This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Now, I'm all for the freedom of defending your country... But am I the only one thinking that this is presented in a bit too much of a good light? Like, what is the title supposed to make me feel? If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?
I genuinely thank you for sharing this info, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable reading about atrocious killing devices in a technology thread.
I'm right there with you. My first reaction to the video in the article was "well that's terrifying".
Wait until you hear about the semi-autonomous killer drone swarms, designed to prevent signal jamming (by not needing an operator).
Russia is already using thermite charges, thermobaric weapons and tear gas. They get what's coming to them.
Phosphorous too IIRC
Even the US uses white phosphorus against infantry in violation of international law. I can't imagine what we'd resort to with Russian soliders on our soil.
Of course they do, it's main use is smoke generation.
I take no delight in killing but Russian forces could leave Ukraine at any point and put an end to it.
If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?
If Russia was illegally invaded & genocided by Ukraine as a consequence for wanting to become democratic and joining the West, then yes, people would rather root for Russia instead.
If Russia don't want their men to get "atrociously killed", then they can just fuck off back into their own country.
Exactly, I hate what the Russians are doing, but as a former grunt, I'll never rejoice in killing.
This is what international law has to say about incendiary weapons:
- It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
- It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
- It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
- It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
This treeline is clearly not located within a concentration of civilians and it is concealing (or plausibly believed to be concealing) enemy combatants and therefore the use of incendiary weapons is unambiguously legal.
Interestingly Israel has violated all three of these on hundreds of occasions in Gaza.
The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.
This is an area where it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.
So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn't enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it's morally reprehensible, and I'd prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.
The moral high ground doesn't work in war.
The moral high ground is absolutely critical in war. War is politics by other means, and being able to build consensus, marshal resources, recruit personnel, persuade allies to help, persuade adversaries to surrender or lay down their arms, persuade the allies of your adversaries not to get involved, and keep the peace after a war is over, all depend on one's public image. There are ways to wage war without it, but most militaries that blatantly disregard morals find it difficult to actually win.
In this case? The entire military strategy of Ukraine in this war is highly dependent on preserving the moral high ground.
I understand and agree with your point, but the fact that people are worried over whether Ukraine is killing nicely enough is ridiculous to me. It's a defensive war of survival. The moral high ground is already theirs.
Azeri terrorist state bombed Stepanakert with white phosphorus and napalm with no consequences.
BTW, Russia has already used white phosphorus against civilian targets in this war, if I am not mistaken.
Israel is, of course, using those in Gaza.
I'd say legality has long lost its meaning in international relations. Not that it ever had any in this particular regard.
I've read that even not using expansive (those that expand, not those that cost more monies) bullets was not result of any humanism, but of the military logic that a soldier wounded by a conventional bullet stops being a combatant and becomes a logistical burden, while a soldier dead from a gruesome wound just stops being a combatant, possibly helping to motivate his comrades in arms.
2,204 degrees Celsius in non-freedom units
Thank you for posting it in normal.
For those also wondering (and I’m quoting a comment on Ars so may stand corrected…):
Isn’t this a violation of the Geneva Conventions?
Only if used to deliberately target infantry. The videoed operations so far seem to have been intended to burn away protective cover (trees/brush), which is a permitted use even if there's a risk of inflicting casualties as a side effect of the application of incendiaries.
There’s a lot of people who seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to this “that’s a war crime!!1!”, but it really is not. Incendiary weapons (like thermite, white phosphorus and napalm) are not illegal to use against legitimate military targets, including enemy combatants. It’s only a war crime when it’s used indiscriminately against civilians or in civilian areas.
Lot of misinformation out there on this it seems.
I looked it up and you're 100% right. Incendiary weapons are allowed as long as it doesn't hit civilians or start a forest fire
https://www.weaponslaw.org/weapons/incendiary-weapons
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Incendiary_Weapons
Warfare has always been hell, but now when someone hunts you down with a drone while you’re running away it makes it a particularly terrifying personal hell.
Eh, that's pretty metal. What I like about it is that it's not some chemical weapon that floats on the air to hiteveryone in the vicinity. You will see where you are hitting clearly because it's like a bright tracer round. And it'll cause more injuries than deaths.
You almost have a sporting chance to get away once it's started compared to the relatively sudden chaos of explosions.
And it'll cause more injuries than deaths.
That is the entire problem with chemical weapons. They injure people badly.
That's why chemical weapons are banned while bombs aren't.
That's actually not the problem with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are banned due to their indiscriminate nature (being blown by the wind) and really the fact that it causes slow deaths over years. It's that it's tantamount to torture (which is also banned).
Blowing people's limbs off is considered A-OK as long as it's not done with land mines.
Eh, that’s pretty metal.
It's definitely pretty, and as thermite is a mixture of metal powder and metal oxide, your statement is entirely correct.
Maybe, if putin doesn't want his soldiers crispied. He should withdraw all of them, and stop bombing schools and hospitals and shopping malls.
You think he gives a shit about his soilders getting a little toasty?!
