Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
United States army still using Napalm weapons?; Done on a technicality
Topic Started: Aug 13 2004, 04:52 PM (334 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
^^
Used in both Afganistan and Iraq - also used air-effect (cherry picker) bombs , and I have seen and read enough about the differences in their effects to know the difference.

Not to mention that the military talking heads openly mentioned the use of napalm in several bombing raids and sorties. (Hoping that no one would pick up on the legalities or not knowing).

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (10 August 2003)
Heavy reproaches against US Pentagon: Napalm bombs in the Iraq war (Date : 07.08.2003)
US defends use of napalm-like firebombs
Dead bodies are everywhere(March 22 2003)

Quote:
 
They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald


Quote:
 
The use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 [1] (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt). The United States didn't sign the agreement, but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

The United States has reportedly been using napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [2] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html). In August 2003, the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs".
Napalm
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 14 2004, 07:46 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 14 2004, 02:54 PM
somerled
Aug 13 2004, 09:43 PM
Napalm is very precise and surgical. :loling:

And I also saw the telecasts - and napalm was indeed used.

You're now an expert on an obsolete munition?

Come on Admiral, I don't think I've ever encountered a topic you didn't claim to be an expert on. most recently you claimed to know more about the state that I live in than I do.

I never claimed to be an expert on napalm, but I could tell you a few things about the warheads in an ADCAP, Harpoon, Captor, or Tomahawk.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Aug 15 2004, 04:45 AM
^^
Used in both Afganistan and Iraq - also used air-effect (cherry picker) bombs , and I have seen and read enough about the differences in their effects to know the difference.

Not to mention that the military talking heads openly mentioned the use of napalm in several bombing raids and sorties. (Hoping that no one would pick up on the legalities or not knowing).

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq  (10 August 2003)
Heavy reproaches against US Pentagon: Napalm bombs in the Iraq war (Date : 07.08.2003)
US defends use of napalm-like firebombs
Dead bodies are everywhere(March 22 2003)

Quote:
 
They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald


Quote:
 
The use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 [1] (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt). The United States didn't sign the agreement, but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

The United States has reportedly been using napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [2] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html). In August 2003, the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs".
Napalm

Your first link would not work and required a subscription.

Your second link; this is key:

Quote:
 
These are the firebombs we're talking about : they are labeled MK 77 , an advanced and perfected version of the Napalm-bomb used in Vietnam .


It is not napalm. Get it?

Your third link... napalm-like. Get that one?

All US stocks of napalm were DESTROYED as of 2001. As for the UN convention that banned napalm and other incendiaries, it was banned against CIVILIAN TARGETS. These Mk 77s were used against MILITARY TARGETS?

Get it?

So:

1) The incendiary was not napalm.
2) It was used against military targets.

Case closed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
It's an improved incendary based on napalm - ie more stable and more lethal in use - and releases more thermal energy.


A nasty weapon and definitely a WMD.


Can you prove they destroyed all stocks of napalm ?
Why did serving officers say they were using napalm then ?

Quote:
 
2) It was used against military targets.
That doesn't excuse it's use, which constitutes a war crime.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Yes, it does excuse its use because the 1980 convention allowed it to be used against military targets.

As I said, case closed.

As for someone saying the word napalm, that doesn't mean didley squat. Why? Hell, I still say "tin foil" to describe what is actually aluminum foil. IT IS A FRIGGIN' COLLOQUIALISM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
They used the term napalm because it is a common name for fire based weaponry. A rifle is frequently called a gun but it isn't, it is a rifle. Neither of the fire based weapons used in Iraq had any kind of napalm in it.

The UN said that use of incendiaries against civilian targets was banned. It says nothing of military targets which were the only targets hit. How is this a war crime?

Saying that using these weapons against military targets violates a convention that applies only to civilian targets is like arresting a man for owning a pistol because there is a ban on assault rifles.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Quote:
 
however, It is now a war crime to use them- no mater who they're used on


And flying civilian airliners into civilian buildings isn't a a warcrime? I didn't take time to read the artical, but if we are just using them against the non-civilian enemy, who is trying to kill us in very uncoventional ways, way not use it. Besides, in the words of Col. Kilgore from Apocalypse Now "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." By the way, cptjeff, peace is obtained through strength and superior firepower.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Quote:
 
And flying civilian airliners into civilian buildings isn't a a warcrime?


Actually - no . There was no war declared at the time. Correct me if you better.

That was a horrible act of terror , piracy and indescriminate mass murder.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Nor was there war declared in Iraq, Afganistan or Vietnam. Just because there is no formal declaration doesnt mean there can be no warcrimes, although I would agree the September 11th attacks were not a war crime as such. They were a crime against humanity.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
^^
In that case they are crimes against humanity.

Of cause if one party is activily engaged in warfare then these can be both war crimes and crimes against humanity - take your pick.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Well fine, but you have yet to give any evidence that is supported by the facts that this is in fact a war crime.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Takamori
Cadet 3rd Year
I'm a pacifist so i don't believe that peace is achieved through strength and superior firepower. Hence my very, very anti-Iraq war stance. I believe that it is all the same. Using incendiaries on both civilians and the military. There is no difference apart from status. They're people, and it should not be done. After all, how many Iraqis died in the war (civilians, I mean?) (So much for "Only attacking military targets"). Also, the amount of people, both British and American who died in the war is totally unacceptable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Tell me, then... how do you achieve peace when one side wants to eliminate you? This is the problem Israel has had with the rest of the Arab world. In fact, the Palestinian charter calls for the elimination of Israel.

Pleae don't forget that it was radical Islamists who tried to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, blew up two American embassies in Africa, bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, sent a boatload of explosives against the USS Cole in 2000, and FINALLY destroyed the World Trade Towers with two aircraft, damaged the Pentagon with one more, and word has it that the White House was the target of the last aircraft. In addition there was the terrorist bombing in Bali in 2000 and the train bombings in Spain this year.

So, let me repeat: HOW DO YOU ACHIEVE PEACE WHEN ONE SIDE WANTS TO ELIMINATE YOU? I'll answer it, and you won't like it (but I did spend 17 years active duty after Annapolis)... you eliminate them first. This comes through superior firepower and training. As for strength, that is the only thing a Islamofascist terrorist respects.

Pacifism is not realistic, in today's world or any other.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Takamori
Aug 23 2004, 12:38 PM
I'm a pacifist so i don't believe that peace is achieved through strength and superior firepower. Hence my very, very anti-Iraq war stance. I believe that it is all the same. Using incendiaries on both civilians and the military. There is no difference apart from status. They're people, and it should not be done. After all, how many Iraqis died in the war (civilians, I mean?) (So much for "Only attacking military targets"). Also, the amount of people, both British and American who died in the war is totally unacceptable.

You do realize that had the US and Britain not invaded Iraq that Saddam and his sons would have murdered far more people during the same time period then were killed so far during the Iraq war.

Pacifism sounds great on paper - but in reality it kills more innocents. There is a time to back off and a time to interfer. Finding the balance is the hard part. In the case of Iraq I think the world waited too long and too many people died as a result. The same thing is happening right now in the Sudan. Too many innocents are dying and the world is not doing enough to stop it. Better that 100 civilians accidentally get killed while bringing peace to a country then a million civilians getting killed because the world turned it's back on them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus