Defense related and not covered in the other categories? Then it goes here.
-
Navarro
- Power poster 2

- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:01 am
Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:07 am
SeekerOfTruth wrote:I thought flamethrowers were universally banned by the Geneva convention?
Flamethrower MLRS artillery. Not as in, a weapon that sprays out burning fuel, as seen in WW2.
Twitter: @DefconNavarro
-
Drumboy44
- DWS Staff

- Posts: 3481
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:29 pm
-
Contact:
Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:00 pm
Navarro wrote:SeekerOfTruth wrote:I thought flamethrowers were universally banned by the Geneva convention?
Flamethrower MLRS artillery. Not as in, a weapon that sprays out burning fuel, as seen in WW2.
The US used them on tunnels in Japan in WW2.
" man fears time, but time fears the pyramids "
-
hrng
- Power poster 1

- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:15 pm
- Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:53 pm
Navarro wrote:SeekerOfTruth wrote:I thought flamethrowers were universally banned by the Geneva convention?
Flamethrower MLRS artillery. Not as in, a weapon that sprays out burning fuel, as seen in WW2.
Aw man, I got excited, that looked like a cool toy if it was a legit flamethrower
For the record, the legal status of flamethrowers seems vague:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -legal.htm
If they're not targeting civilians then it may be allowed. They're more legal than white phosphorous.
-
jayfeather31
- Power poster 3

- Posts: 5689
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
- Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
-
Contact:
Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:50 pm
hrng wrote:They're more legal than white phosphorous.
Don't get me started on that. White phosphorus is a terrible weapon.
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather