Militarisation

[Galloglasses]

Thats not what got my attention first about these weapons.

What did get my attention first was the method of killing, would you count it as cruel? And don't give me the usual 'All weapons are cruel' schtick, I meant cruel even by war's standards. Like Flamethrower cruel.

[Justin86]

What was so wrong with flamethrowers? They did the job on Iwa Jima quite well.

When a country goes to war, it should go to win. Not at all cost mind you, but I hardly see anything wrong with developing the weapons that best suit the job.

[Galloglasses]

Asides from the fact that the enemy died a slow incredibly painful death? Oh not much was wrong with the flamethrower. A grenade does the same job with less pain and more chance of the person surviving to be captured.

With this weapon I meant cruel as in how it eviscerates the bodies. Literally tearing them to shreds from the insides. Hardly a nice way to die. And no, when a country goes to war, it is not to 'just win' their is the part where honour comes in. Otherwise if its just winning you will, more often then not, be willing to accept any number of collateral damage.

[johnnydigit]

forget the military, we need to build up the Church Militant. nukes? checkout my Rosary babee! my momma wears army boots. maybe if God led the world, we wouldn't need so much militarization..

souls > citizens.

semper fi = "always faithful" in Latin. WOOT!

[Galloglasses]

That was a lovely interjection XD

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1583645' date='Jun 26 2008, 09:35 PM']Asides from the fact that the enemy died a slow incredibly painful death? Oh not much was wrong with the flamethrower. A grenade does the same job with less pain and more chance of the person surviving to be captured.[/quote]
Grenades do not do the same job as flamethrowers. Flamethrowers are way better at taking out large groups of people quickly from far distances with about as much danger as any other gun. A grenade might kill 2 or 3 people--assuming you throw it in time in which you just kill yourslef and at the people beside you (yes, this happens more than you would think). Even if you do throw it in time the enemy probably will still have a couple seconds to take cover. Another problem we have encountered is that in Vietnam plenty of our gernade supply were nothing but duds. Comparing gernades to flamethrowers is like comparing ants to grasshopers.

[quote]With this weapon I meant cruel as in how it eviscerates the bodies. Literally tearing them to shreds from the insides. Hardly a nice way to die. And no, when a country goes to war, it is not to 'just win' their is the part where honour comes in. Otherwise if its just winning you will, more often then not, be willing to accept any number of collateral damage.[/quote]
Teraing apart someone's insides actualy sounds like a pretty quick way to die from my prespective. As for your spin on my quote, when I said that I clearly articulated that I was not meaning accepting any and all civilian cauaslities, rather devloping efficent weapons to kill one's enemies.

I don't remember reading anything in just war theory about "honor" so I'm confused as to why you're bringing it, with all of it's vaugeness, up.

[Justin86]

I would also like to add that dying from a grenade can be incredibly slow and painful. I can envision a few scenarios were being burned alive is probably quicker.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1584565' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:47 AM']Grenades do not do the same job as flamethrowers. Flamethrowers are way better at taking out large groups of people quickly from far distances with about as much danger as any other gun. A grenade might kill 2 or 3 people--assuming you throw it in time in which you just kill yourslef and at the people beside you (yes, this happens more than you would think). Even if you do throw it in time the enemy probably will still have a couple seconds to take cover. Another problem we have encountered is that in Vietnam plenty of our gernade supply were nothing but duds. Comparing gernades to flamethrowers is like comparing ants to grasshopers.
Teraing apart someone's insides actualy sounds like a pretty quick way to die from my prespective. As for your spin on my quote, when I said that I clearly articulated that I was not meaning accepting any and all civilian cauaslities, rather devloping efficent weapons to kill one's enemies.

I don't remember reading anything in just war theory about "honor" so I'm confused as to why you're bringing it, with all of it's vaugeness, up.[/quote]
Honor plays apart because Western Concepts of Honour are based upon the codes of Chivalry and the Just War theory, (do not harm the innocent), the, some people think, redundent never kill a woman. Don't shoot an unarmed enemy soldier. According to your line of thought an unarmed enemy still counts as a threat, (He in actuality does), and should be eliminated in order to win, yet honour demands you do not kill an unarmed enemy. You capture him. (Killing an unarmed enemy is today's equivilent of striking a man when hes down) And in this case, how is it honourable to eviscerate the bodies when, quite possibly loved ones of the enemy soldiers would want to give them a burial? (I do not mean war specific enemy)

[quote name='Justin86' post='1584567' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:54 AM']I would also like to add that dying from a grenade can be incredibly slow and painful. I can envision a few scenarios were being burned alive is probably quicker.[/quote]
Oh thats rich. The point of wounding the enemy with a grenade is either to hinder their retalliation while your troops take them out, or take them as POWs, or even to kill all of them in a room if it urban combat. In such situations, it is next to impossible to duck for cover unless you manage to pull a bed on top of you. Yes the wounded die slowly, [i]if they are left that way[/i], but the pain is NOTHING compared to being roasted alive, even for a few seconds. Test it out yourself, light a firecracker in the palm of your hand, hurts like hell. Set the other hand on fire, then compare which causes more suffering.

The flamethrower is a cruel weapon. It causes immense amounts of suffering for the target soldiers for the 10-30 seconds they have left of life, (give or take if they get the chance to jump into a large body of water), I'm not exactly sure when or why flamethroers were discontinued, but I'm greatful that the have been. War is horrible enough without being set ablaze.

Here's another stickler, gas weapons such as the ones used in WWI, thoughts?

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1584827' date='Jun 28 2008, 01:47 AM']Honor plays apart because Western Concepts of Honour are based upon the codes of Chivalry and the Just War theory, (do not harm the innocent), the, some people think, redundent never kill a woman. Don't shoot an unarmed enemy soldier. According to your line of thought an unarmed enemy still counts as a threat, (He in actuality does), and should be eliminated in order to win, yet honour demands you do not kill an unarmed enemy. You capture him. (Killing an unarmed enemy is today's equivilent of striking a man when hes down) And in this case, how is it honourable to eviscerate the bodies when, quite possibly loved ones of the enemy soldiers would want to give them a burial? (I do not mean war specific enemy)[/quote]

Unlike Europeans, we Americans often haven't had the luxury of fighting other Christian nations. You're militaries have little to no experience fighting the Japanese, Koreans, or Vietnamese. While this in no way justifies throwing just war theory out the window, it does mean that European ideas of honor, whether based or just war theory or not, aren't as popular in the US military, nor should they be. Shooting an unarmed solider isn't againist just war theory last time I checked so I have no problem with it. If our enemies aren't going to play nice why should we?

[quote]Oh thats rich. The point of wounding the enemy with a grenade is either to hinder their retalliation while your troops take them out, or take them as POWs, or even to kill all of them in a room if it urban combat. In such situations, it is next to impossible to duck for cover unless you manage to pull a bed on top of you. Yes the wounded die slowly, [i]if they are left that way[/i], but the pain is NOTHING compared to being roasted alive, even for a few seconds. Test it out yourself, light a firecracker in the palm of your hand, hurts like hell. Set the other hand on fire, then compare which causes more suffering.

The flamethrower is a cruel weapon. It causes immense amounts of suffering for the target soldiers for the 10-30 seconds they have left of life, (give or take if they get the chance to jump into a large body of water), I'm not exactly sure when or why flamethroers were discontinued, but I'm greatful that the have been. War is horrible enough without being set ablaze.[/quote]

I would rather deal with a few seconds of intense suffering then prolonged suffering for hours. You do know that third degree burns kill nerve endings pretty much right away, and you can't actually feel anything anyway, right?

[quote]Here's another stickler, gas weapons such as the ones used in WWI, thoughts?[/quote]
I don't see any practicular use of these in todays world when we have bombs like the ones mentioned in the article I posted. However, the US military is much more concerned about chemical weapons being used on our troops then anything else out there. I will say that.