Gudrests said:
Treblaine said:
And now its a war crime...Still a very efficent weapon
May I ask what chapter of what agreement?
And it also depends on which countries actually signed that agreement. Remember, the definition of crime is breaking the law, and the law is not universal, even for war... no matter how some may act. Well, unless if one country is defeated and occupied and have another jurisdiction's laws imposed on it.
Though I understand if 80% of the countries sign a charter declaring something a war crime, the last 20% pretty much have to abide by that, even if they haven't signed it they need to keep fairly good relations with the other 80%. Though I think in the case of the USA at least, they voluntarily removed their stock of flame-throwers. This is good PR, makes it seem like it was their idea and legally they can bring back flame-throwers if they REALLY need them.
I'd still contend that flame-throwers in general are no longer used, not INITIALLY due to "legality", but practicality. It was probably when it became impractical, that is when it became a target for banning since no one saw the point in defending it.
Rationally they'd make using firearms a war crime and force people to fight with melee weapons, that would reduce suffering and death, but firearms are INCREDIBLY useful for wining wars, by ALL sides so none want them gone. Also, the one side who breaks the rules has an INCREDIBLE advantage.
Many arms control agreements are less to do with altruism and more with self interest. Countries with large foot mobile armies are in favour of banning land mines because hell it makes their invading places easier. That's why US opposed the universal land-mine ban. It is the massive amount of land mines in Korea's DMZ that is the main defence against invasion by North Korea's MUCH larger conscription army.