Flamethrowers 47 replies

Please wait...

Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#41 12 years ago
Joseph Miller;4009266they may have been useful in the past, but this is today, with the new cutting edge Assualt Rifles and SMGs and other weapons they are useless now

I did say in my previous post that their role is replaced by other types of incendiary weapons. The M202A1 FLASH being a great example. Although i must say i find it rather odd that you mention assault Rifles and SMG's and such. Given the fact they have little to do with flamethrowers/incendiary weapons. :uhm:




Time2KILL

Intolerant of idiots

50 XP

28th June 2006

0 Uploads

707 Posts

0 Threads

#42 12 years ago

I say no but not because they are inhuman and they aren't a good weapon but in the event that an insurgent manages to pierce the gas tank with a bullet then he has successfully taken about about 3-4 more guys.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#43 12 years ago

I say yes. If they are effective, then they will be used more. If they are not, then they will be naturally phased out because the US army has more effective ways of killing people. And if the general public doesn't like it or the press go into a frenzy over it, then surely that will count in its phasing out as well. Either way, the flamethrower should be legalized.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#44 12 years ago
Archmage Cleps;4011099I say yes. If they are effective, then they will be used more. If they are not, then they will be naturally phased out because the US army has more effective ways of killing people. And if the general public doesn't like it or the press go into a frenzy over it, then surely that will count in its phasing out as well. Either way, the flamethrower should be legalized.

I say again, the US has not signed anything that forbids them to use flamethrowers. The fact that they are not used is entirely voluntary. They are simply not effective any more, which is why the military has decided not to use them. And there WILL be a media storm if they are used.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#45 12 years ago
I say again, the US has not signed anything that forbids them to use flamethrowers. The fact that they are not used is entirely voluntary. They are simply not effective any more, which is why the military has decided not to use them. And there WILL be a media storm if they are used.

Oh. Sorry. My bad.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#46 12 years ago
Time2KILL;4011039I say no but not because they are inhuman and they aren't a good weapon but in the event that an insurgent manages to pierce the gas tank with a bullet then he has successfully taken about about 3-4 more guys.[/quote] That myth has been debunked alot of times now so try reading other people's post next time, seriously. [QUOTE=Archmage Cleps]I say yes. If they are effective, then they will be used more. If they are not, then they will be naturally phased out because the US army has more effective ways of killing people. And if the general public doesn't like it or the press go into a frenzy over it, then surely that will count in its phasing out as well.

I fully agree with you.




Cyrix

Mr.Super

50 XP

2nd November 2007

0 Uploads

19 Posts

0 Threads

#47 12 years ago

I like setting things on fire . . . :D

No . . . really!




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#48 12 years ago

Didn't much read the replies... but seriously, flamethrowers in modern war, that's pretty damn stupid. Also, the "war ain't human and nothing about it is human" argument is kind of ideologic and doesn't mean much.