Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Raso719]

My problem is the hypocrisy that surrounds war.

We don't condone the murder of civilians...... but we'll destroy factories and level the surrounding area to slow the war machine. If we need to justify something we just play little legal games and twist around what an enemy combatant is or isn't so we can sleep at night.

We don't want people to suffer and torture's bad but we kill people. Yeah, a quick death isn't as painful (as far as we know) but you're dead, does it matter if it hurts or not?

And don't get me started on politics, demonizing other cultures to gain democratic support, the military industrial complex and big business defense contracts and all that jive.

In all honesty I think if you're gonna fight a war, just fight the damn war, win, help the innocent civilians rebuild and then leave when you're no longer welcome. If you're gonna demonize an entire culture religion or nation and use people's prejudice to convince them that everyone who lives with in an imaginary line is part of some hive mind and they all want to destroy our way of life then by all means wipe out that entire country so the rest of the world sees you for the disgusting nation you are and stops you.

Yeah, let's use flame throwers so people can see how truly vial war is. It's not pretty, it's horrible, vulgar and rotten. Let the world see how horible it is. Because maybe if we saw how rotten it is we'd be less willing to wage it or we'd be more willing to get revenge and destroy ourselves. Either road leads to peace, I suppose, but I'd prefer a peace where humans are still alive.

 

[Exocet]

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

Full auto or semi auto shotguns, PDWs combined with flashbangs, with the added perk of being able to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants if it comes to that.

You have to put yourself in danger to use those weapons you listed.So when an area is considered hostile,and anyone not in a similar uniform as yours is considered an enemy,would you put yourself in danger everytime you need to clear a building,or would you rather just use a single weapon and getting the job done instantly?
You can argue that it's wrong and inhumane,but war isn't a friendly airsoft match.

 

[AtheistConservative]

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.

So using a flamethrower on SS trooper makes you worse than them?

 

[Coldster]

I think most of you are forgetting "all is fair in love and war" though I understand and agree with most of your statements.

 

[Generalzdave]

Probably not, as they're pretty unsafe, unwieldy, and inhumane. You'd be better off with an RPG or something for explosive value, and the risk of harming friendlies or innocents is too great. You'd never get me to go near one of them.

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

There is a huge difference between killing the enemy, and burning them alive...

Two shots to the chest or one shot to the head may not be a particularly pleasant way to go, but then imagine being literally burned to death; imagine the agony of being engulfed by flames, and not dieing... being alive through that sort of pain is a fate that shouldn't be endured by anyone, for purely moralistic reasons.

I think you missed my point.

Morals have no place in war. The entire purpose of war is to kill the other guy. That is it. Moralizing is for those who do not have to fight and die. There should not, and cannot, be a place for morality in war, for if there is, the moral side has already lost. It is cruel, vicious, petty and indifferent.

That's why war should be avoided at almost all costs.

And i think you missed MY point.

Although war is entirely nasty etc etc, there is a difference between killing and burning. Burning is inhumane, and before you say war is inhuman, yes, war IS inhumane (arguably). But that doesn't excuse using a weapon that doesnt just KILL, but tortures and draws out that death for much longer than it needs to be.

Clearly you don't see this the way i do, so i think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[darkrat666]

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

Full auto or semi auto shotguns, PDWs combined with flashbangs, with the added perk of being able to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants if it comes to that.

Your average flamethrower, real flamethrower, not in games, has a range of upwards of fifty feet, in a tight environment like a bunker, it's actually more humane to toss grenades around.

Properly designed bunkers and pillboxes have been designed to defeat explosives since their introduction on the battlefield. The interior walls near fight positions are sharply angular to defeat the explosion caused by grenades and such. As for flashbangs and shotguns...this isn't the swat team busting in on a drug dealer, you would be risking heavy causalities every time you used this on a bunker. The fact is, sustained fire (as in flames) is still one of the most effective ways of eliminating an enemy is a enclosed fortified area, not just by burning but also by eliminating the air available to them.

 

[RaNDM G]

It's a weapon of war. Who cares about being humane when the goal is to route the enemy? There's no way the U.S. attacks on Iwo Jima and Normandy would have been a success without flamethrower teams to clear out bunkers.

Here's something else to think about. The UN banned the use of Incendiary bombs, but you don't see the U.S. complying with that. Should we keep a weapon proven to be effective time and time again, or dismantle it and cripple our air superiority?

 

[Wintermute_]

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.

This. There is worse stuff then flamethrowers being used in far greater abundance in todays modern warfare. I don't imagine they are actually even used that much anymore anyway, given they are really inefficient weapons unless your in super close quarters, given total lack of range.

What about land mines? They are far more inhumane, given that they are indiscrimenent (spelled sooo wrong) killers that still kill years after the war is over. there are 10000 land mines still in vietnam, still killing and maiming kids. get rid of those bastards!

 

[AtheistConservative]

As an infantry weapon I definitely don't think they warrant a squad level resource. That said, depending on who and where we where fighting I definitely think they have applications where they could do quite well, especially when mounted on a vehicle.
In my opinion this is another case of video games destroying people's understanding of weapons. While flamethrowers do have a limited range, its not like Gears.

 

[Agayek]

And i think you missed MY point.

Although war is entirely nasty etc etc, there is a difference between killing and burning. Burning is inhumane, and before you say war is inhuman, yes, war IS inhumane (arguably). But that doesn't excuse using a weapon that doesnt just KILL, but tortures and draws out that death for much longer than it needs to be.

Clearly you don't see this the way i do, so i think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

No, I got your point. Flamethrowers and the like are terrible, inhumane ways to die, and I 100% fully agree with you. Napalm, flamethrowers, and most explosives are terrible ways to die, and no one should ever have to go through with it.

That does not change the fact that moralizing has no place on the battlefield. When you're in a fight, you do anything and everything you need to to win. If that means torching the enemy, so be it. Morality simply has no place in war, because as soon as you introduce it, the side that ignores it is the one that will win, every time.

I really wish that wasn't the case, but it is, and nothing anyone can do is going to change that.

That's one of the reasons why I firmly believe there shouldn't be any wars in the first place. There are very few legitimate reasons for war, and those are: 1) If you are attacked 2) If your people are endangered and 3) The subjects of a foreign government request your aid in toppling it. That is it. Any war fought for any other purpose is inherently invalid.

 

[DanDeFool]

The only situation I can think of where a flamethrower might be useful in battle is for flushing an enemy out of an entrenched position or some kind of subterranean tunnel, and in that case you could probably get the same effect by using tear gas.

So yeah, I think we can afford to pass on the flamethrower.

 

[manythings]

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

Explosives, which also have the advantage of you not standing in the line of fire. Smaller, lighter, more effective. Flamethrowers are just not cost effective or efficient, that fuel could go in a vehicle.

 

[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.

So using a flamethrower on SS trooper makes you worse than them?

For me? Yes.

You cant really call you the good guy if you torture the bad guys. Then you just become those you're trying to destroy.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Only if we're invaded by a giant spider army. Then I'd be more than happy to burn them all to the ground.

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

No, because they are completely impractical.

 

[GeorgW]

They're ineffective against soldiers, they only destroy the country, which violates the Geneva convention, so no, I'd like to keep them out.

 

[crudus]

No. Flamethrowers have extremely limited range, cause horrible suffering for those hit by it, and on average it is less effective than a .22 calibur.

Flamethrowers should only be used on ants, the bastards.

And bees. One of the reasons flamethrowers are legal in the states.

They're ineffective against soldiers, they only destroy the country, which violates the Geneva convention, so no, I'd like to keep them out.

Actually, I don't think Geneva specifically banned flamethrowers.

 

[brums405]

I read: "Should armies be kittied out with flamethrowers..." An instantly more entertaining alternative.

OP: Yes. The demoralization that comes with these weapons if just as important as their effectiveness (in the right situation.)