View Poll Results: Should chemical weapons remain illeagal

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, chemical weapons cross a line

    30 90.91%
  • No, they are just another weapon

    3 9.09%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

  1. #71
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    This is just one persons opinion.

    Excerpt:

    >"Napalm, delivered by bombs or flamethrowers, kills on one hand, protects lives on another, depending on where one stands. Beyond that, burning gas has a powerful psychological effect, topping my list of weapons used to intimidate and deter.

    What motivates me to think about this is a message I received from a friend operating in Afghanistan. He asks, where were flame weapons when really needed to clear caves and attack terrorists during Operation Anaconda. A major objective was to kill bin Laden. The answer, we got rid of flamethrowers years ago. And napalm bombs went by the wayside too.

    Our failure to field weapons equal to the task, especially napalm configured in flamethrowers, is disconcerting testimony to our determination to win in the field and protect those carrying the fight abroad.

    Conventional wisdom says we should never even consider the use of napalm, because it is so indiscriminate. Anyone within the target area is likely to be killed or maimed, whether a legitimate combatant or innocent civilian.

    That is absolutely true, as far as it goes. But what if its use were restricted to remote areas, where there is no civilian population? Enemy targets cannot be avoided, whether in caves or in the open. Ignoring the threat defeats the mission and prolongs the conflict. Otherwise, the only way to clear a cave without entering is to toss in a few hand grenades, conventional or thermobaric, hoping they are effective. But caves are not necessarily shallow boxes where grenades work well..."<

    >"Flamethrowers have another advantage: they are very effective if one’s position is about to be overrun. They are instantly available before defensive fires from mortars, artillery or air arrive. I can’t imagine any soldier in extremis threatened by an enemy through the wire would have second thoughts.'<

    Thinking the Unthinkable about Napalm and Flamethrowers | Small Wars Journal
    Which does nothing to prove your claim right. Face it, you made a stupid comment, got called on it, and can't back up what you said. Admit it.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #72
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,873
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    what's the deal with chemical weapons?
    Most Modern Armies have ways to counteract a chemical attack. We have gas masks, NBC suits, that sort of thing. Unless completely by surprise, a chemical attack is just a hindrance. Like during the Gulf War, US troops had equipment on standby in case Saddam decided to use his chemical stockpiles.

    As a result, chemical weapons are only really effective against targets that are incapable of defending themselves. AKA, civilians.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Which does nothing to prove your claim right. Face it, you made a stupid comment, got called on it, and can't back up what you said. Admit it.
    I didn't make any stupid comment. Or did I claim that a certain weapon had a shaped charge when it didn't. If you are going to make a claim that I made a stupid comment and it causes you to shoot your wad off, so be it, I hoped you enjoyed the feeling.

    I've talked to many Marines and soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm also able to watch the news videos of both conflicts and see all of those weapons that were put in storage thirty or more years ago that were called obsolete and now being used by our troops today like the M-14 and LAAW.

    The Marine Corps is going back to that 102 year old .45 pistol, the M-1911 A-1. The Army will still keep using that little 9 mm pea shooter.

    I see weapons platforms being used today that were called obsolete and "Cold War" relics by liberals like the Air Force's A-10 Warthog.

    And while I'm BBQ and drinking beer with Marine officers on the weekend and we start talking and comparing experiences more in line with "old sea stories" and I show them a video of an ONTOS being used during the battle of Hue and one Marine ask "Why isn't that in our inventory today ? It would be perfect in Afghanistan ! " And the other Marine who has twenty years of service under his belt says, "Every time we have something that is dumb, stupid and simple and works, some civilian calls it obsolete."

    About as stupid of using a $60,000 Hellfire missile to kill one Taliban fighter who's armed with an empty RPG when that Taliban fighter could have been taken out with a .25 cent bullet.

  4. #74
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I didn't make any stupid comment. Or did I claim that a certain weapon had a shaped charge when it didn't. If you are going to make a claim that I made a stupid comment and it causes you to shoot your wad off, so be it, I hoped you enjoyed the feeling.

    I've talked to many Marines and soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm also able to watch the news videos of both conflicts and see all of those weapons that were put in storage thirty or more years ago that were called obsolete and now being used by our troops today like the M-14 and LAAW.

    The Marine Corps is going back to that 102 year old .45 pistol, the M-1911 A-1. The Army will still keep using that little 9 mm pea shooter.

    I see weapons platforms being used today that were called obsolete and "Cold War" relics by liberals like the Air Force's A-10 Warthog.

    And while I'm BBQ and drinking beer with Marine officers on the weekend and we start talking and comparing experiences more in line with "old sea stories" and I show them a video of an ONTOS being used during the battle of Hue and one Marine ask "Why isn't that in our inventory today ? It would be perfect in Afghanistan ! " And the other Marine who has twenty years of service under his belt says, "Every time we have something that is dumb, stupid and simple and works, some civilian calls it obsolete."

    About as stupid of using a $60,000 Hellfire missile to kill one Taliban fighter who's armed with an empty RPG when that Taliban fighter could have been taken out with a .25 cent bullet.
    Spouting random things that in no way make your case is not going to prove you right. Technology obsoleted the flame thrower. Consider yourself schooled by a liberal.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Spouting random things that in no way make your case is not going to prove you right. Technology obsoleted the flame thrower. Consider yourself schooled by a liberal.
    It seems that the weapon that replaced the M-2 flamethrower was the M202 MPFW- Multiple Portable Flame Weapon (aka FLASH) a 66mm 4 shot rocket system that employed 1.3 lbs of triethylaluminum warhead, after it's 2nd year it was discontinued due to the fact that the warheads when being opened would crack and explode.

    So much for that technology, obsolete in just two years and no replacement yet after 30 years.

    But I was just looking at Wikileaks and they claim that the M-202 was being used in Afghanistan.

    Now if they did end up fixing the problem with the M-202 round and are using it in Afghanistan, the military must be keeping it a secret for only one obvious reason, it's not a politically correct weapon.

    Also remember that it was in 1978 when the M-2 flamethrower was pulled from active service. What was happening in 1978 ? Liberals were in the process of dismantling as much of the U.S. military as possible. You have to admit, back during the 70's you were warned about liberals when going off base wearing your uniform.

    Probably the best source of them all.

    FLAME WEAPONS

    M2 Flamethrower and M202A1
    Multishot Rocket Launcher (FLASH)

    Figure 4-5. M202A1

    >" Flame weapons are characterized by both a physical and a psychological casualty-producing capability. Flame need not be fired with pinpoint accuracy and can be controlled in order to limit collateral damage. The .M2 flamethrower has a short effective range (20 to 50 meters), but requires no special backblast preparation. The M202 flash can be used at greater ranges (20 to 200 meters for point targets, 20 to 500 meters for area targets), but has a backblast which must be considered.

    Flame weapons are employed to:


    ■Destroy enemy personnel in buildings or in open areas.
    ■Suppress RPG-Saggers and other weapons.
    ■Force armor crews to "button up."

    NOTE: When fired from inside of rooms, the LAW safety requirements apply (see antitank weapon section).
    Significant characteristics of the M202A1 are:


    ■Ranges at which a .5 probability of target hit can be expected:

    Area Target (fire team size) 500m
    Point Target
    Stationary Vehicle or 200m
    Uncovered Position Bunker
    Aperture 200m
    Bunker Aperture 50m


    ■ Minimum Arming Range 6-13m
    ■ Bursting Radius of Rocket Warhead 20m
    Flame weapons used against fortified positions should be aimed directly at the aperture. Even if the round or burst misses, enough of the flaming material will enter the position to cause casualties. Against troops behind a barricade, the M2 flamethrower can be fired in a traversing burst to cover a wide frontage. Blind angle burst may be fired without exposing the gunner and exploit the splattering effect of the thickened fuel.

    Bursts of fuel fired without ignition (wetshots) can be fired with the M2 to be ignited with a subsequent shot to create an intense fireball. This technique is effective in destroying captured equipment or in killing enemy soldiers in sewers and basements. If the enemy has established a position in a wooden building, the building can be burned down. Flame is also effective when fired on the back deck of tanks or at their vision blocks.

    Thickened fuel is difficult to extinguish, and therefore a commander must ascertain what will burn before he employs flame. Limits imposed on collateral damage, either political or tactical, will be the most serious constraint to use of flame. Commanders must also insure that soldiers using flame weapons are provided adequate security. "<

    FM 90-10 Appendix B Weapons Effects And Employment

    (3) M2A1-7 Portable flamethrower. Portable flame-throwers have a much shorter effective range than the M202 (20 to 50 meters) but require no special backblast consideration. The psychological and physical effects of the portable flamethrower are impressive. When used against troops behind a street barricade, the flamethrower can be fired in a traversing burst to cover a wide frontage. A blind-angle burst can be fired to exploit the splattering effect of the thickened fuel without exposing the gunner (see Figure 3-36).

    (a) A burst of unlit fuel (wet shots) can be fired with the flamethrower and ignited with a subsequent shot, creating an intense fireball. This technique is effective in destroying captured equipment or for killing enemy soldiers in sewers. If the enemy has established a position in a wooden building, the building can be burned down. Flame is also effective when fired onto the back deck of tanks or at vision blocks.

    (b) Thickened fuel is difficult to extinguish, and, therefore, a commander must decide what will burn before he employs flame. Limits imposed on collateral damage, either political or tactical, are the most serious constraints to the use of flames. If the portable flamethrower is issued in combat in built-up areas, it will probably be used by specially trained personnel. The infantry leader must ensure the flame operator is provided adequate security as he approaches the target. The enemy will concentrate his fire on any flamethrowers he detects.

    (c) Although pinpointing targets at night is difficult, commanders should consider using flamethrowers at night for the psychological as well as destructive effect on the enemy.

    IN0736 Lesson 3

  6. #76
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,176

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    I love how apacherat responds to the criticism of "spouting random things does not make your case" by spouting more random things that do not make his case. I can't decide if that was an epic fail or an epic win. All i know is it gives me lulz.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    I love how apacherat responds to the criticism of "spouting random things does not make your case" by spouting more random things that do not make his case. I can't decide if that was an epic fail or an epic win. All i know is it gives me lulz.
    Redress claims that the M-2 flamethrower was replaced by better technology.

    I claim the main reason why the M-2 and the napalm that went with it are no longer used by the U.S. military because of political correctness. We can't have our troops using such an awful weapon where our enemies on the battlefields become crispy critters.

    I'm pretty well aware of what was taking place with in our military services during the 1970's.

    It was also during the same time that the Democrats in Congress castrated the CIA so they were no longer able to do their job. Even the 9/11 Commission Report pointed that out, when they said there was enough blame to go all around going back during the Carter administration.

    It was also when many of the liberals were leaving the Democrat Party and the beginning of the neoconservative movement. One of the last liberals to leave was Jean Kirkpatrick.

    The political left in America has been waging a war or trying to take away the weapons that kill our enemies and save Americans from bleeding and dieing in combat since the early 70's.

    Back in 2007 the libs in Congress took aways the Marine Corps bomb of choice for it's FA-18's and AV-8 B's, the cluster bomb. Are you going to tell me it had nothing to do with politics ?
    Last edited by APACHERAT; 06-15-13 at 05:14 AM.

  8. #78
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Should chemicle weapons be illeagal?

    I think that if you can't spell a topic you'd be best advised to avoid trying to discuss it.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    Most Modern Armies have ways to counteract a chemical attack. We have gas masks, NBC suits, that sort of thing. Unless completely by surprise, a chemical attack is just a hindrance. Like during the Gulf War, US troops had equipment on standby in case Saddam decided to use his chemical stockpiles.

    As a result, chemical weapons are only really effective against targets that are incapable of defending themselves. AKA, civilians.
    That is all true but as I recall we hesitated going into Iraq because we thought Saddam had and may use chemical weapons. You are probably right though that armies would adapt and only civilian populations would be effected by their wide spread use.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •