Poll: Flamethrowers...

[SckizoBoy]

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)?

EDIT:

Flamethrowers are not banned in any treaty we've signed.

I checked... and that is quite true. However, paragraph 36 of FM27-10 (US DoD) notes that they (incendiary weapons) should 'not be used in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering.'

Moreover, article 23E of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws & Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of 'arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury.'

Both of which are combined in article 35, paragraph 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, August 12, 1949 where 'it is prohibited to employ weapons (and) projectiles... of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.'

Unfortunately, neither 'superfluous injury' nor 'unnecessary suffering' are clearly defined in international law, which makes the absolute ruling on permission to employ the flamethrower difficult to confirm.

In any event, I'm glad that such a debate has stemmed from my somewhat terse (and now incorrect) OP.

 

[Zantos]

No, there's a fine line between killing the enemy and making them suffer horrendously. Guns and bombs have the capability to do that, flamethrowers were pretty much designed to.

 

[Sliverwings]

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

 

[TheSaw]

I agree with what's already been said.
I think there's also the factor that if the fuel tank or whatever was shot.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

There's a difference between killing and making people suffer as mentioned above. Flamethrowers could do major damage but they would make people suffer and burn to death and they would feel all the pain, whereas a bullet to the head wouldn't make you suffer. I believe the illegality is necessary for flamethrowers due to the nature of the weapons.

 

[MaxwellMurder]

the only reason we stop using these things is they suck at killing people. Shotguns have the same ability and are lighter.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

That's just wrong, there's no need to torture your enemy. I'm not really for killing either, but that has some degree of mercy, at least.

 

[Avaholic03]

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.

 

[Magikarp]

They are very useful for clearing out bunkers. Is there anything more effective at this task?

 

[OneStepAhead]

Call me sadistic, but i'd LOVE to see flamethrowers back in action...although a more compact advanced version. :/

 

[One of Many]

Personally, I like the idea of setting my enemies on fire but like Avaholic03 said, there's very few battle field conditions where a flamethrower would be useful. Besides, its not a very smart idea to go walking around with a tank of napalm on your back.

 

[TheIronRuler]

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.
Have you seen a landmine? I have. There are hundreds of them in the Golan heights, it was once a ground were armies clashed. There are many forgotten minefields, and a few months ago a child stepped on one when travelling with his family. He lost his leg, but continued to live. The fact that he will become a burden to society as a crippled person was the intention behind the design of the landmine. These casualties of war are also an open voice that will protest the war in the public and thus begin to eliminate the greatest resource a democratic country has - public support.
You can't ban a weapon. "All is fair in love and war".
When needed, weapons will be utilized, even if they're inhumane. The reasons behind it are many, psychological warfare or the things mentioned above, but you cannot expect a country in war to follow rules of conduct. if this was fought by two gentlemen, then perhaps such rules would apply, but in an age with black ops, infiltrating another country and sophisticated espionage, you cannot limit warfare because such limitation will be broken.

 

[aba1]

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.

but its these rules that stop us from nuking eachother just saying...

 

[TheIronRuler]

They are very useful for clearing out bunkers. Is there anything more effective at this task?

Explosives, mainly grenades and sometimes some C4. Like in the front against Jorden in '67, clearing out bunkers involved crawling through enemy ditches, getting over the bunker and throwing in a grenade or explosives.

 

[jumjalalabash]

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

 

[TheOneandOnly]

If a flamethrower is the most effective way to overcome an obstacle, say, clearing a bunker where any other approach would be much more dangerous for you or other people on your side, you're going to forget all about the moral issue in the interest of not getting your arse shot to pieces.

 

[Avaholic03]

but its these rules that stop us from nuking eachother just saying...

That's just wrong. It's mutually assured destruction that prevents us from nuking each other.

 

[TheIronRuler]

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)?

 

[Kapol]

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.

but its these rules that stop us from nuking eachother just saying...

No, that's because of the idea of mutually assured destruction. If a country fires a nuke, then the other country will fire it's nukes, and then more countries will follow suit. Before long, the world becomes a planet engulfed in radiation with much of civilization destroyed. So it's not the 'rules' stopping us, it's the fact that we don't want to get nuked back. Then there's also the fact that firing a nuke would have a huge negitive impact on the enviroment, and would effect many countries due to the fallout.