Why did we stop using Napalm?

Why did we stop using Napalm?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    War crime

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      was anyone charged?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not for the US

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >War Crime
      I never understood these. You’re literally killing the other guy. Who the frick cares how it happens. You ARE NOT doing your enemies any favors by killing them… “tee hee I just shot you in the gut and now you are going to bleed out while in excruciating pain but at least I didn’t burn you alive”

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You know what frick having restrictions on warfare let’s just start using biological weapons like a Chinese super flu that will shut down the world economy . 10/10 take on the subject.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Good thing we had those laws to stop the use of such a bio weapon. Oh wait. It happened anyway.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The big irony is it was a bioweapon, but was not intentionaly released.
            It was accidently spread by the staff working on it to the community nearby.

            Turns out working on highly contagious respiratory diseases is not safe.
            Workers go home, go out to lunch, shop at the local stores after hours, have kids that go to school etc
            China released its own bio weapon on itself by accident.
            It was much deadlier in the first waves killing healthy young people. It mellowed out by the time it was spreading around the world.
            Turns out diseases select for less deadly mutations over time since quickly killed hosts cant spread them as much.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You can absolutely work on highly dangerous diseases safely, if you follow the safety procedures properly. Of course, they are not nearly as stringent when working with infected animals, rather than the actual pathogens. The lab was researching coronaviruses in bats, after all. What probably happened was that one of the researchers got showered in some bat shit and didn't want to get quarantined.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Chinese super flu
          I doubt that was deliberate on the simple basis that it gains entry by the ACE2 receptor, of which Asians (including Chinese) have more. When they do release an actual bioweapon it will be genetically engineered to exploit specific vulnerabilities that are rare in the Han and common in other ethnic groups. Also it will probably be released covertly instead of leaking from a known biohazard lab. The ambassador will arrive the next day with a big smile, offering free trade deals on masks and sanitizer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Developing it was deliberate in the first place. It's like starting a forest fire because you're a moron, it doesn't excuse you (or Fauci for funding and covering it up).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        War crimes are just a convenient tool for winners to slap on losers after a war to punish them further or to target the leadership for purging postwar. The US is in charge right now and they said that so and so is bad and illegal for war, so we have to follow them otherwise we enter the US shitlist which would be inconvenient for many reasons. Unless of course that committing said war crime would align with American interests in which case the act probably never happened and if it did someone ought to do something about it but its a shame there's no evidence supporting the claim that it might have happened which unfortunately means the UN wont do anything about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because not everybody on the other side is an enemy. And not all methods of war are humane, just, precise, or necessary. And what goes around comes around

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's okay when Russia does it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cite the relevant sections.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we found better way to kill people

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but do we have better ways of destroying lots of flammable structures quickly and cheaply?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        FAEs and barometric warheads.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        white phosphorus

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thermobarics

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Smoke marking rounds. Shake and bake.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nukes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Name a funnier way though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ay caramba

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We need to burn these people because it is the most painful way. Imagine having your body boil. Though the brain is also cooked so if we could get napalm that doesn't burn the flesh underneath the bones that would be even better

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I heard the greeks had a recipe to make fire shoot out of a cannon. They called it greek fire. Sadly though the recipe was lost (presumebly due to a fire)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I want to say thermobarics, but after the US stocked up on them we've done frick all with any of the launch systems.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it really hurts, and the west knows the next world war will be lost, so they don't want to be roasted like pigs, which is why they try to set the example of being "humanitarian". The only motive is that they know that for their past crimes every single one of them will have their wieners and eyes cut out, this is only a desparate attempt to fix the situation somewhat

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ok schizo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ok so you're saying would be justified to use napalm on the east anyways?

      I'm okay with that, no peace with a commie, send the nukes.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    vegans couldn't stand the smell.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because it's not actually very useful

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Becuse it's only useful in hyper specific niche scenarios like clearing hardened structures and caves that are now mostly covered by guided munitions and thermobaric ordinance and the optics of burning people alive look really bad if you're not fighting a total war with a dehumanized enemy. Also it's really hard to transport and handle and inherently dangerous to the user. Basically it's more trouble than it's worth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's really hard to transport and handle and inherently dangerous to the user. Basically it's more trouble than it's worth.
      This is the same reason nobody uses chemical weapons.
      They are war crimes, yes. But they're also useless, the logistical burden of handling rapidly outpaces the benefits.

      War is about shipping and a bomb is infinitely easier to ship.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This is the same reason nobody uses chemical weapons.
        No. The reason nobody uses them, is because they turn warfare into intolerable suffering that impedes warfighting in general, because the people are less likely to accept being thrown into such a situation over just deposing their government. Because of it, different governments made agreements to not use these weapons and maintain warfare as an extension of politics instead.
        The rulers don't actually give a damn about people, but they sure as frick care about being able to wage war to achieve their goals. Nuclear non-proliferation is the same thing. If everyone has nukes, nobody can just invade someone to enforce their power.
        >But they're also useless
        CWs are very good at area denial and attrition. A defending party can deny just about any area for enemy infantry, forcing them to practically fight mounted, leaving the vehicles intrinsically vulnerable, as they have no ability to clear terrain or built-up areas. Nobody is gonna willingly move through an area saturated by modern chemical agents. Similarly, any defending position is going to be neutralized with a couple CW shells on top of it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          War has changed.
          Stop living in the past or get droned.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At this rate, drone swarms are going to be forbidden by treaties as well, because the average person most likely doesn't just want to be murdered by a machine like that. Hard to convince the modern person to fight a war like that, when they're already facing a recruitment crisis due to anti-native policies all around the West.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You don't need a swarm. A MALE dropping a missile is more than enough.

              But what I am really saying is that you're not trying to kill people, you're trying to destroy things that stop you from bombing with impunity.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The people in charge back then were a lot more pragmatic than the people in charge now. I doubt we'll see any concessions to improve recruitment.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              War crimes and banned weapons aren't banned because they're evil, or because they're weak and gay; they're banned when (and only when) the things satisfy both conditions.
              Chemical weapons are highly ineffective against professional maneuver forces - and for them. Napalm isn't banned, but it's likewise a weak and pointless weapon compared to a thermobaric rocket.

              Drones OTOH are an upgrade. Therefore they will not be banned, ever.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Chemical weapons are highly ineffective
                chemical weapons are the most effective weapon humans have and ever will create
                we have enough to eradicate the entirety of life on earth several thousand times over, something nukes or anything else could never come close to achieve

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                chemical =/= biological, moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Chemical weapons are highly ineffective against professional maneuver forces
                Not at all. Chemical weapons are the #1 area-denial weapon we have. You can force any professional maneuver force into fighting mounted, pretty much crippling them and making any APC or IFV an incredibly juicy target, bearing the whole squad inside of it. If they get out, they die. If they stay inside, they die. Drop a mix of CW and smart munitions on top of an enemy, and that's it for them. No way out.
                It's just a complete denial of life and survival for whoever is caught in them, which again means nobody is going to voluntarily fight in that shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Chemical weapons are highly ineffective
                chemical weapons are the most effective weapon humans have and ever will create
                we have enough to eradicate the entirety of life on earth several thousand times over, something nukes or anything else could never come close to achieve

                Your moronic fantasy about things you don't understand wasn't even true in the 1950s, when nerve agents had proliferated and modern protective gear hadn't.

                I suggest putting down the weed and getting an education beyond wikipedia.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you have an infantile understanding of the subject

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                as do you.
                >eradicate the entirety of life on earth
                not even close, let alone
                >several thousand times over

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Area denial is doctrinally worthless, because area is no longer a meaningful category. A first worlder's war is waged in the air, not on the ground. You can deny an area, but you can also just kill all the defenders and roll in.
                Why bother denying an area, when your enemy can fly over the denied area or just drive around? It's not like you can fight back if you're already red paste from the PGMs falling on your head.
                Chemical weapons are useless to a modern military and in the edge cases, where you can argue for their use, they're still useless compared to conventional approaches.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Drop a mix of CW and smart munitions on top of an enemy, and that's it for them.
                You can also just use guided munitions and blow up the IFV? Who cares about some shellshocked stragglers, that'll probably bleed out anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They won't be inside the vehicle if you're not actively using CW.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So?
                What are they gonna do, walk? Sure, good luck.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >treaties

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They're what keep every war except the one final big one happening. Without the treaties, we couldn't afford to have war.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Nuclear survival skills
                Try to be the ones to die in the first flash so you have no idea you're getting nuked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The absolute misery and suffering after the impacts is what my whole life has been training for. The worst (best) thing that'll happen is I'll die.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >immortal coomer
                Remember those fake news broadcasts people used for pranks? Imagine if you played one and everyone around you just went for one last coom.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >drone swarms
              >grape shot makes a comeback

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >forbidden by treaties

              That implies a higher level civilization than what we have now, go look at ww2 newcasts from the time.

              You would not see them glorify the death of enemy soldiers or show you even dead soldiers, meanwhile now both sides are proud of showing hq videos of soldiers dying terrible deaths and laugh at it here while drinking soda.

              I am sorry to break your fricking bubble but we actually are at a lower moral standard than even ww2, do you think the nips who were the worse offenders proudly shown videos of starving soldiers, or massacred civilians?

              That shit was kept censored while now it's proudly shown, no treaty will happen because we have decayed too much as a specie to the point the ww2 frickers had higher morals

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If I was enlisted I'd sooner be willing to fight in a nuclear landscape than a chemical one. It's a reason why I get so pissy with people who performative weep about Oppenheimer inventing nukes. They think the road not taken is better. Others realize that without the nuclear peace we'd have been on world war 5 or 6 at this point. I think the road not taken has nerve agents beyond our comprehension and weaponized prions used to veritably salt the earth and guarantee actual Mutually assured destruction (IE I may go down but I am going to frick up large swathes of your land for years to come, and instead of instantly dying your people will just slowly atrophy).

          This is all assuming in a world without nooks R&D went towards chemical and biological weapons since I don't think even Novichok can salt the earth, but I am sure if they put their minds to it chemists could invent shit that would devastate the environment far more than nuclear weapons ever could.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine a world where 40mm VX grenades are routinely issued at the squad level.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Imagine every militia or terrorist group in the world having a small stockpile of Soviet-era Sarin gas rockets

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/zDXZuct.png

                Imagine a world where 40mm VX grenades are routinely issued at the squad level.

                If I was enlisted I'd sooner be willing to fight in a nuclear landscape than a chemical one. It's a reason why I get so pissy with people who performative weep about Oppenheimer inventing nukes. They think the road not taken is better. Others realize that without the nuclear peace we'd have been on world war 5 or 6 at this point. I think the road not taken has nerve agents beyond our comprehension and weaponized prions used to veritably salt the earth and guarantee actual Mutually assured destruction (IE I may go down but I am going to frick up large swathes of your land for years to come, and instead of instantly dying your people will just slowly atrophy).

                This is all assuming in a world without nooks R&D went towards chemical and biological weapons since I don't think even Novichok can salt the earth, but I am sure if they put their minds to it chemists could invent shit that would devastate the environment far more than nuclear weapons ever could.

                I think chemical weapons are really overrated. Biological weapons on the other hand we have next to no proof of effectiveness in a real world scenario but it has potential of being incredibly effective albeit on an extremely long term timescale if past plagues are to go by. So it would be relegated to strategic use rather than tactical since individual battles would be long over by the time the enemy get sick, but soldiers being sick over a long enough period of time would be devastating

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                biological weapons are even more useless.
                There's a reason all we have are nooks

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah just what you want, the average marine with nerve agents.
              Oops I dropped it and it cracked.
              Shipping accident when pallet is treated to rough.
              I dove for cover and landed on it breaking its airtight seal.

              Chemical weapons just result in all sides having to wear airtight miserable gear that doesnt breathe, restricts view, etc. Soldier life is miserable, but most are protected. Civilians are who they kill quickly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                chemical weapons are banned because they maim for the most part, but don't kill
                sure there's some friendly fire, especially from toxic chemical residue, but that's nowhere as big problem, as millions of half-dead soldiers, who can't work, can't have children, but would live for another 3-6 decades

                after the first time chemical weapons were used, ZOG needed spanish flu meme as excuse to poison all survivors with aspirin overdose
                anglos additionally killed lots of unwanted indians

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Also it's really hard to transport and handle and inherently dangerous to the user.
      moron, it's made in situ with jet fuel and polystyrene.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >jet fuel and polystyrene
        moron detected.
        Post disregarded.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What's Napalm-B idiot?
          >muh gasoline and benzene

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      maybe if youre a fuc/k/ing (tm) pussy

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Obsoleted by PGMs same as a ton of other old go-tos. There just isn't really a role for using them to clear out stuff that can't be accomplished more effectively now with precision munitions, drones etc. Napalm was heavy and bulky for its effect, as well as a death magnet.

    Obviously not like it's hard to make so if there was ever a critical military role for it they could put some together in a hurry but it doesn't justify vehicles made around it anymore.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Really bad for PR, and it's easier to just set people on fire with WP grenades/bombs/shells since you don't need a dedicated weapon for them.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bomb work better

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its stick to kids

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The US deploys incendiaries via bombs or missiles now. It's generally more effective since it's longer-ranged and better bang for your buck from the fuel.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Drones dropping napalm

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    mostly because we've been fighting in the desert and there just isnt that much to burn or that we wanted to burn. if/when it becomes useful to use again, the US will use it again.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There aren't any trees in the desert

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      From the Sunny /K/limbs of the Best State /K/alifornia! Your Wrong and Fuc/k/ing moronic!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wow if only we were carpet bombing you and your overgrown cacti instead of goatfrickers, life would be so much better

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we
    speak for yourself

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That photo of the napalm girl. That's it. That's why.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one said you hat to stop, the government just won’t do it anymore

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because it's only effective against civilians
    if this piece of trash would face a guy with AK and he would hit their pressurized napalm canister, everonye on this barge would be ukrainiziert

    if you need something specific to be put on fire today, you use rocket-propelled flamethrowers

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Grandma grows spring garlic in her garden at 1200m above sea level.
    >Season for it is short, but she uses it for everything in early march evey year.
    >grandpa makes some kind of dip out of it, he just calls it "green napalm".
    >Gives it to me for a taste.
    >Not ir or spicy, it's just some green paste you can spread on your bread like jam.
    >Suddenly my throat nearly locks up, my tongue burns like hell and I get wasabi tears.
    >Grandpa laughs his ass off and eats half the bowl without a movement on his face.
    >try this shit again after my tonge feels normal.
    >Same shit again, at first nothing, then wasabi burns in my throat.

    No idea if real napalm works like that, but fresh spring garlic is surprisingly spicy.

    Also US doesn't use napalm because having a smart bomb blowing up towelheads is more efficient.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We haven’t had a war in the jungle or in caves where we need to cook asiatics by the busload.

    We likely could have used a good dose of napalm at Tora Bora. Precision guide the can into the mouths of the caves and turn to the Mooj into Subterranean Kebabs.

    Sands of Iwo Jima redux, Mountain Sandhomiez!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *