Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I think napalm differs from nitro in that it has a specific antipersonnel and psychological application. The point is to burn the enemy to death by coating them with sticky flaming gelatine, terrorize them, and scare them with the smell. I can't think of a comparable weapon except for biological and chemical weapons such as VX gas and mustard gas. In the article the armed forces representatives admit that.
|
I can... A B-52, dropping dozens of 500-pound bombs on an enemy position. The object is to kill the enemy (blow them to bits, tear them apart using shrapnel), to terrorize them into submission (leaving them dazed and confused), to scare them by coating them in the blood and entrails of their former comrades, and to terrorize nearby troops with the sound/feeling and the resulting stream of wounded men.
Hell, any weapon is designed to kill in nasty ways, terrorize the enemy, and scare them with the results.
Quote:
I fully realize that napalm is not a chemical weapon under the UN convention. I feel that it is categorized that way just due to a technicality, and that it properly should be considered one.
Again, my opinion, yours obviously differs.
|
Napalm is *not* a chemical weapon because it does not work by poisoning it's victims. That is not an opinion, it's a matter of definition. If you call that a "technicality", we could call *everything* a technicality. Hell, let's change math to accept 2+2=5; after all, it's just a technicality...