[Colonol Dekker]

Ahah!!!!!  BTW I just wanna say the Daisy cutter is my favourite ordanance so far....

[AlphaOne]

Umm not to filp you post or anithing but what?? So then they are legal but at the same time ilegal?

Oh and pardon me for the "technical" issue of the problem. Its basicly the same blasted thing under a new name. Please i can go around the finger for years with things like "technical issues" !

Also It doesnt matter wich convention it is the fact that the US is pissing all over international conevtions and treaties one after the other is a good indicator of things to come.

I can only imagine the world gooig like" Here come the nazis marines...ups the US marines" hell the nazis tortured people to get what they wanted. on and of the battlefield. sure they killed a lot of them too. but then agin the US is only one spet away from them.

I'm wondering tough if Uberfuhrer Bush will still want the nazi's salute?

Edit: this is actuali suposed to be for Janos well the first part anywai!

[Flipside]

Ahah!!!!!  BTW I just wanna say the Daisy cutter is my favourite ordanance so far....

Mk82's, simple, effective, flexible, deadly

Big bangs for your buck are always good, but give me utilitarian over showy any day

Great. now I wan't to do a 'What's your favourite aircraft ordnance' thread

[Grug]

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions...

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000522.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm

US forces used napalm-like MK-77 firebombs against Iraqi forces in their drive toward Baghdad last spring, a Pentagon official confirmed today, defending their use as legal and necessary.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145835413.html
http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=341
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page20.htm

FFS its still wrong... =/

[aldo_14]

Also, don't forget the use of phospherous weapons in Fallujah......

[AlphaOne]

what do those do??

[aldo_14]

what do those do??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Use_in_Iraq

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. [3] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed

Inhalation also leads to increased chance of cancer, etc.

[Flipside]

http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic918.htm

It's basically a highly reactive agent that cuases severe burning to skin, blindness if got in the eyes and God alone knows what it does to your lungs, but it's not going to be pretty.

Edit : Aldo's link covers it better.

[Grug]

The same **** that's burning this baby's flesh:


Some shocking photos here: http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html (you've been warned)

[Colonol Dekker]

White Phos burns on contact with air, the only way to extinguish it is to completely isolate the area from oxygen IE jump in a river, but using this in a desert environment would be pure eviiiil.

 

[Ace]

Of course when in 20 years veterans report cancers from the phosphorus we'll hear about how evil it is and it must be stopped.

For the time being though you're screamed at for saying certain inefficient weapons are unnecessarily cruel.

[AlphaOne]

Umm and I supose those milatary men who argued for the use of such weapons will want treatment and healtcare sistems to cover the expenses right?

Let them die slow agonizig death's with no treatement for these sidefects then will see if theyl argue in favor of these beeing used.

[Flipside]

Well, in all fairness, the common grunt out in Iraq has no choice in the munitions used whatsoever, those responsible for making those decisions are nowhere in sight when these things land.

[AlphaOne]

well then we should put them in the targeting range and give thema taste of what they argue as beeing reasonable for use in war.

Hell as long as they use this stuff which causes god knows how many sideefect deseases then why not use nukes instead its faster posibly cheapar and you get the effect you want faster. Also cancer and othe such deseasea are guaranteed to apear so theil be happy with this one.

[Colonol Dekker]

I think it was a case of swift decisive victory over the main forces, To accuate that victory, the weapons were needed.

[Mefustae]

well then we should put them in the targeting range and give thema taste of what they argue as beeing reasonable for use in war.

It would make no difference, as it is a opinion within the Pentagon based on the effects of a given weapon versus its cost. There is no genuine need for these weapons, they are simply effective in urban environments and sufficiently cost effective to outweigh the possible negative effects. It's simply the arithmatic of war, nothing sinister or "evil" about it, and there is not a single or group of individuals who arbitrarily make the decision to use these weapons, so to kill these percieved individuals in an unsightly fashion would do little if any good.

[AlphaOne]

umm then again in the conflict would of been more intence with people actualy putting up a stiff resistence then by all means they could and ,because it is more cost efective then a prelonged many years war, should of used nuclear weapons. Since this is the basis for any milatary invasion by the US Empire. Cuz its starting to look like and Empire each and every sigle passing day.

I'm discusted at this no really i am. All this cheap arithmetics make me sick. Just because they mai be efective doesnt mean they aren sickening to the bone.

Well now that I think about it the war in the former Iugoslavia when the romnian president gave Us planes the go ahead to travek through our country on theyr way to bomming runs and back was even worse. Now that was really sickening. I hate politics and I hate milatary economics.

[Mefustae]

umm then again in the conflict would of been more intence with people actualy putting up a stiff resistence then by all means they could and ,because it is more cost efective then a prelonged many years war, should of used nuclear weapons. Since this is the basis for any milatary invasion by the US Empire. Cuz its starting to look like and Empire each and every sigle passing day.

Nuclear weapons are not used, because they are weapons of last resort. Think of it like this; if you a trying to discipline a child for being naughty, do you cut its head off with an axe? Of course not, to do that would accomplish nothing, thus it is far more prudent to simply smack him on the back of his hand. War is a lot like this, it's not about unrestrained carnage and killing as many people as possible, it is using controlled violence to guide the enemy in a fashion favourable to your own ends. Obviously this is not readily apparent with the current conflict, but then this is not a war, it's an occupation, an insurgency. I suggest you look those terms up, because it would be somewhat questionable to utilise Nuclear weapons when you have already occupied the nation in question.

Please, stop being so sensationalist and calling the US an 'Empire'. They are displaying tendancies one would attribute to the empires of old, but to start screaming it serves no purpose.

I'm discusted at this no really i am. All this cheap arithmetics make me sick. Just because they mai be efective doesnt mean they aren sickening to the bone

Well wake up, this isn't some dream-land where there is no conflict, this is war. You may deem it disgusting, and that may well be the case, but this is what humans do, so if you don't like it, too bad. A nation is going to try to win in a fashion that is cost-effective and prudent, but if you've got any pearls of wisdom regarding why a nation would intentionally handicap itself when trying to win a given war, please share with the rest of us.

[Turnsky]

pfeh, it's the same thing every era, if an threat doesn't make itself aparrent to the US, it creates one to justify its actions, iran's supposed nuclear weapons program, for instance.


seriously, the UN needs to grow a spine, and a great big set of brass Cojones.

[Flipside]

Problem is Turnsky, is the current American Hierarchy, for all it's rhetoric about Terrorists getting nukes and using them irresponsibly. If pressured by the UN, possibly to the level of threats of UN forces arresting American soldiers who break the convention, and trying them for war-crimes, I think the US government would be just as willing to threaten to 'consume the world in flame' if they saw their interests threatened as Iran would if they had Nuclear weapons.