• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

Should chemical weapons remain illeagal


  • Total voters
    29
So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.

Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?




Wrong.

Bangalore torpedos are not shaped charges.

A Bangalore Toprpedo is made up of a number of metal tubes filled with explosive which are screwed together to make up the desired length and used to clear a path for infantry through mines, wire, underbrush, and etc.

Do a little research.
 
Last edited:
So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.

Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?

Most liberals get their knowledge of the military from Hollywood.

Bangalore torpedoes are used by combat engineers, not riflemen.

BTW: You are aware that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is fiction and their was no Private Ryan. The last time two or more brothers would be killed on or around the same day in combat was the five Sullivan brothers during the naval battles off of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) on the cruiser USS Jenuau in 1942.

My MOS was 0849. It was my responsibility to decide (my decision not the platoon, company or battalion commanders) of what kind of gun, projectile (AP, HE, COM, WP, ILL) the type of fuse (FQ, FD, VT, TF), ground burst or air burst, and the number of guns and number of salvos would be fired on the target.

One senario I used when I was an NGF instructor was from my own experience. Under heavy small arms and automatic fire from a NVA platoon who are out in the open but actually are dug in, trenches and fighting holes. The LT ask me what do you suggest ?
The Army would probably fall back half a klick and call in 100 rounds of 105 HE rounds with VT fuses or fall back a whole klick and call in a CAS mission. Marines don't fight that way.

What I did was get on my PRC-25 and "Illusive 26, Illusive 26, this is Grizzly Bear 26, Fire mission, Danger Close." What I requested for was one WP (Willie Peter aka white phosphorus) round armed with a TF fuse that would explode 100 feet over the heads of Charley. When that round detonated over their heads Charles was quick to jump out of their trenches and exposed themselves where the Marine riflemen zapped them as if they were at one of those shooting arcades at a county fair.
 
To answer the question, yes.
 
Wrong.

Bangalore torpedos are not shaped charges.

A Bangalore Toprpedo is made up of a number of metal tubes filled with explosive which are screwed together to make up the desired length and used to clear a path for infantry through mines, wire, underbrush, and etc.

Do a little research.

Combat vets seem to have more credibility and Shrubnose is a Vietnam combat vet.
 
Most liberals get their knowledge of the military from Hollywood.

I get my knowledge from experience and interest. I was trying to make it easy for you.

Bangalore torpedoes are used by combat engineers, not riflemen.

Most generally, yes.

BTW: You are aware that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is fiction and their was no Private Ryan. The last time two or more brothers would be killed on or around the same day in combat was the five Sullivan brothers during the naval battles off of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) on the cruiser USS Jenuau in 1942.

I never claimed otherwise.
My MOS was 0849. It was my responsibility to decide (my decision not the platoon, company or battalion commanders) of what kind of gun, projectile (AP, HE, COM, WP, ILL) the type of fuse (FQ, FD, VT, TF), ground burst or air burst, and the number of guns and number of salvos would be fired on the target.

So you should know better than the **** you are claiming.

One senario I used when I was an NGF instructor was from my own experience. Under heavy small arms and automatic fire from a NVA platoon who are out in the open but actually are dug in, trenches and fighting holes. The LT ask me what do you suggest ?
The Army would probably fall back half a klick and call in 100 rounds of 105 HE rounds with VT fuses or fall back a whole klick and call in a CAS mission. Marines don't fight that way.

What I did was get on my PRC-25 and "Illusive 26, Illusive 26, this is Grizzly Bear 26, Fire mission, Danger Close." What I requested for was one WP (Willie Peter aka white phosphorus) round armed with a TF fuse that would explode 100 feet over the heads of Charley. When that round detonated over their heads Charles was quick to jump out of their trenches and exposed themselves where the Marine riflemen zapped them as if they were at one of those shooting arcades at a county fair.

None of which changes the fact that flame throwers where obsoleted due to improved technology.
 
Look at me i know more about stuff that goes boom!:roll:

To answer the question, yes.
 
All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons. Do we not fight wars to win? We used nukes in Japan, we incinerated people in Dresden and Japs were burned alive with flame throwers on islands across the pacific theatre. Napalm is not a pleasant way to die and a bullet in the guts is just a bit agonizing so what's the deal with chemical weapons?

They level the playing field between richer and poorer combatants.

****s up the game.
 
I know it was used as a defoliant and that sounds a lot nicer than dioxin. Sounds kinda harmless, don't you think. Our military and their chemical corporations couldn't resist a little more corporate welfare with a nice chemical cocktail for Vietnam. Dioxin, think Bhopal, India. Our media minimized the evil intent of this "defoliant." They always fail us because they are infiltrated with Intelligence Assets influencing our news. "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

GE owns NBC.

No agents required.
 
Mainly because if one country is going to use them then the opposing force will use them. There's no benefit to using them...all you do is open a Pandora's box that makes warfare even uglier and brutal than it already is.

So there's no benefit...just like the US and the USSR throwing nukes at one another. In the end everyone loses.

I suspect it would be REALLY difficult to get people to serve if chemicals weapons were commonplace.
 
Ahhh historical context or as we call it, the mouse in pocket rhetoric. :lol:

I can see from your civilian only but very ahhh militant attitude all weapons are useful with the only goal winning the war, though there would be a huge difference between the firebombing of Dresden and widespread dropping of gas on the German civilians. I can see how to your untrained eye all weapons are horror weapons, but to me there is a huge difference between mustard gas and HE.

and yeah it sure ain't easy being you. :peace

Frankly, I pretty much agree with Sawyer on this.

War has been about wholesale killing, at greater and greater removes (the greatest being between the leaders and the front line) for a long time.

Carpet bombs aren't THAT different from chem weapons at the end of the day. Everybody inside of the area of effect dies.

And I understand that a fuel air bomb kills some by sucking the air out of their lungs, THEN they're vaporized.

I still think its more about upstarts being able to kill scads of a much richer opponents troops for a fraction of what "legal" ordnance costs.
 
Seriously, you have to ask this on a public forum? You seriously don't understand that the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations is a war crime? Even LeMay recognized that what he did with the fire-bombing and use of the the nukes were war crimes, the only reason they were not prosecuted was due to their being the victor. Both German & Japanese military personnel were prosecuted for war crimes including the use of chemical weapons.

It just baffles me that in this day and age you would have to ask a question like this. The poll results should tell you something.

The point I am fruitlessly trying to make is if war has rules, war becomes to easy to implement. The MAD philosophy has prevented nuclear wars so what if chemical weapons were part of war? Would war be less likely? I honestly don't know but its a thought. If war became to horrible to contemplate due to lack of rules we may not have any more wars but then again I may be dreaming.
 
So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.

Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?

Just had to bring politics into this huh.
 
All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons.
Because they kill indiscriminately, cause unnecessary suffering and horrific trauma. A lot of them also destroy the environment, and remain chemically active for many years.
 
Frankly, I am never offended by a Brit calling us Yanks. I think it's kind of cute. :lol:

Most of the time that term is used, especially on a political forum, it is not meant to be cute. ;)

I call them Limey's. :lol:

Most British folk take considerable offense at the term, unless it's a joking tease by a good friend.
 
Most of the time that term is used, especially on a political forum, it is not meant to be cute. ;)



Most British folk take considerable offense at the term, unless it's a joking tease by a good friend.

Well they should get over it. I am tired of everyone walking around with a stick up their ass just looking for some reason to be offended.
 
Most of the time that term is used, especially on a political forum, it is not meant to be cute. ;)

They may not mean it to be cute, but the only way I can be offended, is if I take offense. If I don't take offense, and don't concern myself with what they may call me, as an American, then they haven't accomplished anything whatsoever.
 
None of which changes the fact that flame throwers where obsoleted due to improved technology.

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
 
Just had to bring politics into this huh.

You should read the thread before saying stupid **** like that. Guess who brought politics into the thread. Hint: it wasn't me, but it was the one I was replying to.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom