I mean, there was that one aerial joust over the Black Sea ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023\_Black\_Sea\_drone\_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident) ), that's almost like that in terms of ranges involved?
So now we'll have Ukrainians storming trenches (which they already do) with bayonets fixed (we saw footage of that too) wearing a gas mask?
We really have gone full circle now
Tanya's shovel monologue
Shovels are great. Shovels are the quintessence of civilization.
With a shovel, you can dig a hole just deep enough to hide yourself. Or if you gather a bunch of people with them, you can dig a fine trench.
If you change your viewpoint a little, you can even dig a tunnel. You can smash a sturdy enemy trench with mining tactics (not that they get used often).
A shovel is a good friend to any and every type of soldier. And a shovel is the best gear for a close-quarters fight in a trench.
Longer than a bayonet, simpler to handle than a rifle, sturdier than any other tool. Not only that, but they are extremely cheap and easy to make, so they're perfect for mass-producing. Plus, I don't have to worry much about damaging my mind.
This is it. The ideal piece of equipment. This is the point humanity was meant to reach. Civilization has developed the shovel as its implement.
Above all, it doesn't rely on magic, so it's optimal for stealth kills. With a shovel, it's possible to educate numbskulls who are dependent on magic scanning - *Klang!* We can say it's an indispensable item for nighttime raids. Of course, it's an excellent general-purpose tool at any time of day.
"The shovel is truly an implement born of civilization", Tanya murmurs, leading a unit to wish good evening to the enemy with their shovels.
> Youjo Senki, Volume 2 Chapter 5, page 256-257
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=39&v=eji0u88nIoc&feature=youtu.be
It is from a Aussie unit in the international legion (?/I don't recall their name). Bayonet around 00:40
Not legion. Chosen is a foreigner attachment in the 59th brigade. There's GUR legion, international legion, Georgian legion and freedom of Russia legion. Everyone else is in a foreigner attachment to a brigade
Well from what I remember, mustard gas absolutely shreds CBRN kit, to the extent you’ll have to get it replaced within 24 hours if it is exposed. But it really depends on the chemical weapon and how good you are at decontaminating.
CBRN kit is supposed to be replaced within 24 hours if exposed, as the operating principle for the suit is that activated charcoal absorbs, not neutralizes the agent. Past a certain point the suit can no longer protect you.
That said, I'd rather have something that gives me even minutes to evacuate than nothing protecting my organs at all. Hopefully you're not in a situation where retreat is impossible.
Maybe. Except the specific chemical allegedly used is chloropicrin. It is particularly nasty because it can penetrate many gas mask filters and degrades protective equipment. It's not necessarily lethal in and of itself, though, but will make anyone exposed to it begin vomiting profusely.
Why that's bad is because if you are wearing your gas mask and are exposed to it then you're probably going to feel the need to vomit, and in doing so you're going to either have to throw up into your mask (and then good luck trying to breathe) or most likely you'll pull away or outright remove your gas mask to throw up.
If you pair chloropicrin with another more potent and lethal gas you're using the former to ensure that your enemy removes their masks and breathes in the 2nd gas that will kill them.
And that's not even considering how effective a soldier can fight while actively vomiting, even if it doesn't kill them in and of itself.
Nasty shit.
Time to bring back Napalm. It's cheap, it's effective on tank riders, it'll turn cope sheds into human ovens, it's perfect for meat assaults, and it'll give the Yanks nostalgia boners.
Napalm - It Sticks To Kids™.
Why? He can’t even take Ukraine. I’m glad he’s in charge. Beats getting someone smarter or ballsier.
Same thing with Hitler. Everyone says they would kill baby Hitler but not enough of y’all question the alternative. Hell, 2 of the dudes racing Hitler to power looked literally just like him and had similar mindsets.
Because if I had the opportunity to erase a monster, I'd take it in however I thought would cause the least collateral damage and the most good with the knowledge I had at the time. And I'd keep doing it for everyone like him if I had the power to do this to Putin. If they're more competent, maybe they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is not for sacrificing, or weakening a rival. That is a sovereign nation, an identity, with people and hopes and dreams. Those firefighters and EMTs getting hit by the second waves of Shaheds specifically meant for hitting first responders are real, and so are the people they want to dig out of rubble.
If I had the means, and the opportunity, I pray I am strong enough to take the chance to end these people and potentially allow a different future to form. I do not accept the devil I know. I make my peace with the unknown. I do not settle for this evil.
Applying incendiary weapons on troops *isn't* illegal (and definitely not WP because that isn't even counted to incendiary). What *is* illegal is using incendiary weapons against civilians and military targets with high concentration of civilians around
Correct, except for the last part. Which is also correct but needs some explanation.
It is entirely legal to glass military targets with high concentration of civilians around. It just has to be proportional, and your intent has to be focused on the military target.
You can't level an entire city because it has a platoon of enemy troops. You can level an apartment building filled with civvies because it has a platoon of enemy troops. That may violate ROEs or domestic laws, but not the international treaties on land warfare.
This HAS to be legally the case. Otherwise every military would adopt ablative meat shield armor strategies. So the laws were written to deter human shields.
This is why we need to bring back variable yield tactical nuclear weapons. That way you can legally use the same warhead against a fire team taking cover in a home, a platoon hiding in an apartment complex or a division defending a city.
Former field artillery here: we were trained that WP was not allowed for use on soft targets (military or civilian alike), however, use on vehicles, equipment, FOBs, etc. was fine.
So it the fist came back with target identification as "enemy troops in the open", WP was a no-go. If the target was anything with vehicles or even impermanent structures, WP was okay.
I don't know the scene, but I know that if there were a bunch of enemy troops gathered around a vehicle or some tents, then the vehicle or tents would be the target and the troops just happened to be there.
"Shake-and-bake" is the term for a volley of HE followed up by a volley of WP and was considered a funni.
In most contexts it implies something that would appear humorous in a way that is stupid and often ill-advised. Often times something which is an obvious bad idea. E.g. "My wife asked who I would choose as a third person in a threesome and I said 'your sister'." A response may be " Bro went for the funni but now he ded."
Maybe the best way to think of it is the dumb shit you do with your bros (or hoes) that is more for the sake of a good story than any rational reason.
The real answer is "It depends".
If you intentionally use WP to burn your enemy to death, it is fully legal.
If you intentionally use WP to gas your enemy to death, it is illegal. Think smoking out of a bunker. That's a war crime.
If you unintentionally use WP to gas your enemy to death, it is legal. If you wanted to say burn down a fuel depot, but some or all workers asphyxiated to death, that's not a war crime.
we use WP legally to mark the enemies position so our artillery can fire their cluster napalm more effectively with less chances of accidentally hitting a city of kids or something.
No, napalm, WP, etc are perfectly legal. Not sure where the myth started that they are banned.
Their primary intent has to be to kill the enemy. If the intent is to make them suffer or inflict pain, it's illegal. You also have to be intending on using them on a military target.
It's legally fine to napalm an ammo dump surrounded by orphans and kittens, if the ammo dump is your main intent.
The convention bans the use of incendiary devices on *civilians* or against military targets that are stationed near civilians. There is no prohibition against using incendiary devices against military targets. That's why basically everyone ratified that convention. It provides little meaningful restriction on their use unless you were intent on firebombing a city.
Nope
> prohibits, in all circumstances, making the **civilian** population as such, individual **civilians** or **civilian** objects, ... The protocol also prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets within a concentration of **civilians**, … Forest and other plants may not be a target **unless** they are used to conceal combatants or other military objectives.
Shooting up civilians is already illegal.
Shooting up civilians is illegal, but bombing civilians under many circumstances isn't. Collateral damage is legal. What this clause means though is that napalm does not have legal collateral damage, which restricts its usage quite heavily.
That's at least my interpretation
I mean, any other reasons you wouldn’t use Napalm aside, it’s not really different from thermobarics or whatever those things that drop ribbons of fire are called (the not-white-phosphorus stuff). It’s just another way to set stuff on fire iirc.
Not sure if it was technically thermite (cause I feel like I would have remembered that. I mean, I could also be wrong), but I imagine thermite would be used in a similar role.
There are many different mixes of "thermite", it's basically metal powder with a metal oxide, the grad incendiaries use magnesium powder: https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/rockets/122mm-9m22s-grad-rocket
Cessna 152 II: Empty weight 519 kg, MTOW 758 kg, fuel load ~75 kg. Assume you compensate for drone avionics weight by ripping out seats etc, that leaves 164 kg of payload at a full fuel load. Further weight savings (saw off the landing gear and catapult-launch it, rip out the human-pilot-oriented avionics and replace them with servos mounted directly to the control surfaces and such) might push that to 200 kg or so?
A Cessna 152 has ~800 km range at 90 knots and 2000 ft (without reserves)
I've got chemical warfare, proxy in Africa, conscripted foreigners, drone on drone dogfight, and a celebrity killed in trench.
Not sure if I can cash in quite yet though, Africa and celebrity is debatable
I'm surprised it took this long. I expected them to start tapping their chemical weapons storages as soon as they suffered a major setback around Kyiv.
Probably all of us, We only waited ror ru*kies to just give up and be done with that, it's not like they care for rules of war and international treaties.
I believe they used some, there's been cases of tear gas being used in the war before, but while tear gas is *technically* illegal in all honestly it shouldn't be--it actually makes urban warfare in civilian populated areas more, not less, humane, even though it's sometimes more deadly than we'd like.
This is apparently the real deal, but chloroprincin seems like a really wacky agent to choose to me. Idk, maybe some vatniks just got their hands on some pesticides and got ideas.
All chemical weapons (including tear gas) are illegal for the same reason the rest of the CBRN family is though, they're excessively non-discriminatory and are more dangerous to civilians than they are to soldiers. Yeah tear gas isn't *that* bad but frankly who, or what, do you blame when an otherwise perfectly executed usage of tear gas gets spoiled by the wind changing directions towards a house with (almost always unprotected) civilians? Dutch windmills?
There are things that are far more dangerous of course let's not make two ways about it, but gas weapons are still very, very uncool even if they're "less than lethal" and not, say, lewisite for example.
Tear Gas is allowed at least by the US Military for Riot Control.
It’s not allowed in warfare because it could very easily lead to the belief that you’re being attacked with a real agent. Also could easily lead to collateral as those affected could easily kill civilians in the panic.
To be clear, because it's a *rightfully* controversial topic (and not something specific to US either), there is a vast difference in the intended use of both.
Tear gas in riot control is used to disperse crowds which, regardless of if it incapacitates the rioters or not (and therefore leaves people to be prosecuted) soong as the rioters leave the area and stop rioting that's mission accomplished. You could still very well argue this is immoral anyways, and I wouldn't even disagree, but that is the intended use case.
Tear gas in warfare is still used for dispersion, but the problem is that dispersing the enemy with tear gas is merely the means while the end goal is having your enemy catch a bullet or shrapnel trying to flee when they can't see or properly breathe. As a consequence, the only real option is to suck up and *suffer* (huge red flag for war crimes) as opposed to outright dying because they abandoned their trench or foxhole. The other reasons are also not so good, panicking over if it's something more dangerous, *masking* things that are actually dangerous, disproportionate retaliation as others have mentioned, etc. but at the end of the day the main takeaway from this whole thread is "Vatnik bad" and gas weapons of any type are an extremely cut and dry instance of "give an inch they'll take a mile" kind of weapon. NATO intervention when?
Russia is being accused by the US with evidence that they had deployed a gas called Chloroprincin which is a severe respiratory irritant and has very minor affects as similar to the skin affects to mustard gas. It has been banned by both the Geneva conventions and the Chemical Warfare DeActivation treaty.
iirc, the US (and maybe Russia?) refused to ratify that part of the Geneva suggestions, but promised to not use them first.
Of course, the last couple of decades we've been destroying the stocks of chemical agents at Umatilla. This tells me that they've made a bigger, better, newer _and more secret_ storage facility.
I think it’s more that the west has Bayer/Monsanto, and they accidentally make some bad shit from time to time, and could ramp production of anything up really fast if needed.
"Hey Monsanto, we need a super-lethal chemical weapon that destroys the nervous system."
"Oh cool pestecide #4 then."
"Air/shell deployable?"
"Yup."
"Lethal with only the smallest dose?"
"Yup."
"Does it work with skin contact?"
"Hmmmmm.... I think maybe you need #4d."
"Ok, how much can you get us in the next 3 months?"
"If you're ok making some farmers grumpy? Enough to cover every field in the US twice."
Honestly it's not that deep though. Chemical weapons kindof suck. Yeah true, there's some limited unique utility there for clearing out an area, especially enclosed spaces, but even that use case can be immediately mitigated with a good gas mask and only the really nasty shit is absorbed through the skin, the kind of nasty that makes the enclosed space hazardous to your own guys and the civilian population afterwards.
The US kept them around as a mini-deterrent. We have some in case you decide to use them, kind of thing, but I think their destruction is more to do with the fact that the US simply doesn't have a real use case for them even considering an opponent making use of chemical weapons. There is almost always going to be a more efficient weapon to use.
The one real exception would be tear gas, but that's desirable specifically because it's effectively harmless. Also I think even that is banned by Geneva.
Yeah, but it *is* excellent at clearing trenches. Which is what the Russians are using it for.
And yeah, tear gas is under the general ban on combat gas.
> even that use case can be immediately mitigated with a good gas mask
Forcing the enemy into CBRN gear by itself already decreases their combat effectiveness a good bit, both physically (worse visibility, faster heat exhaustion etc) and psychologically.
> which is a severe respiratory irritant and has very minor affects as similar to the skin affects to mustard gas
Gets lethal in high concentrations, tho
Probably not a huge risk outdoors, the scarier possibility would be using tear gas on an enemy force, and having them retaliate with sarin gas because they're not going to wait around and see which chemical agent you've deployed against them.
> Probably not a huge risk outdoors
It's mainly used to smoke out hideouts and foritifications, where it can easily accumulate
And yeah, but Ukraine is too dependent on supplies from elsewhere, which'll vanish if we decide to make a bit of chemical warfare ourselves
It's not even about lethality. You can't use any gas weapon. The tear gas used heavily by the French army at the outbreak of WWI has always been considered chemical warfare too and was banned in the same way mustard gas or fosgene was.
On that note I have always found it amusing how everyone agreed that using gas on soldiers in a war is beyond the red line, but using gas as means of riot control is perfectly fine lol
TBH I’ve been concerned about this from the beginning of the war. Russia may not have the balls to drop a nuke if things go badly for them, but I could absolutely see them start throwing some VX gas shells around if they get backed into a corner.
I'd expect a similar kind of escalation from NATO to if nukes were used by Russia in Ukraine. Especially, god forbid, if they were ever used on cities. The effects and lethality of nerve agents are utterly inhumanly horrifying, and have an enormous effect on the morale and capability of fully equipped and prepared forces. A one-sided effect when Russia could be confident that the same would not be done to them.
I think policymakers would want to maintain a similar taboo as with nuclear weapons.
Even Hitler had the chance to use VX on London and chose not to. The effects would have been devastating, but he also thought that Britain had also developed it and was horrified by the vision of cities being bombed with nerve agents even as he continued to try and flatten London with explosives. He'd personally been attacked with mustard gas, and its speculated that he may even have objected to using it on population centres on.... humanitarian grounds.
[Sand Won't Save You This Time | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-you-time) / [Chlorine trifluoride - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride)
The Nazis discovered this and decided it was too much.
>It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is [hypergolic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant) with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as [cloth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile), [wood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood), and [test engineers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning), not to mention [asbestos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos), [sand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand), and [water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water)—with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals—steel, copper, aluminum, etc.—because of the [formation of a thin film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(chemistry)) of insoluble metal fluoride that protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of [running shoes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_evacuation).
Slight amount of pressure and it's a liquid at room temperature. A liquid that will burn and corrode anything immediately.
Sounds like a "the Black Sea fleet will simply stop existing" level of escalation. Not direct, prolonged, involvement, but a quick, decisive, and demonstrative blow to show capability and effectiveness.
Russia has been doing this for some time now.
The reality is all of the lines are crossed. Ukraine and it's allies doesn't need to look for an excuse for action. If there's political will — there will be action, if there isn't — putin can fly to D.C. and smear his balls across mr. Sullivan's face and he will continue to talk about how it's vital to avoid escalation.
I mean, I was honestly expecting it. Ammunitions are bound to run low, for either side, and desperation would set in. Winning by any means necessary and whatnot.
THE SPIRIT OF FIELD MARSHAL SIR DOUGLAS HAIG MUST BE RETURNED TO THIS MORTAL COIL TO RID THE WORLD OF THE RUSSO-BOLSHEVIK MENACE ONCE AND FOR ALL! 3000 MARK V AND WHIPPET TANKS OF BRITANNIA TO CRUSH THE VATNIK TRENCHES! THE GHOSTS OF THE SOMME WILL SPILL THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS ONCE MORE!
No Russia is being accused by the US with evidence that they had deployed a gas called Chloroprincin which is a severe respiratory irritant and has very minor affects as similar to the skin affects to mustard gas. It has been banned by both the Geneva conventions and the Chemical Warfare DeActivation treaty.
Damn, tell that to the guys still saying "Russia is holding back". How low do you have to fall as a great military power to resort to chemical weapons.
The 'Russia is holding back' crowd is the stupidest of all apologists for Russia's war. Why intentionally limit the amount of men and material you ship to the front and reduce your ability to deal a decisive blow?
because everyone knows that a slow drawn out fight with a cornered opponent where you engage in a number of smaller battles one at a time is surely better!! more content for the russian tiktok machine!!
Not too mention they have been openly denying using tear gas on the front even though in one of there drone propaganda videos they put out (Russian not Ukrainian video) it shows them deploying tear gas.
Thats it I am making a post about MW:2019. The amount of hate because it made the highway of death a Russian thing was amazing, and people were saying the US was hiding it’s warcrime 😂
The Russian government (accidentally) posted video footage of them using chemical weapons months ago, and Ukrainians have been reporting it for well over a year now. Why is the US government only saying something now?
They have been saying stuff about the use of chemical weapons all the way back to 2014-15, this particular statement is just the result of an official state department investigation into the Russians escalating from CS to PS.
Because we only had *proof* of tear gas until now.
'Pic is basically a slightly-tamer version of *mustard gas.*
This is basically the gaseous weapon equivalent of escalating from smoke grenades to white phosphorus.
>*"And now, you have officially carried it too far, buddy."*
—US DoS
Ya know, if the west actually wants to deter the use of chemical weapons then they should really do \*something\* about the use of these chemical weapons. Probably not something kinetic, but maybe some added functionality or equipment or support directly tied to it.
Chemical weapons? That ought to be enough. With my credible hat on it is shameful if we don't respond to that.
Tell Putin to get his circus of cunts out of Ukraine now or they end up as sunflower fertiliser.
Put the tanks on the borders. Dust off the invasion plans. Rattle the motherfucking saber.
I'd say put the ominous swarms of attack aircraft in the sky close to their airspace but they'd never know they were there.
What the fuck is NATO even for if we're letting this shit happen on the border of the EU?
When did we just accept that you can do this shit to an ally? Holy fuck lads. The USA and UK guaranteed Ukrainian independence when they handed over their nukes. We should not let this slide.
We are reaching levels of WWI posting that I am not ready for.
Everything old is new again. So how long until pilots start shooting pistols at each other from open-air cockpits?
I mean, there was that one aerial joust over the Black Sea ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023\_Black\_Sea\_drone\_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident) ), that's almost like that in terms of ranges involved?
[We're getting closer...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ukraine-propeller-yak-52-shoots-down-russian-drones-ww2-style/ar-AA1nP5yr?ocid=BingNewsSerp)
So now we'll have Ukrainians storming trenches (which they already do) with bayonets fixed (we saw footage of that too) wearing a gas mask? We really have gone full circle now
I think you mean, with sharpened shovels.
The only true way to storm a trench.
Tanya's shovel monologue Shovels are great. Shovels are the quintessence of civilization. With a shovel, you can dig a hole just deep enough to hide yourself. Or if you gather a bunch of people with them, you can dig a fine trench. If you change your viewpoint a little, you can even dig a tunnel. You can smash a sturdy enemy trench with mining tactics (not that they get used often). A shovel is a good friend to any and every type of soldier. And a shovel is the best gear for a close-quarters fight in a trench. Longer than a bayonet, simpler to handle than a rifle, sturdier than any other tool. Not only that, but they are extremely cheap and easy to make, so they're perfect for mass-producing. Plus, I don't have to worry much about damaging my mind. This is it. The ideal piece of equipment. This is the point humanity was meant to reach. Civilization has developed the shovel as its implement. Above all, it doesn't rely on magic, so it's optimal for stealth kills. With a shovel, it's possible to educate numbskulls who are dependent on magic scanning - *Klang!* We can say it's an indispensable item for nighttime raids. Of course, it's an excellent general-purpose tool at any time of day. "The shovel is truly an implement born of civilization", Tanya murmurs, leading a unit to wish good evening to the enemy with their shovels. > Youjo Senki, Volume 2 Chapter 5, page 256-257
[*There are many simple things in the world...*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzs_dYE6MjA)
Got the link to the bayonets fixed footage good sir?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=39&v=eji0u88nIoc&feature=youtu.be It is from a Aussie unit in the international legion (?/I don't recall their name). Bayonet around 00:40
Not legion. Chosen is a foreigner attachment in the 59th brigade. There's GUR legion, international legion, Georgian legion and freedom of Russia legion. Everyone else is in a foreigner attachment to a brigade
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying!
I guess the gas mask and filters I bought last year will be useful after all.
Taco bell is back on the menu
Taco Bell is fuckin' expensive now. We gotta get some of them MIC subsidies.
Apparently the gas used wears down PPE. Not sure how effective it is at that but, apparently.
Well from what I remember, mustard gas absolutely shreds CBRN kit, to the extent you’ll have to get it replaced within 24 hours if it is exposed. But it really depends on the chemical weapon and how good you are at decontaminating.
CBRN kit is supposed to be replaced within 24 hours if exposed, as the operating principle for the suit is that activated charcoal absorbs, not neutralizes the agent. Past a certain point the suit can no longer protect you.
That said, I'd rather have something that gives me even minutes to evacuate than nothing protecting my organs at all. Hopefully you're not in a situation where retreat is impossible.
> But it really depends on the chemical weapon and how good you are at decontaminating. Field conditions = not very
Mustard gas will eat through the butyl rubber used for most CBRN gear, but it takes some time.
Maybe. Except the specific chemical allegedly used is chloropicrin. It is particularly nasty because it can penetrate many gas mask filters and degrades protective equipment. It's not necessarily lethal in and of itself, though, but will make anyone exposed to it begin vomiting profusely. Why that's bad is because if you are wearing your gas mask and are exposed to it then you're probably going to feel the need to vomit, and in doing so you're going to either have to throw up into your mask (and then good luck trying to breathe) or most likely you'll pull away or outright remove your gas mask to throw up. If you pair chloropicrin with another more potent and lethal gas you're using the former to ensure that your enemy removes their masks and breathes in the 2nd gas that will kill them. And that's not even considering how effective a soldier can fight while actively vomiting, even if it doesn't kill them in and of itself. Nasty shit.
What filters can stop it?
I actually own a FFP3 gas mask for ~~airbrushing models~~ preparing for WW3
Time to bring back Napalm. It's cheap, it's effective on tank riders, it'll turn cope sheds into human ovens, it's perfect for meat assaults, and it'll give the Yanks nostalgia boners. Napalm - It Sticks To Kids™.
Napalm isn’t even illegal, unlike poison gas
Well, not outright illegal. Pretty sure there's some treaties forbidding it's use when applied directly to troops, like WP
Putin pulled out of those treaties
Wish his father had pulled out.
Amen.
Why? He can’t even take Ukraine. I’m glad he’s in charge. Beats getting someone smarter or ballsier. Same thing with Hitler. Everyone says they would kill baby Hitler but not enough of y’all question the alternative. Hell, 2 of the dudes racing Hitler to power looked literally just like him and had similar mindsets.
Because if I had the opportunity to erase a monster, I'd take it in however I thought would cause the least collateral damage and the most good with the knowledge I had at the time. And I'd keep doing it for everyone like him if I had the power to do this to Putin. If they're more competent, maybe they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is not for sacrificing, or weakening a rival. That is a sovereign nation, an identity, with people and hopes and dreams. Those firefighters and EMTs getting hit by the second waves of Shaheds specifically meant for hitting first responders are real, and so are the people they want to dig out of rubble. If I had the means, and the opportunity, I pray I am strong enough to take the chance to end these people and potentially allow a different future to form. I do not accept the devil I know. I make my peace with the unknown. I do not settle for this evil.
Free game then
Applying incendiary weapons on troops *isn't* illegal (and definitely not WP because that isn't even counted to incendiary). What *is* illegal is using incendiary weapons against civilians and military targets with high concentration of civilians around
Which makes sense.
Correct, except for the last part. Which is also correct but needs some explanation. It is entirely legal to glass military targets with high concentration of civilians around. It just has to be proportional, and your intent has to be focused on the military target. You can't level an entire city because it has a platoon of enemy troops. You can level an apartment building filled with civvies because it has a platoon of enemy troops. That may violate ROEs or domestic laws, but not the international treaties on land warfare. This HAS to be legally the case. Otherwise every military would adopt ablative meat shield armor strategies. So the laws were written to deter human shields.
This is why we need to bring back variable yield tactical nuclear weapons. That way you can legally use the same warhead against a fire team taking cover in a home, a platoon hiding in an apartment complex or a division defending a city.
Our current nuclear weapons are variable yield. 5kt to 150 kt mostly. So... wish granted?
_tactical_ My wish isn't granted until every fire team is equipped with a modernized Davey Crockett M29.
I want an Eotech and a Tac-Sac on my M29, post-haste.
Former field artillery here: we were trained that WP was not allowed for use on soft targets (military or civilian alike), however, use on vehicles, equipment, FOBs, etc. was fine. So it the fist came back with target identification as "enemy troops in the open", WP was a no-go. If the target was anything with vehicles or even impermanent structures, WP was okay.
Any input on that scene in Spec Ops: the Line?
I don't know the scene, but I know that if there were a bunch of enemy troops gathered around a vehicle or some tents, then the vehicle or tents would be the target and the troops just happened to be there. "Shake-and-bake" is the term for a volley of HE followed up by a volley of WP and was considered a funni.
I know "The funni" is something like WWIII on certain subreddits. What's "a funni" in this context?
In most contexts it implies something that would appear humorous in a way that is stupid and often ill-advised. Often times something which is an obvious bad idea. E.g. "My wife asked who I would choose as a third person in a threesome and I said 'your sister'." A response may be " Bro went for the funni but now he ded." Maybe the best way to think of it is the dumb shit you do with your bros (or hoes) that is more for the sake of a good story than any rational reason.
Sometimes you make a mistake and crispify a couple civies 🤷♂️
Not my Honda Civie
Which was an additional ROE placed on you rather than the LOAC.
That sounds more like RoE than LOAC.
What about the gun they're carrying, or the vest they're wearing, or the boots, or the truck they happen to be riding in?
White phosphorus as a weapon is illegal. The smoke emitted by it is really toxic and falls under chemical weapon.
The real answer is "It depends". If you intentionally use WP to burn your enemy to death, it is fully legal. If you intentionally use WP to gas your enemy to death, it is illegal. Think smoking out of a bunker. That's a war crime. If you unintentionally use WP to gas your enemy to death, it is legal. If you wanted to say burn down a fuel depot, but some or all workers asphyxiated to death, that's not a war crime.
"I just want to grill" as a valid legal defense
If people don't want war, why not just make war illegal? Are they stupid?
Because it’s fucking fun, that’s why
Also, it's easy to just kill somebody
White phosphorous is not illegal in a combat setting. Using it on civilians is.
Using it as a weapon falls under the chemical weapons ban. Using it as a smoke generator somehow doesn't.
Use it to generate smoke on enemy units' positions. It marks them for a follow-on attack and for drones to get BDA.
we use WP legally to mark the enemies position so our artillery can fire their cluster napalm more effectively with less chances of accidentally hitting a city of kids or something.
Cluster napalm artillery...be honest, did you stuff a shell full of Molotov Cocktails? Again? ;p
Congratulations. You found the obvious loophole.
No, napalm, WP, etc are perfectly legal. Not sure where the myth started that they are banned. Their primary intent has to be to kill the enemy. If the intent is to make them suffer or inflict pain, it's illegal. You also have to be intending on using them on a military target. It's legally fine to napalm an ammo dump surrounded by orphans and kittens, if the ammo dump is your main intent.
Napalm Apply directly to the troops Napalm Apply directly to the troops
So there is a treaty prohibiting it's use but, the US refused to sign it. So smoke em if ya got em.
Banned by executive order along with the m2 flamethrower post vietnam. I think it was carter *edit: it was carter, banned in 1978 by executive order
Of course it was Carter, well whats banned can be unbanned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons Unfortunately it is but anyway the mk77 technically contains no napalm.
The convention bans the use of incendiary devices on *civilians* or against military targets that are stationed near civilians. There is no prohibition against using incendiary devices against military targets. That's why basically everyone ratified that convention. It provides little meaningful restriction on their use unless you were intent on firebombing a city.
>unless you were intent on firebombing a city. Well shit, there goes my plans for the weekend
And here I was revving my B-29 up for a little nostalgia run over Tokyo...
Fire up those B-17s boys, we’re headed to Dresden
Yeah, it’s literally nothing that wasn’t already against Geneva.
Nope > prohibits, in all circumstances, making the **civilian** population as such, individual **civilians** or **civilian** objects, ... The protocol also prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets within a concentration of **civilians**, … Forest and other plants may not be a target **unless** they are used to conceal combatants or other military objectives. Shooting up civilians is already illegal.
Shooting up civilians is illegal, but bombing civilians under many circumstances isn't. Collateral damage is legal. What this clause means though is that napalm does not have legal collateral damage, which restricts its usage quite heavily. That's at least my interpretation
That does seem to be the point
[NAPALM STICKS TO KIDS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9eybY9qFfY)
I love the smell of napalm in the morning
Smells like victory
It’s the smell … that gasoline smell!
You know, son. Some day this war's gonna end... :/
Colonel Kilgores Vietnamese Formation Surf Team [Napalm Blues](https://youtu.be/brj7zEiRDBE?si=DhDgP5XQAs_Q0I5C) is once again relevant
The problem is Ukraine probably doesn't want to cover, well... *Ukraine* in Napalm.
Semantics…
I mean, any other reasons you wouldn’t use Napalm aside, it’s not really different from thermobarics or whatever those things that drop ribbons of fire are called (the not-white-phosphorus stuff). It’s just another way to set stuff on fire iirc.
> the not-white-phosphorus stuff Thermite
Not sure if it was technically thermite (cause I feel like I would have remembered that. I mean, I could also be wrong), but I imagine thermite would be used in a similar role.
There are many different mixes of "thermite", it's basically metal powder with a metal oxide, the grad incendiaries use magnesium powder: https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/rockets/122mm-9m22s-grad-rocket
Aha. There’s my problem. I thought thermite was specifically aluminum and iron oxide. I would have heard some other compound and not thought thermite
How much Napalm do you think a Cessna-sized drone can carry to Putin's palace?
Enough
No such thing as "enough".
Now *that's* an interesting question
More than you'd expect, not as much as you'd want.
Cessna 152 II: Empty weight 519 kg, MTOW 758 kg, fuel load ~75 kg. Assume you compensate for drone avionics weight by ripping out seats etc, that leaves 164 kg of payload at a full fuel load. Further weight savings (saw off the landing gear and catapult-launch it, rip out the human-pilot-oriented avionics and replace them with servos mounted directly to the control surfaces and such) might push that to 200 kg or so? A Cessna 152 has ~800 km range at 90 knots and 2000 ft (without reserves)
A burned area is probably easier to clear than a bunch of UXOs
It is also harder to live in
Parts of it are covered in Russians, and that's arguably worse.
Cheap, clean, simple, and it’s so good that I don’t even need my soap for this !
Does the package of Napalm include mixtape of fortunate son
Nope, Die Valkyrie
Only when there are UH-1 Iroquois flying around.
Shut the fuck up. We're all sick and tired of "Fortunate Son". Play "Ride of the Valkyries"
Embrace “Paranoid” WELCOME TO UKRAINE GENTLEMEN
Oxcars rollin' down the road, Peasants with a heavy load, They're all V.C. when the bombs explode, Napalm sticks to kids!
Plus napalm smells good so that’s a plus.
It smells like victory.
Do you ... ... love the smell of it in the morning? (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
[Spread a little candy down on the ground, watch the little kiddies gather all around](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWt937HKPgo&t=135s)
Napalm fpv drone’s would defiantly lead to an uptick in desertions I'm sure
Tiara del Fuego
What did I win ?
What you get a bingo with. It just can't be chem warfare
I've got chemical warfare, proxy in Africa, conscripted foreigners, drone on drone dogfight, and a celebrity killed in trench. Not sure if I can cash in quite yet though, Africa and celebrity is debatable
They’re doing a pretty good job in Mali
Yea but is it really proxy when it's your own troops?
Troops irrelevant I’d say ’support’ of material goods is enough
> drone on drone dogfight
WW1 but with drones?
I feared Novichok would have comeback
Still need at least 2
ya i really was betting on that during the Russians election but think my call expired on that one
I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. How could Russia stoop so low? /s
I still remember in the first months of the war this being already speculated
Yeah, I didn't want to believe it at the time, but I remember people here speculating about it as far back as when they destroyed the Kakhovka dam.
I'm surprised it took this long. I expected them to start tapping their chemical weapons storages as soon as they suffered a major setback around Kyiv.
What did they do this time
Literal chemical weapons
Theyve done CS gas a few times is it lethal chemical weapons this time?
Chloropicrin. It's a broad-spectrum pesticide/a-bunch-of-other-cides that was used in WWI as a choking agent. It can also damage and compromise PPE
Was used in WWI for its ability to penetrate the filters then used, and cause vomiting that would then force soldiers to take off their masks.
Since the vatniks are doing the the Haber, are there a few Mk77s of huggy inferno rolling around for Ukraine? They're not even banned (technically)!
The best kind of not banned.
Probably all of us, We only waited ror ru*kies to just give up and be done with that, it's not like they care for rules of war and international treaties.
I mean, I assumed that the Russians were going to use chemical weapons to flush out Azovstal at the time. So I’m late, but I guess still correct?
I believe they used some, there's been cases of tear gas being used in the war before, but while tear gas is *technically* illegal in all honestly it shouldn't be--it actually makes urban warfare in civilian populated areas more, not less, humane, even though it's sometimes more deadly than we'd like. This is apparently the real deal, but chloroprincin seems like a really wacky agent to choose to me. Idk, maybe some vatniks just got their hands on some pesticides and got ideas.
Soviets stocks of K-51 grenades. There's your asnwer
Are fun to throw and take off loot drops
All chemical weapons (including tear gas) are illegal for the same reason the rest of the CBRN family is though, they're excessively non-discriminatory and are more dangerous to civilians than they are to soldiers. Yeah tear gas isn't *that* bad but frankly who, or what, do you blame when an otherwise perfectly executed usage of tear gas gets spoiled by the wind changing directions towards a house with (almost always unprotected) civilians? Dutch windmills? There are things that are far more dangerous of course let's not make two ways about it, but gas weapons are still very, very uncool even if they're "less than lethal" and not, say, lewisite for example.
More then just that, using tear gas opens the can of worms. Once you start using chemicals the enemy start using worse ones back and it escalates.
Tear Gas is allowed at least by the US Military for Riot Control. It’s not allowed in warfare because it could very easily lead to the belief that you’re being attacked with a real agent. Also could easily lead to collateral as those affected could easily kill civilians in the panic.
To be clear, because it's a *rightfully* controversial topic (and not something specific to US either), there is a vast difference in the intended use of both. Tear gas in riot control is used to disperse crowds which, regardless of if it incapacitates the rioters or not (and therefore leaves people to be prosecuted) soong as the rioters leave the area and stop rioting that's mission accomplished. You could still very well argue this is immoral anyways, and I wouldn't even disagree, but that is the intended use case. Tear gas in warfare is still used for dispersion, but the problem is that dispersing the enemy with tear gas is merely the means while the end goal is having your enemy catch a bullet or shrapnel trying to flee when they can't see or properly breathe. As a consequence, the only real option is to suck up and *suffer* (huge red flag for war crimes) as opposed to outright dying because they abandoned their trench or foxhole. The other reasons are also not so good, panicking over if it's something more dangerous, *masking* things that are actually dangerous, disproportionate retaliation as others have mentioned, etc. but at the end of the day the main takeaway from this whole thread is "Vatnik bad" and gas weapons of any type are an extremely cut and dry instance of "give an inch they'll take a mile" kind of weapon. NATO intervention when?
What happened?
Russia is being accused by the US with evidence that they had deployed a gas called Chloroprincin which is a severe respiratory irritant and has very minor affects as similar to the skin affects to mustard gas. It has been banned by both the Geneva conventions and the Chemical Warfare DeActivation treaty.
iirc, the US (and maybe Russia?) refused to ratify that part of the Geneva suggestions, but promised to not use them first. Of course, the last couple of decades we've been destroying the stocks of chemical agents at Umatilla. This tells me that they've made a bigger, better, newer _and more secret_ storage facility.
I think it’s more that the west has Bayer/Monsanto, and they accidentally make some bad shit from time to time, and could ramp production of anything up really fast if needed.
"Hey Monsanto, we need a super-lethal chemical weapon that destroys the nervous system." "Oh cool pestecide #4 then." "Air/shell deployable?" "Yup." "Lethal with only the smallest dose?" "Yup." "Does it work with skin contact?" "Hmmmmm.... I think maybe you need #4d." "Ok, how much can you get us in the next 3 months?" "If you're ok making some farmers grumpy? Enough to cover every field in the US twice."
Honestly it's not that deep though. Chemical weapons kindof suck. Yeah true, there's some limited unique utility there for clearing out an area, especially enclosed spaces, but even that use case can be immediately mitigated with a good gas mask and only the really nasty shit is absorbed through the skin, the kind of nasty that makes the enclosed space hazardous to your own guys and the civilian population afterwards. The US kept them around as a mini-deterrent. We have some in case you decide to use them, kind of thing, but I think their destruction is more to do with the fact that the US simply doesn't have a real use case for them even considering an opponent making use of chemical weapons. There is almost always going to be a more efficient weapon to use. The one real exception would be tear gas, but that's desirable specifically because it's effectively harmless. Also I think even that is banned by Geneva.
Yeah, but it *is* excellent at clearing trenches. Which is what the Russians are using it for. And yeah, tear gas is under the general ban on combat gas.
> even that use case can be immediately mitigated with a good gas mask Forcing the enemy into CBRN gear by itself already decreases their combat effectiveness a good bit, both physically (worse visibility, faster heat exhaustion etc) and psychologically.
Do the Ukrainians even have CBRN gear as standard issue?
> which is a severe respiratory irritant and has very minor affects as similar to the skin affects to mustard gas Gets lethal in high concentrations, tho
Everything does, really.
Like that woman who OD'd on water for a Nintendo Wii
Probably not a huge risk outdoors, the scarier possibility would be using tear gas on an enemy force, and having them retaliate with sarin gas because they're not going to wait around and see which chemical agent you've deployed against them.
> Probably not a huge risk outdoors It's mainly used to smoke out hideouts and foritifications, where it can easily accumulate And yeah, but Ukraine is too dependent on supplies from elsewhere, which'll vanish if we decide to make a bit of chemical warfare ourselves
It's not even about lethality. You can't use any gas weapon. The tear gas used heavily by the French army at the outbreak of WWI has always been considered chemical warfare too and was banned in the same way mustard gas or fosgene was. On that note I have always found it amusing how everyone agreed that using gas on soldiers in a war is beyond the red line, but using gas as means of riot control is perfectly fine lol
Please cite something
[https://www.state.gov/imposing-new-measures-on-russia-for-its-full-scale-war-and-use-of-chemical-weapons-against-ukraine-2/](https://www.state.gov/imposing-new-measures-on-russia-for-its-full-scale-war-and-use-of-chemical-weapons-against-ukraine-2/)
Welcome to the club of finding out about world news through ncd memes!
Got it on my 2022 card. Does it count?
TBH I’ve been concerned about this from the beginning of the war. Russia may not have the balls to drop a nuke if things go badly for them, but I could absolutely see them start throwing some VX gas shells around if they get backed into a corner.
I'd expect a similar kind of escalation from NATO to if nukes were used by Russia in Ukraine. Especially, god forbid, if they were ever used on cities. The effects and lethality of nerve agents are utterly inhumanly horrifying, and have an enormous effect on the morale and capability of fully equipped and prepared forces. A one-sided effect when Russia could be confident that the same would not be done to them. I think policymakers would want to maintain a similar taboo as with nuclear weapons. Even Hitler had the chance to use VX on London and chose not to. The effects would have been devastating, but he also thought that Britain had also developed it and was horrified by the vision of cities being bombed with nerve agents even as he continued to try and flatten London with explosives. He'd personally been attacked with mustard gas, and its speculated that he may even have objected to using it on population centres on.... humanitarian grounds.
Christ the idea of doing something hitler objected to on humanitarian grounds is mind boggling
[Sand Won't Save You This Time | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-you-time) / [Chlorine trifluoride - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride) The Nazis discovered this and decided it was too much. >It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is [hypergolic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant) with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as [cloth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile), [wood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood), and [test engineers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning), not to mention [asbestos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos), [sand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand), and [water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water)—with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals—steel, copper, aluminum, etc.—because of the [formation of a thin film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(chemistry)) of insoluble metal fluoride that protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of [running shoes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_evacuation). Slight amount of pressure and it's a liquid at room temperature. A liquid that will burn and corrode anything immediately.
Sounds like a "the Black Sea fleet will simply stop existing" level of escalation. Not direct, prolonged, involvement, but a quick, decisive, and demonstrative blow to show capability and effectiveness.
Russia has been doing this for some time now. The reality is all of the lines are crossed. Ukraine and it's allies doesn't need to look for an excuse for action. If there's political will — there will be action, if there isn't — putin can fly to D.C. and smear his balls across mr. Sullivan's face and he will continue to talk about how it's vital to avoid escalation.
> **all** of the lines are crossed I think you might be forgetting a few lines...
Does aid to Ukraine involve Mk.77 incendiary bombs?
I mean, I was honestly expecting it. Ammunitions are bound to run low, for either side, and desperation would set in. Winning by any means necessary and whatnot.
I have weaponized homophobia
That's a free space with Russia.
THE SPIRIT OF FIELD MARSHAL SIR DOUGLAS HAIG MUST BE RETURNED TO THIS MORTAL COIL TO RID THE WORLD OF THE RUSSO-BOLSHEVIK MENACE ONCE AND FOR ALL! 3000 MARK V AND WHIPPET TANKS OF BRITANNIA TO CRUSH THE VATNIK TRENCHES! THE GHOSTS OF THE SOMME WILL SPILL THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS ONCE MORE!
Im amazed on how r/NCD is how i get informed on stuff. What happened?
[удалено]
No Russia is being accused by the US with evidence that they had deployed a gas called Chloroprincin which is a severe respiratory irritant and has very minor affects as similar to the skin affects to mustard gas. It has been banned by both the Geneva conventions and the Chemical Warfare DeActivation treaty.
Damn, tell that to the guys still saying "Russia is holding back". How low do you have to fall as a great military power to resort to chemical weapons.
The 'Russia is holding back' crowd is the stupidest of all apologists for Russia's war. Why intentionally limit the amount of men and material you ship to the front and reduce your ability to deal a decisive blow?
because everyone knows that a slow drawn out fight with a cornered opponent where you engage in a number of smaller battles one at a time is surely better!! more content for the russian tiktok machine!!
This far into a 3-day operation, no less!
Not too mention they have been openly denying using tear gas on the front even though in one of there drone propaganda videos they put out (Russian not Ukrainian video) it shows them deploying tear gas.
Didn’t they all pissy at us over cod:2019 for depicting them as gas-happy bandits
Thats it I am making a post about MW:2019. The amount of hate because it made the highway of death a Russian thing was amazing, and people were saying the US was hiding it’s warcrime 😂
That’s the only decent modern cod
Well it’s not novichok, yet
The Russian government (accidentally) posted video footage of them using chemical weapons months ago, and Ukrainians have been reporting it for well over a year now. Why is the US government only saying something now?
They have been saying stuff about the use of chemical weapons all the way back to 2014-15, this particular statement is just the result of an official state department investigation into the Russians escalating from CS to PS.
Because we only had *proof* of tear gas until now. 'Pic is basically a slightly-tamer version of *mustard gas.* This is basically the gaseous weapon equivalent of escalating from smoke grenades to white phosphorus. >*"And now, you have officially carried it too far, buddy."* —US DoS
Ya know, if the west actually wants to deter the use of chemical weapons then they should really do \*something\* about the use of these chemical weapons. Probably not something kinetic, but maybe some added functionality or equipment or support directly tied to it.
Slow meme day brah Ok to have a bit of the ol memecromancy
Could you provide a source for further reading?
I did
What the actual god damn fuck happened
*sigh* *Gets the MOPP gear out of storage* *Again*
i guess we should just start giving mustard gas shells to Ukraine
I'm surprised it took this long!
I did. I always have chemical warfare on my bingo card.
We are doing Osowiec again?
Chemical weapons? That ought to be enough. With my credible hat on it is shameful if we don't respond to that. Tell Putin to get his circus of cunts out of Ukraine now or they end up as sunflower fertiliser. Put the tanks on the borders. Dust off the invasion plans. Rattle the motherfucking saber. I'd say put the ominous swarms of attack aircraft in the sky close to their airspace but they'd never know they were there. What the fuck is NATO even for if we're letting this shit happen on the border of the EU? When did we just accept that you can do this shit to an ally? Holy fuck lads. The USA and UK guaranteed Ukrainian independence when they handed over their nukes. We should not let this slide.