Another important reason for having flamers is the psychological impact. When you torch Building A, people tend to run out of Builds B through D. In this way, flamers actually cause fewer deaths than you might expect.
The Marines used to keep one platoon of flame tanks per battalion, a relic of their experience in the Pacific war. When the M-1 came along, that corporate memory was gone. Shame, really and the M-1 has enough engine power to deliver a very powerful fuel stream.
Once you decide to kill people for political reasons, the moral arguments over using flames or bullets are a very minor ethical consideration.
The Soviets and Warsaw Pact always held WP was a chemical weapon. As WP is commonly used by all armed forces, this contention would allow the Pact to use poison gas on Day One and say NATO did it first.
This silly idea regained some currency during the second American invasion of Iraq.
But at the end of the day WP kills by burning while poison gas kills by poison. As for why one is “OK” and the other is “bad,” well that is beyond my pay grade.
It was a question about the reasoning that banned chemical weapons but not flame throwers. msmith537’s answer about relative discriminate/indiscriminatetargetting seems likely.
Are there any weapons with controlled targetting, yet are banned because their effect on victims is simply too terrible?
WP and napalm are no more (or less) banned today than they were in 1899 under Hague II really. The 1980 Geneva Protocol, which the US didn’t sign, applies only to the use of incendiaries against civilian populations, which was already essentially prohibited under Article 25 of the 1899 Hague convention, “The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.” This of course hasn’t prevented the deliberate targeting of civilian populations with incendiaries or high explosives. As to their use against military personal, the case can be made that the violate Article 23 of the Hague prohibiting combatants “To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury.” Again, it hasn’t stopped their use.
As to being captured - or rather making it back to the POW cages once being captured - that your job was to burn people alive isn’t exactly going to endear you to your would be captors. It falls in the same category as snipers. Being captured/trying to surrender with a flamethrower or a scoped rifle on your back made it more likely to be shot on the spot rather than being taken prisoner.
Exploding bullets below the size of 3cm (IIRC) glass and X-ray-invisible bullets. Any weapon designed to increase suffering. Booby traps designed to entice civilians (again, IIRC)
Yes. I just saw a PBS special on winners of the Medal of Honor. One was a Marine who went through, IIRC, four separate FTs and their tanks of fuel in a single day on Iwo Jima, clearing out a dozen or so pillboxes and underground hideouts of Japanese troops. A very, very brave guy, but he was matter-of-fact about it after all these years.
The UN banning WP is as effective as the UN banning hunger, US, Israel and many other countries never signed that treaty, which means that its perfectly fine for their militaries to go on using them in ways that do not violate anything they did sign. Same goes for landmines and cluster bombs, the hippies can whine all they want, they are just too effective to give up.
So technically, all through World War II if London, Amsterdam, Berlin, and the rest just stopped ringing themselves with flak cannons, and I suppose kept their fighters on the ground, all that bombing would have been prohibited. That had to be the most widely ignored ban, ever.
It’s the old concept of declaring an “open city”. If the city is demilitarized and undefended, then it need not be “taken”. Of course, in 1899 and up to WWI this was based upon the premise that said bombardment would be by siege artillery, with the invading army on the march within sight of the city, or by ships off the coast, and the Mayor could ride his horse/row a boat out under a flag of truce to explain the situation to the invading commander.
