Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
I thought this thread was about "napalm-like weapons," not landmines. Plus, the weapons in question were used against military targets, not civillians. So why the fuss?
So you're against landmines that continue to kill children years after a conflict, but you are for attacking civillian targets because it delivers a more effective blow to the enemy?
I don't agree with any of this. esp. the part about terrorism delivering a more effective blow than traditional military nature. If that were true the US ARMY would be full of suicide bombers ready to blow themselves up in mosques and markets. But its not, because it isn't as effective.
|
Landmines, cluster bombs, napalm, biological weapons, toxin weapons are usually deployed against millitary targets, it's when the target is missed that things turn bad.
Frankly I don't see how an MK77 bomb would be any differnt in creating civilian casualties then a standard bomb. Whoever a bomb of any kind lands on would obviously be dead or mamed. I asume that there is an explanation out there somewhere on why napalm is considered so terrible. I certainly hope it wasn't due to the photograph by Kim Phuc of a burned naked child running down a road. While terrible, any munition would cause equaly grevous wounds upon impact.
Incediary weapons still apear to be useful against certain targets:
Quote:
|
According to an analysis by the US Department of Defense's office for Arms Control Implementation and Compliance, "incendiary weapons have significant potential military value, particularly with respect to certain high-priority military targets. Incendiaries are the only weapons which can effectively destroy certain counter-proliferation targets such as biological weapons facilities which require high heat to eliminate bio-toxins. To use only high explosives would risk the widespread relase of dangerous contaminants with potentially disastrous consequences for the civilian population. Certain flammable military targets are also more readily destroyed by incendiaries. For example, a fuel depot could require up to eight times the bombs and sorties to destroy using only high explosives rather than incendiaries. Such an increase means a significantly greater humanitarian risk of collateral damage. The United States must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-high priority military targets such as these at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality which governs the use of all weapons under existing law.
|
edit: always forget the link
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...incendiary.htm
So I withdraw my comment to Ustwo about our ability to utilize other weapons for the same effect.