Aries Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I think Napalm should be banned because its inhuman weapon. Just like Nuke/Bio/Chem weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Splash Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I think Napalm should be banned........← It's a fair point Aries, but people have been copying music on cassette tapes, just like file sharing today, for years, and it's just too late to stop them. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Ok, hold on second... Napalm, a weapon that sets you on fire, is inhumane yet one that blows off your arms (any explosive) or causes massive internal damage (firearms) isn't? It's war, what do you expect? I have problems against Nukes due to environmental impact, Bio/Chems depend. Anyway, these are rarely used in war, especially by the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuSaKi Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I think Napalm should be banned because its inhuman weapon. What weapons would you consider humane? A nerf gun? In my opinion, Nerve and Blister Agents take the prize as the scariest weapons on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supasniper Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 i thought it was banned under the geneva convention already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries Posted November 13, 2004 Author Share Posted November 13, 2004 Napalm doesnt kill instantly you get burned alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRP 56 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The U.S. uses the Mark 77 Firebomb which is similar to napalm and is loaded with 44 pounds of polystyrene like gelling compound and 63 gallons of jet fuel. Different mixture same result. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supasniper Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 napalm is easy to make acccually, all you need is a couple pints of gas and a load of polystyrene to disolve in the gas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arms Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Isnt this getting a little political in a way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arms Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Anyways when was the last time they used napalm on a war scale? Vietnam i guess but napalm had its origins from WW2 when they were fighting the Japanese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd Ranger Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) They dropped the Mark 77s on the Iraqis in the Persian Gulf. opinions plz but no flame wars Ahahaha. Gold. Edited November 13, 2004 by 2nd Ranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries Posted November 13, 2004 Author Share Posted November 13, 2004 Cluster Bombs are prohibited but the rules of war but they are still used,land mines are soon to be prohibited,and Napalm not only does damage to people but to wildlife. Also Napalm is not very easliy controled as we have seen in Nam and WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Splash Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I think Napalm should be banned............← Ohhhhhhhhh!..........Napalm! I thought you meant Napster!!! DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Well I say drop the ban on flamethrowers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 id say phosphorus weapons somewhat fall into that same ..... they burn holes in you like nothing.... but its war what do u expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan243 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Ok, hold on second... Napalm, a weapon that sets you on fire, is inhumane yet one that blows off your arms (any explosive) or causes massive internal damage (firearms) isn't? It's war, what do you expect? I have problems against Nukes due to environmental impact, Bio/Chems depend. Anyway, these are rarely used in war, especially by the US.Well said! I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries Posted November 13, 2004 Author Share Posted November 13, 2004 but its war what do u expect Thats like saying raping and killing civilians during a war is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd Ranger Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Not really. People don't expect soldiers to kill and rape civilians, but everybody expects a weapon like Napalm to obliterate stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Napalm doesnt kill instantly you get burned alive ← And bleeding to death from a gut wound from a bullet or severed limb is any better? At least the former destroys your nerve endings and you die rather fast. Cluster Bombs are prohibited but the rules of war but they are still used,land mines are soon to be prohibited,and Napalm not only does damage to people but to wildlife. Also Napalm is not very easliy controled as we have seen in Nam and WW2. ← Napalm works well for what it's meant to do: fire bomb an area. They take the accuracy/splash zone of one into account when deploying. How does that wildlife argument work out? I doubt many squirrels or birds escape "daisy cutters". It's war. You have too idealistic an impression of something that, by its nature, is vile, disgusting, and devoid of emotion. Besides, only most major nations adhere to peace or war treaties. Terrorists and certainly any desperate country (Germany, Iraq, etc.) will resort to whatever weapons or methods they need to win the war. BTW, this all refers to enemy combatants, not civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuSaKi Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 It's war. You have too idealistic an impression of something that, by its nature, is vile, disgusting, and devoid of emotion. Besides, only most major nations adhere to peace or war treaties. Terrorists and certainly any desperate country (Germany, Iraq, etc.) will resort to whatever weapons or methods they need to win the war. BTW, this all refers to enemy combatants, not civilians. I'd argue that this applies to civillians as well. As little as 60 years ago both the axis and allied powers resorted to attacking civillians on an extremly large scale in the form of carpet bombing. Our willingness to target civillians continued throughout the cold war in the form of nuclear deterance. I'd bet my boots that if we were put in such a desperate position today, no NATO country would think twice about wasting civillians. Make no mistake about it, war treaties are only followed by "civillized" nations simply because we have the money and the technology to defeat the enemy by other means. The ends will always justify the means to anyone desperate enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 id say phosphorus weapons somewhat fall into that same ..... they burn holes in you like nothing.... but its war what do u expect. ← phosphorus weapons are banned for use against people. But they can still be used to make a location, for bombing etc. Napalm doesnt kill instantly you get burned alive And a bullet to the liver will leave you laying there in incredible agony for up to an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries Posted November 14, 2004 Author Share Posted November 14, 2004 I'd rather have a bullet in the liver than be burned alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooK Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 I'm glad you're using personal opinion/emotion rather than fact. Either way, you suffer and your dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sart Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 If anyone was shooting at me, I could care less if he was burned alive or shot in the liver. Nothing about war is humane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Cluster Bombs are prohibited but the rules of war but they are still used,land mines are soon to be prohibited,and Napalm not only does damage to people but to wildlife. Also Napalm is not very easliy controled as we have seen in Nam and WW2. ← Aries what about ROCKEYE cluster bombs the Air Force still uses them as standard load out on fast strike aircraft Well lets look at facts about Napalm and them we may rach the best desisiion Napalm was a effective tool agenst tanks and infantry in Nam and burned acres in seconds. Todays Napalm is a bit more controlled but still inhumalnlysick today's Napalm spreads a chemicalized gel that ignites when it is exposed to air. +'s -effective -good anti-armor -great to wipe out bases -'s -too much freindly casualties from this - horrible smell of burning flesh from its victims -just too sick to watch a victim burn while screaming and rolling Bioweapons and chemical weapons are practically the same because they are also inhuman by giving pretty much severe or a lethal dose of a common-day diesese to a group of soldiers when it is deployed. Chemical weapons i KNOW ABOUT - Sarin nerve Gas - Blood agents - Mesals - BOTH liquid and gas mustard gas and i can't remember the rest i know but those are pretty severe right there but here is a description oif Sarin of what i know Sarin: Is a special nerve gas that directly affects musle contraction and the victim who breahtes it in will first experience shortness of breath then convulsions and then finally respratory failiure when means one thing: death Aires everyone has their opinion on war and ill tell you all straight from heaven and hell that i WILL NOT GO TO WAR EVER PERIOD! Also Aries is like evryone else is saying war is a hellish place full of ragged corpeses of men who shouldn't be fighting shot full of holes or limbs blowen off or a fleshy pile from a explosion. Emotions change during war also brave men end up crying that they want their moms and that they want to go back home. Aries you can't stop war even if their is a treaty for 5 years when that expires both sides will probaly fight again I know you people are supicous and you may be thinking i have been to war well im gonna remind you that im onkly 14 and i have read enough on guns, bombs, chemical weapons and nukes to be a exremly smart analyst and i have also seen enough ar moves and pictures and REAL documentries to know what it looks like i have nightmares abouht it that when i turn 18 will i go to Iraq if the conflict is still going on? there is my deposit in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts