incendiary weapons, though, still have their place. Phosphorous rounds, incendiary grenades, napalm, etc all have valid and useful roles in modern warfare. It's not pretty, but it is highly effective.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

Yup, they should be staying illegal.

Vietnam proved pretty categorically that flamethrowers are all but useless in asymmetric warfare. For insurgents they're much too obvious, for occupiers they're far too imprecise. You can't just go burning down entire villages to find one bomb maker.

More pertinently, man portable flame throwers make the operator hideously vulnerable and easy to target. Air dropped or tube launched systems are less effective than plain old fragmentation against infantry and have serious problems with precision and area denial.

So yes, keep them illegal. They only became illegal as their usefullness was all but negated by the march of technology.

 

[Krinku]

In TF2? Yes. In the real world? Hell no. Why would you want to the enemy suffer more? War is already bad enough as is.