Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Immoral

My two cents worth on this
Tom Brosz — (archived)

The military dropped MK-77 incendiaries--yes, that's "napalm" by any rational definition, even if it's not the same formula--on Iraqi military positions on three known occasions.

We did not drop them on Iraqi civilians, or villages, so I don't think it's necessary to start going overboard on burning children running down roads, or war crimes. The treaty on napalm involves use on civilians, so even if we had signed it, we wouldn't have been in violation of it. I have been unable to locate a copy of the treaty that has the signatories on it, but I suspect that the signatories largely consist of either those nations that have not fielded a soldier in anger in fifty years, thanks to the U.S. and its allies, or those who cheerfully sign every treaty that comes their way, knowing full well they are going to ignore it.

There may have been other ways to clear out these military positions, including shelling, aerial bombing, or other methods, but I doubt any of them would have been much more pleasant.

Yes, the psychological effects of a weapon ARE critical in warfare, and used properly, can lead to early surrender and saving other lives. The main effect of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima was psychological. The number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was less than the number killed in a single night of firebombing of Tokyo.

Incendiaries also have the virtue of destroying things like nerve gas or biological weapons if they are suspected at the target zone. Standard explosives simply disperse them. There is no evidence I can see that this was used as a rationale for the attacks in Iraq, but it is a rationale for having such weapons in one's arsenal.

The MK-77 is the only incendiary of this type now in service, although I think there is a bunker-buster that uses combustion to render the bunker uninhabitable.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)