Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Jacob Haggarty]

...the only way we'll ever end war is by seeing how horrible it is.

World wars 1 and 2, vietnam, beauh pigs invasion (or however you say it), the current iraq/iran/afganistan, hiroshima and nagasaki... were these REALLY not horrible enough?

There's not a lot more atrocities you can commit after dropping a nuclear bomb, and destroying not just a city, but more lives than you could possibly imagine, both directly and indirectly.

No, if it was as simple as seeing horror and deciding "never again" we wouldn't still be fighting. like i said, if what has happened so far hasn't done the trick, then you can bet your life that we wont be stopping any time soon.

...inhumanity is the entire purpose of war. War is nothing more than "kill the other dude before he can kill you"...

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.

it is absolutely retarded from a tactical standpoint. if you get shot in 1 of the fuel tanks you'll get blown up and possibly your comrades who stand next 2u2.

Does this actually happen? I've always wondered, because apparently cars don't actually explode in real life if you shoot them, so would the fuel for a flame thrower? I supose it would...

 

[Sonic Doctor]

For war I say no, but they have other uses.

This for example:

Flamethrowers should only be used on ants, the bastards.

MacGyver agrees. Skip to 1:16.

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

Double friggin post... sorry about that.

 

[Gigatoast]

The only experience I've had with flamethrowers was in Team Fortress 2, and that's a game where a rocket launcher counts as a primary weapon. So I don't think I'm at liberty to judge it's usefulness.

 

[loc978]

Flamethrowers are completely legal for use in warfare... the Hague conventions don't mention them, and the Geneva conventions only forbid the use of incendiaries on or near civilians. Flamethrowers are only restricted in the same way incendiary grenades are.

...but they're not very useful in warfare anymore (and they're a huge liability to anyone using one), so we don't use them. Incendiary grenades and machine guns do their job better than they can.

 

[Knusper]

No. They are far too inhumane. They belong only in video games and films.

 

[William MacKay]

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

for someone who's pic is Pinkie Pie you seem rather anti-horrific-violence (i know two of her fanfics and she brutally kills in both).
anyway, no, no, no and a last time no. no flamethrowers! i study history and i've been to the battlefield where they were first used in WW1. there is no memorial on the actual battlefield because they couldnt find the ashes of the victims.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Well flame throwers are definatly a horrible weapon to use but they make complete and total sense for getting people out of fortified positions. Personally I hope they arent ever necessary again but if some soldier was told your buddies can either die trying to storm that pillbox or you can flame whoevers inside and they'll either die or surrender. the choice is obvious.

They were made for a purpose, one which they do rather well I might add, the fact that they are one of the horrific weapons ever made is beside the point. If it came down to me either flaming a bunker or trying to take it with grenades and bayonets I'd burn the bunker and whoever is inide it.

 

[loc978]

it is absolutely retarded from a tactical standpoint. if you get shot in 1 of the fuel tanks you'll get blown up and possibly your comrades who stand next 2u2.

Does this actually happen? I've always wondered, because apparently cars don't actually explode in real life if you shoot them, so would the fuel for a flame thrower? I supose it would...

Actually, no. A hole in an old-fashioned steel flamethrower fuel tank will most likely cause a slow release of pressure, and what it releases can catch fire, burning the weapon's user and his comrades.
Being covered in burning napalm is no more fun if you're the one carrying the stuff than if you're his target... if one actually exploded (which is possible, however unlikely), those killed in the blast would be luckier than your run-of-the-mill flamethrower user whose tank is shot.

 

[Agayek]

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.

 

[Exocet]

First off,I'd like to address the point of exploding tanks.Just no.They'll leak unless you actually manage to make the entire tank rupture like a balloon,and that's considering any fail-safes/safeties have failed.

Ok,now that this little point has been cleared,let's talk ethics.
In the interest of modern day discussion,I'll talk about incendiary weapons in general.
they're horrible weapons,there's no denying it.There are multiple stories about flamethrower operators hearing blood curling screams and hideous stench,after which the operator would generally puke.

However,they remain probably some of the most efficient weapons ever made.An incendiary weapons can engage a plethora of targets thanks to the multiple ways of doing damage.It can burn and deprive entire buildings of oxygen in mere seconds.There aren't any other portable weapon capable of doing something like that,expecially considering that the crew deploying the incendiary are safe outside the building.

So,it is my opinion that incendiary weapons should be part of the taboo weapon list that are only used when the situation is grim(ie:biochemical weapons,incendiaries,canister rounds on tanks,etc...).

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, the US army does intentionally burn people to death by using WP illumination shells as weapons (shake and bake). Do a google search for 'white phosphorous casualties' if you have a strong stomach.

Flamethrowers make no sense though. They're extremely heavy, not very tactically viable, dangerous to the person carrying them, indiscriminate and only really useful at clearing confined spaces. They're too specific to compensate for the drawbacks.

 

[Starke]

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.

 

[loc978]

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.

While I agree that moralizing war is quite stupid, and we should work to avoid war... well, George Santayana said it best: "Only the dead have seen the end of war." (Not a Plato quote. Serious. Look it up)
...so we do moralize humanity's favorite pastime. That's what the Hague convention is all about. No fragmenting or expanding rounds (that's right, hollow-points are a war crime), et cetera, et cetera. We've created so many loopholes it's pathetic... but every first-world nation makes the appearance of "fighting humanely". It's all bullshit, but media companies gobble bullshit up like a fat kid with a bag of chocolate.

 

[lolmynamewastaken]

cool piece of kit, not really a very practical or human tool of death though

 

[Brawndo]

Flamethrowers are not as effective in reality as Company of Heroes led me to believe... flamethrower operators basically had giant neon signs on their helmets reading "SHOOT ME FIRST"

 

[MorsePacific]

Flamethrowers are a near perfect tool if engaging in a total war, mainly because they're just so destructive. However, I'm not a proponent of going balls-out and labeling everything a target, so I guess I'm against their use in war.

 

[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?