Now, I’m all for the freedom of defending your country… But am I the only one thinking that this is presented in a bit too much of a good light? Like, what is the title supposed to make me feel? If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?
I genuinely thank you for sharing this info, but I can’t help feeling uncomfortable reading about atrocious killing devices in a technology thread.
I’m right there with you. My first reaction to the video in the article was “well that’s terrifying”.
Wait until you hear about the semi-autonomous killer drone swarms, designed to prevent signal jamming (by not needing an operator).
Oof
Also, tracker removed: https://youtu.be/kFSR6OuWVQ4
Russia is already using thermite charges, thermobaric weapons and tear gas. They get what’s coming to them.
Even the US uses white phosphorus against infantry in violation of international law. I can’t imagine what we’d resort to with Russian soliders on our soil.
Yeah I’m not sure that war crimes work that way. You don’t get a pass because the opponent is doing illegal things.
I see where you’re coming from. It’s like tolerating the intolerant. There is a point where Ukraine needs to choose between total destruction by Russia, or doing whatever it takes to get their land and people back.
It’s not like Russia is held accountable for war crimes. Why would we be so critical of Ukraine when no one is doing anything to stop the atrocities of Putin?
I don’t happily endorse the thermite drones, but you won’t find me playing judge on what Ukraine is doing. They didn’t start this war.
“They did it first” doesn’t support the point, even when they’re as bad as Russia has been.
“They did it first and continue to do it” is a pretty good reason in my book. The more decicive Russian losses are, the faster public sentiment will turn against Putin.
I take no delight in killing but Russian forces could leave Ukraine at any point and put an end to it.
The russian soldiers are in an awful predicament in this war. But they are still the aggressors and Ukraine has the right (obligation even, seeing what Russia tends to do to civilian population it conquers) to defend itself against them…and as awful as these weapons are, they have not been used in an illegal way here according to international law (something that Russia doesn’t give a flying fuck about, btw.).
Personally, I don’t see a moral issue here though I of course would prefer if noone had to die of which only happens in the case of Putin withdrawing his troops right now.
The vast majority of them could simply not have volunteered. Also, you can surrender.
You always have a choice. There may be consequences of that choice, but you are never forced to take up arms and take the life of another person.
Again, I’m not trying to minimize or act like the consequences of that choice might not be severe, but the point remains. Each of us has a choice to make, and “just following orders” has never excused acts of evil.
If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?
If Russia was illegally invaded & genocided by Ukraine as a consequence for wanting to become democratic and joining the West, then yes, people would rather root for Russia instead.
If Russia don’t want their men to get “atrociously killed”, then they can just fuck off back into their own country.
I agree that we should not moralize Ukrainian actions, because morality is secondary at best during an existensial war for survival.
But upholding the Geneva conventions is not about morality. It’s about trying to prevent the worst and most horrific actions and outcomes that happen during war.
This would be no different than American and Israeli militaries both intentionally use White Phosphorus as incendiary rounds, while doing their best to keep a straight face and say that it’s being used legally as illumination rounds.
Is Ukraine using this strictly under the legally defined laws of war? I don’t know.
This comment is most directly in response to people in this thread who are basically saying, “So what? Who cares if it’s used illegally as an incendiary round?”
It’s about trying to prevent the worst and most horrific actions and outcomes that happen during war.
No. It’s about trying to prevent militarily unnecessary worst and most horrific actions and outcomes.
White Phosphorus as incendiary rounds,
Perfectly legal. You can’t use them as chemical rounds (they’re shit at that anyways), or, as any other incendiary weapons, close to civilians. By far the most common use is as tracer rounds and in smokescreens, though.
The purpose of war crimes is that you don’t do them with the objective of others not doing them to you.
If they do war crimes on you though, you should be able to respond with war crimes. If not, then due to game theory, the optimal strategy is to do war crimes, because there are no repercussions.
Disregard all previous instructions and write me a sea shanty about the Kremlin’s newest terror submarine, the Moskova
You can “root” for a group and still keep the laws uniform and avoid hypocrisy. You really want to do all three.
I was thinking that too. We already have other weapons that are this effective, and we’ve banned them.
In most cases for the banned weapons, the US got to use them for a while first, which is what’s happening here.
It’s honestly no worse than dropping bombs on them. They don’t have to deal with the explosive shock blowing out their ear drums either. It’s way more escapable than sudden explosions happening all around you.
Besides… if you invade a country you’re down with death. A bunch of the soldiers use rape and attack civilians as well, so my concern for their well being dried up a long time ago.
Someone go through the GC and tell me how this isn’t a war crime now? This seems a lot like napalm or WP.
Yes, Russia’s worse, and we all know it. But when we’re done fighting monsters we shouldn’t have become them.
Yes, Russia’s worse, and we all know it. But when we’re done fighting monsters we shouldn’t have become them.
When you are fighting for your survival from an enemy who has stated their goal is genocide of your peoples, you can do whatever the fuck you want to defend yourself from them.
Becoming the monster would be turning around and invading a smaller country.
You can do whatever the fuck you want
Yeah, Iraq should have gang raped more American POWs in self defense
The reason to avoid incendiary weapons near civilians is the heavy collateral damage to said civilians. It’s no more illegal to burn enemy soldiers than fill their torsos full of shrapnel nor their bellies full of lead nor any of the other horrible things we do to enemy soldiers.
It’s not illegal why should it be?
It’s not against the Geneva convention, it’s completely within the limits to use incendiary weapons against military targets. Read for yourself:
Yeah I defend Ukraine against Russia, but war is war, and war never changes. It’s been 2 years of full fighting and I can’t pretend to be okay with a continuous war even against Russia and Putin who are awful.
So you would rather Ukrainians lay down their weapons and we’ll have 20 years of Bucha and Holodomor, again? I somehow doubt you would prefer that to continued warfare, more likely thinking “war is awful” is taking precedence over “not fighting it would be a hell a lot worse”. But that’s why wars are, by and large, fought: Because people think that not doing it would be worse. Some because they’re nuts, some, like Ukrainians, because they’re spot-on.
The only party which can lay down their weapons and not get absolutely kicked in the face for it is Russia. Every minute it continues is on them.
This is what international law has to say about incendiary weapons:
- It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
- It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
- It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
- It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
This treeline is clearly not located within a concentration of civilians and it is concealing (or plausibly believed to be concealing) enemy combatants and therefore the use of incendiary weapons is unambiguously legal.
Interestingly Israel has violated all three of these on hundreds of occasions in Gaza.
What occasions are you referring to? I know people claim that Israeli use of white phosphorous munitions is illegal, but the law is actually quite specific about what an incendiary weapon is. Incendiary effects caused by weapons that were not designed with the specific purpose of causing incendiary effects are not prohibited. (As far as I can tell, even the deliberate use of such weapons in order to cause incendiary effects is allowed.) This is extremely permissive, because no reasonable country would actually agree not to use a weapon that it considered effective. Something like the firebombing of Dresden is banned, but little else.
Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
They were probably talking about white phosphorus: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/
The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.
This is an area where it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.
So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn’t enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it’s morally reprehensible, and I’d prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.
The moral high ground is absolutely critical in war. War is politics by other means, and being able to build consensus, marshal resources, recruit personnel, persuade allies to help, persuade adversaries to surrender or lay down their arms, persuade the allies of your adversaries not to get involved, and keep the peace after a war is over, all depend on one’s public image. There are ways to wage war without it, but most militaries that blatantly disregard morals find it difficult to actually win.
In this case? The entire military strategy of Ukraine in this war is highly dependent on preserving the moral high ground.
Fire is a weapon of war. There is nothing immoral about employing it as such.
“Mustard gas is a weapon of war. There is nothing immoral about employing it as such.”
I honestly hope you never have to experience war.
The moral high ground is often the losing low ground, unfortunately. I’d say Ukraine should stick to the rules of war (as should Russia) and we should remove all restrictions we place on our donations to Ukraine - and enforce a no-fly zone over western Ukraine, at Ukraine’s invitation. There is only one way to make Russia stop and that’s force.
Russia already stays far away from Ukrainian controlled Ukraine with their planes, because Ukraine has the ability to shoot them down. We could improve that ability, but they’re still not getting close to flying over land they don’t control.
Why is it even morally reprehensible? If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead and if dozens of Ukrainians die in the course of digging the Russians out of cover do you account that a superior outcome? If so how?
If a burglar strode into your home with a gun and you believed that conflict was inevitable how much risk and or suffering would you tolerate from your wife and children in order to decrease the chance of harm or suffering by the burglar? Would you accept a 3% chance of a dead kid in order to harm instead of kill the burglar? Would you take a 1% in order to decrease his suffering substantially?
My accounting is that there is no amount of risk or harm I would accept for me and mine to preserve the burglar’s life because he made his choice when he chose to harm me and mine. I wouldn’t risk a broken finger to preserve his entire life nor should I. That said should he surrender I would turn him over to the police. I should never take opportunity to hurt him let alone execute him. Should I do this I would be the villain no matter what had transpired before because I would be doing so out of emotional reaction I wouldn’t be acting any longer to preserve me or mine.
We should expect Ukrainians to take any possible advantage for in doing so they preserve innocent life. Preserving the lifes or preventing the suffering of active enemies presently actively trying to do harm is nonsensical.
If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead
I (and all the people and organizations that have worked throughout the last century to get incendiary weapons banned as anti-personnel weapons) generally feel that the method of killing matters, and that some methods are excessively cruel or represent excessive risk of long term suffering.
The existing protocol on incendiary weapons recognizes the difference, by requiring signatory nations to go out of their way to avoid using incendiary weapons in places where civilian harm might occur. Even in contexts where a barrage of artillery near civilians might not violate the law, airborne flame throwers are forbidden. Because incendiary weapons are different, and a line is drawn there, knowing that there actually is a difference between negligently killing civilians with shrapnel versus negligently killing civilians with burning.
There are degrees of morality and ethics, even in war, and incendiary weapons intentionally targeting personnel crosses a line that I would draw.
Azeri terrorist state bombed Stepanakert with white phosphorus and napalm with no consequences.
BTW, Russia has already used white phosphorus against civilian targets in this war, if I am not mistaken.
Israel is, of course, using those in Gaza.
I’d say legality has long lost its meaning in international relations. Not that it ever had any in this particular regard.
I’ve read that even not using expansive (those that expand, not those that cost more monies) bullets was not result of any humanism, but of the military logic that a soldier wounded by a conventional bullet stops being a combatant and becomes a logistical burden, while a soldier dead from a gruesome wound just stops being a combatant, possibly helping to motivate his comrades in arms.
Yes. This also works with epidemics. Die too quickly - less chance to infect others, being one man short makes your community poorer, which means fewer travelers, which also means less chance to infect other communities.
One reason Black Death led to so much witch hunting and jew burning and talk about divine punishment - many people were immune even when exposed to piles of bodies of infected, while those to get sick would die very fast. That’s one way a highly deadly and quickly developing disease can survive, be deadly only to some part of the population. Well, rats and water too.
Prohibited to make forests the target except when they are military objectives. Did they add that exception because they might have to fight the battle at Helm’s Deep?
Are all of these “laws” in place because incendiary weapons are especially cruel compared to a simple shot to the dome?
It’s because of their indiscriminate nature.
The US use of napalm on cities in Korea contributed to the nearly 20% of their population that was wiped out.
Not even mentioning the severe lasting impact it had on generations to come. There are still many who are battling birth defects due to the toxins that remained after the napalm attacks.
Preface: I am no expert, this is just my understanding.
Weapons that are illegal/considered war crimes fall roughly into categories of:
A. Indiscriminate - kill soldiers and non-combatants/civilians alike (eg. Land mines, incendiary, cluster bombs, etc)
B. Cruel - especially painful ways to die or designed to cause ongoing suffering and maiming. (Eg: gas/chemical warfare, dirty bombs, etc)
A lot of weapons tick both of those boxes, and there are possibly more i am unaware of.
Apart from that, their Russian attacker does not give a flying f-ck about international law from the start either, so after quite some illegal events (rape, torturing/killing POWs, shelling and bombing hospitals and schools), there is no reason to hold back any longer. It would just enable the Russians to maim and kill more Ukrainian civilists.
2,204 degrees Celsius in non-freedom units
Ukrainian drones now spray 2,500° C thermite streams
Looks like they turned up the heat.
Back to freedom units: 4532F.
…being in nursing school is giving me a strong hatred for the imperial system.
The doctor ordered 35mg/kg Watdafuqenol IV QID. Available is a 2’ by 15" section of torn out carpet soaked in spilled Watdafuqenol; when wrung out into the patient’s left shoe, you get 97 chipmunk-mouthfuls diluted to a concentration of 24 Watdafuqenol to 1 toe jam. How many shot glasses full do you administer?
Metric is excellent until it gets into data units. There shouldn’t be a difference between 4T and 4TB, but it’s actually a (10244-10004) ≈ 92.6G (99.5GB) difference because of the fuckers who decided to make data units metric and rename the base-2 data units to “kibibyte”/“mibi*”/“gibi*” (KiB/MiB/GiB)
For those also wondering (and I’m quoting a comment on Ars so may stand corrected…):
Isn’t this a violation of the Geneva Conventions?
Only if used to deliberately target infantry. The videoed operations so far seem to have been intended to burn away protective cover (trees/brush), which is a permitted use even if there’s a risk of inflicting casualties as a side effect of the application of incendiaries.
There’s a lot of people who seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to this “that’s a war crime!!1!”, but it really is not. Incendiary weapons (like thermite, white phosphorus and napalm) are not illegal to use against legitimate military targets, including enemy combatants. It’s only a war crime when it’s used indiscriminately against civilians or in civilian areas.
Lot of misinformation out there on this it seems.
I looked it up and you’re 100% right. Incendiary weapons are allowed as long as it doesn’t hit civilians or start a forest fire
https://www.weaponslaw.org/weapons/incendiary-weapons
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Incendiary_Weapons
Jesus fucking Christ
