Napalm-like weapons

[Kuu]

US forces have used Naplam-like weapons in Iraq. Talking to Americans on various boards many of them have said it was OK because it probably saved the lives of American troops.

When I have mentioned napalm before some Americans have said that napalm wasn't used as a weapon in Vietnam but as an anti-foliant therefore it use was legal and moral.

However in Iraq a naplam-like weapon was solely used as a weapon. I gather that it was used on Iraqi soldiers guarding bridges so that the soldiers could be killed but the bridge would stay useable.

How is such a use be any different than the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers? Aren't both weapons just as immoral (and I believe napalm-weapons are illegal as well)?

How does anyone determine which weapons should be legal? How does one determine which weapons are moral or immoral?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Kuu
US forces have used Naplam-like weapons in Iraq. Talking to Americans on various boards many of them have said it was OK because it probably saved the lives of American troops.

When I have mentioned napalm before some Americans have said that napalm wasn't used as a weapon in Vietnam but as an anti-foliant therefore it use was legal and moral.

However in Iraq a naplam-like weapon was solely used as a weapon. I gather that it was used on Iraqi soldiers guarding bridges so that the soldiers could be killed but the bridge would stay useable.

How is such a use be any different than the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers? Aren't both weapons just as immoral (and I believe napalm-weapons are illegal as well)?

How does anyone determine which weapons should be legal? How does one determine which weapons are moral or immoral?

I've never heard of napalm-like weapons being illegal. They aren't chemical weapons, they are fire weapons.

I thought that for the most part napalm had been replaced with the FAE, anyway. Big bang but no fragments. In Desert Storm at least they were used for mine-clearing.

[Kuu]

I believe that Napalm was banned by a United Nations convention in the 1980s though the US never signed this agreement. So I am not sure if that makes American use napalm or napalm like weapons illegal or not.

The US are calling these napalm-like weapons Mark 77 firebombs. There are so similar to napalm that they might as well be called napalm.

IMO, these weapons are still as immoral as chemical weapons. I would like to hear people's opinion as to why such weapons are acceptable when chemical weapoms are not.

One report of the use of napalm is here.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=432201

There are many other reports as well.

[NonHomogenized]

Napalm is a nasty, nasty thing, no doubt about it.
I think that an actual napalm flamethrower is somewhat more humane, as other delivery methods do not always cause all the napalm to combust, and the chemical burns that napalm can inflict on humans are pretty horrific. At least a full dose of flame will put them out of their misery very quickly, most of the time.

However, let's look at other weapons that are used, and are perfectly acceptable:

One of the door guns that can be mounted in the Cheyenne helicopter (and also the Huey and Cobra) is the General Electric m134 "minigun", a gatling-type gun that fires 2,000-4,000 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition per minute. That's 33 - 66 rounds per second, a rate which could leave something looking hardly in better shape than if it went through a meat grinder.

The venerable Browning m2 machine gun has been in use since just after the first world war. It has been mounted on jeeps, tripods, humvees, boats, and pretty much anything else in the military arsenal. It fires .50 caliber ammunition (that's 1/2 inch in diameter!) at a rate of about 550 rounds per minute. A 1/2 inch bullet does horrible things to the human body: the kinetic energy transferred from one such round hitting a hand will mangle most, if not all, of the arm, and will nearly guarantee that the victim will die of blood loss/shock.

Then there's the barrett m82a1 .50 caliber sniper rifle. It is classified as a light anti-vehicle weapon, but is also used against personnel, on occasion. In 1991, it was used to pick off people in concrete bunkers, and also at extreme ranges, sometimes exceeding 1,800 meters.

Another example is the m129, a fully-automatic 40mm grenade launcher. It fires up to 400 grenades per minute (6/second). The resultant shrapnel leaves remains that it's better not to think about, most likely having been hit by shrapnel from 2 or 3 grenades, if not more.

Finally, I'll mention the m18a1 "claymore" land mine. It is a small, lens-shaped mine, consisting of a casing, a detonator, and a piece of plastic explosive with ball bearings stuck in it. It acts essentially like an oversized shotgun, with a very large spread. Another very unpleasant weapon.

These are all armaments that no one complains about, even though these weapons, if not quite as horrific as napalm, are certainly in the same class, at least, the same class as burning napalm (again, the chemical burns that napalm inflicts are truly hellish, like many other types of chemical warfare). As such, I can see the motive for banning napalm (to ensure that non-burning napalm isn't used on people), but I don't think that the flaming stuff is any worse than many other weapons that are used.

[Peter Kirby]

We should be fighting with swords and shields. It's the gentlemanly way. Or perhaps just fist fights?

Their goal is to kill people to secure certain objectives. How can it be more wrong to kill the same number of people, with comparable suffering, in certain ways? I am sure that there are many nasty "legal" weapons. Getting shot in the leg hurts too.

Of course, I wasn't behind this war in the first place. But if the war is somehow just, and the end result is the same (for example number of civilian casualities the same and similar pain), I am not sure why the method matters.

best,
Peter Kirby

[NonHomogenized]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
We should be fighting with swords and shields. It's the gentlemanly way. Or perhaps just fist fights?

Their goal is to kill people to secure certain objectives. How can it be more wrong to kill the same number of people, with comparable suffering, in certain ways? I am sure that there are many nasty "legal" weapons. Getting shot in the leg hurts too.

Of course, I wasn't behind this war in the first place. But if the war is somehow just, and the end result is the same (for example number of civilian casualities the same and similar pain), I am not sure why the method matters.

best,
Peter Kirby

In order to prevent any confusion about what I meant by my previous post, I was trying, in my roundabout way, to say exactly this.

[fatherphil]

i think napalm is a lot easier to control than chemical weapons. fire in itself is a pretty old weapon. i think war should be outlawed for it is by definition an immoral way to settle one's differences. but until the use of force is universally rejected, we are doomed to find ourselves needing to be prepared to conduct it.

[jayh]

What's particularly troubling is that when asked point blank if they were using napalm, the US military said NO. It turns out they were using essentially the same thing but it has a new name. And they say Clinton was weasel worded!

I wonder if, instead, the Iraqis had used those weapons on US soldiers how many lines of newspaper would be dedicated to anger over the cruel deaths endured by Americans at the hands of this ruthless dictator, how this proves that he was too immoral to live and that we had no choice but to destroy his nation.

[LKS_Blade]

I wouldnt say swords and shields was much better. The only real difference is that you have to look at the guy face to face rather than on a computer display! But i have to admit, i would rather it to guns. Still, no war would be better still :P

[HeatherD]

When I was about 14, I figured out how to make my own kind of napalm.

You take gasoline (or similar petroleum-based liquid) and soak Styrofoam in it. Obviously you have to experiment with the amount of liquid and Styrofoam. You want a sticky mass, not too liquid, not too much Styrofoam.

The real problem is figuring out how to use it.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by LKS_Blade
I wouldnt say swords and shields was much better. "One two three four, let's have a thumb war."

Or if you want to eliminate the advantage for countries with less people and wealth, have the national leaders play a nine-round tournament of chess. A true battle of wits.

Or if you want the outcome to make sense, perhaps all effort by all leaders should concentrate on making compromises and increasing solidarity while representing interests in public discourse? We might give peace a chance. No, let's make rules about whether you can incinerate a man with flames or cause a death by shrapnel. That's so much more effective as a rule in resolving our differences.

Rule-based war is just like a duel, except one side usually doesn't have a chance. Duels are outlawed, but wars have byzantine legislation, with the result that you crush the enemy with 10% less ruthless prejudice.

War is not humane or rational; it's a bloody power struggle. Or is that a tautology?

[/rant]

best,
Peter Kirby

[Zehava]

From the above UK News link:

They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Sounds very much like a fuel-air explosion with an added Napalm-like substance. As if a fuel-air explosion wasn't bad enough.

[Mister Impossible]

"One two three four, let's have a thumb war."

Even better: Counter-Strike or Team Fortress.

All the testosterone fuelled fun of having a real war, but noone has to die.

The way military hardware works nowadays makes war much like video gaming anyway, so this has to be a step in the right direction. Hey, we can all join in and play accross the web. It would be fun.

[pariah]

Originally posted by Kuu

How is such a use be any different than the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers? Aren't both weapons just as immoral (and I believe napalm-weapons are illegal as well)?


How is the iraqi use of chemical weapons on iranian SOLDIERS immoral? Killing any enemy combatant is not immoral, and its the same whether you use guns or chemical weapons. They die.

It was not immoral for the US to napalm the bridge, they only killed enemy combatants.

[Kuu]

If there is nothing wrong with countries using chemical weapons on soldiers, why are such weapons banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention ? Why is America, and other Western countries, making such a fuss about other nations having them?

[Peter Kirby]

The myth of American innocence. We can handle them, you can't.

best,
Peter Kirby

[NonHomogenized]

No no no. I think that, if the leaders of two (or more) countries want to go to war, they should all get in a big arena, and have an unarmed battle to the death. We'd be rid of the war mongers, and they'd be much less enthusiastic, with their necks on the line, I'm sure.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

I've never heard of napalm-like weapons being illegal.
Most other Western countries have completely foresworn the use of napalm, IIRC.
They aren't chemical weapons, they are fire weapons.
Napalm is in practice an inbetweener of categories.
BTW, modern napalm has now been modified to stick better.
IOW, that famous 12-year-old Vietnamese girl in that famous photo was lucky; a few more years in advancement of napalm development, and she would not have survived to become an American citizen, as she did.

[Kuu]

^^^ I think the girl concerned, Kim Phuc, is a Canadian citizen.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Kuu
^^^ I think the girl concerned, Kim Phuc, is a Canadian citizen.

Sorry.
You are correct.
And I have just learnt too she was 9, not 12, at the time. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/kimphuc/)

Me and my memory. How embarrassing.

[Bible Humper]

Well, the real yardstick is how much the civilians are affected, no?

Does this napalm derivative contaminate the area such that it is unhealthy for a time afterwards? If yes, then I say it should be considered a chemical weapon for the purposes of judging it "humane" or not, since the nearby citizenry WILL be affected.

If no, then I don't see a problem with it.

[Polycrates]

I think one of the main ethical differences between napalm and guns or swords and shields is the method of their action. A gun may cause agonising pain followed by an agonising death, but will (more often?) cause relatively instant and 'painless' death.
Napalm, however, will ALWAYS cause huge amounts of agonising pain, whether it results in death or not.
If there's a war, people 'must' be killed for a side to achieve its objectives. Making those deaths unnecessarily involve huge amounts of extra pain and suffering by using a weapon as horrific as napalm is just senseless barbarism.
Yeah, it's a fairly ridiculous argument given the barbarity of war anyway, but if one side is going in with the huge military advantage and the 'moral high ground', it seems to me to make sense to at least try and make them act vaguely civilised about the whole thing.

By the way, here's the treaty someone was asking about, from http://www.icrc.org which has a really good treaty database



Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Article 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.


.

[Shake]

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/13/60/30m.jpg (http://www.imdb.com/Title?0073631)

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Mister Impossible
Even better: Counter-Strike or Team Fortress.

All the testosterone fuelled fun of having a real war, but noone has to die.

The way military hardware works nowadays makes war much like video gaming anyway, so this has to be a step in the right direction. Hey, we can all join in and play accross the web. It would be fun.
Saddam would cheat anyway. (http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/06/camper.html)

As for me, I'd prefer Starcraft. ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKEKEKE ^_^

Ahem. Sorry.

[Max Bane]

Originally posted by NonHomogenized

However, let's look at other weapons that are used, and are perfectly acceptable:


If anyone's interested in more info along these lines, check this out:
http://www.paleo-tech.com/files/OIF_LL.doc

I was especially struck by the description of the .50 cal sniper rifle's effect -- cutting a man in half at long range.

[Yangja Isuko]

I can't wait for the world to reject violence alltogether. It'll be great. Then, after a few generations have passed, i (having been cybernetically enhanced to live longer ofcourse) will rule the world with a handful of men, for nobody dares to take up violence against us.


i mean seriously, a universal rejection of violence is impossible. and let's face it, not in the least bit interesting, it'll be like that sylvester stallone movie with sandra bullock, and we'll all have to use the 3 sea shells and everyone will wear robes and shit.

no thanks. ofcourse, swords and muskets are much more stylish weapons than the stuff we use today.

[Nikolai]

i mean seriously, a universal rejection of violence is impossible. and let's face it, not in the least bit interesting, it'll be like that sylvester stallone movie with sandra bullock, and we'll all have to use the 3 sea shells and everyone will wear robes and shit.
:banghead: :boohoo:

[LKS_Blade]

Originally posted by Yangja Isuko
ofcourse, swords and muskets are much more stylish weapons than the stuff we use today.

Stylish? Maybe in the movies they are but in a REAL duel there isnt much in the way of style. Movies are choreographed, life in not. Trust me, i do both theatrical and compeditive fencing and i know that 90% of what we do in a show s pure bullshit. when experimenting with the other fencers with non-choreogrpahed, no rules dueling normally both were dead or seriously wounded (well, theoretically since we were pulling blows for obvious safety reasons :P) after 2 exchanges! The lack of rules makes things VERY messy, it seems that without them everything you ever learnt about swordsmanship counts for nothing.

er... anyway... back to napalm...
...
...
ok... swords are better than napalm, at least if your hit with a good swordblow you would be unconsious or in shock.

[Donnmathan]

LKS_Blade:

ok... swords are better than napalm, at least if your hit with a good swordblow you would be unconsious or in shock.

Yah, I'd bet a good swing with a broadsword would do that...and unlike napalm, it would be a lot easier on the poor goob who got hit. Me, I'd go for a mace or war hammer any day - one shot to the head is all it would take, and the poor guy would never even live to feel it. Then again, I have to wonder if a sword cut or a misplaced hammer blow would really be any less painful than a 9mm bullet wound, and I find myself doubting it. Let's face it, violence is violence, there IS no pretty way to kill, and no painless way that would be useful in a war.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the nasty tendancy of napalm and related weapons to deplete the oxygen in the surrounding air. This doesn't pose much of a problem out in the open, but if you use it in an area with poor airflow - say, the entrance to a bunker - those that don't burn to death are left dying of lack of oxygen! As a matter of fact, that is exactly how it was used in the Pacific in WWII, and for that very reason. I don't see much difference between this and, say, mustard gas, and that's outlawed...

[truelies]

War is a brutal cruel business at best. Dead from flame or cold steel is still dead. About the only Rule is that if somebody has got to die for their Cause/Country do your damn best to see that it is the SOB facing you on the other side. Until they drop their weapon and raise their hands they are fair game for the worst you can bring to bear.

[echidna]

I keep being reminded of Star Trek's "A Taste of Armageddon".

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by Kuu
US forces have used Naplam-like weapons in Iraq. Talking to Americans on various boards many of them have said it was OK because it probably saved the lives of American troops.

When I have mentioned napalm before some Americans have said that napalm wasn't used as a weapon in Vietnam but as an anti-foliant therefore it use was legal and moral.

However in Iraq a naplam-like weapon was solely used as a weapon. I gather that it was used on Iraqi soldiers guarding bridges so that the soldiers could be killed but the bridge would stay useable.

How is such a use be any different than the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers? Aren't both weapons just as immoral (and I believe napalm-weapons are illegal as well)?

How does anyone determine which weapons should be legal? How does one determine which weapons are moral or immoral?

as long as it gets the job done with a minimum of overshot, I think its perfectly ethical as weapons go. thus, napalm or chem weapons are ok (although some argue against the accuracy of chem - Id like to see it compared to normal howitzer barrages), as opposed to bioweapons, which tend to spread indiscriminately.

ethical, of course, meaning it kills the people who it wants to kill.