NationStates Jolt Archive

It can be from any time period. I say it's Napalm, that stuff is brutal.

Land mines.

Mustard gas.

White Phosphorous Grenades

Fuel air bombs

Read this to find out why: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

Human beings.

Pursuit Deterrent Munition
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pdm.htm

I'd have to go with land mines, because they tend to inflict damage long after the war is over. LONG after. Also, they are often built to attract children (made to look like toys, or with coloured extensions and so on). Pretty much anything that targets or damages civilians more than actual combatants is pretty sadistic.

Human beings.
Wow. Too true.

Rape.

PMT :D

Recently I saw a movie about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Very cruel and unbelievable suffering.
I definitely say "nuclear bombs".

Fuel Air Bombs? I thought that they were just pretty big bombs - the fuel/mixture combusting almost immediately to create the shockwave. Are there other effects I don't know about?

plague ridden humans launched from catapults and other long distance 'flinging' machines, while they are still alive, leaving the enemy army with two options, leave the bloodspattered broken body in your ranks, risking plague and broken spirits, or remove the body and risk the plague and broken spirits.

another nasty thing was the greek fire stuff. When you toss water on it, the one thing that most people used to do all the time with fire, it would make the fire grow twice as large turning the water into fuel. The crusades saw the end of its use in widespread useage, because it was deemed too cruel and against G-d.

ye but napalm bombs killed about 4 times more people in japan than the 2 nuclear bombs did (i think it was napalm bombs, but i'm sure i will be corrected)

Fuel Air Bombs? I thought that they were just pretty big bombs - the fuel/mixture combusting almost immediately to create the shockwave. Are there other effects I don't know about?

Longer duration pressure wave. Area within the fuel/air cloud is subject to a uniform overpressure. High temperature effects. Consumes all the breathable air in the vicinity.

Cold Steel.

I think nerve gas, such as VX comes in as a close second to Napalm. On the other hand, they might be tied.

Longer duration pressure wave. Area within the fuel/air cloud is subject to a uniform overpressure. High temperature effects. Consumes all the breathable air in the vicinity.

Aah... suffocation effects and flash burn. Thanks for the info.

liberal media. people who dont understand why people join the armed forces.

Fuel Air Bombs? I thought that they were just pretty big bombs - the fuel/mixture combusting almost immediately to create the shockwave. Are there other effects I don't know about?

This is what they do. Sucks to be a Chechneyan. The Russians killed alot of them with these weapons.

Fuel-air weapons work by initially detonating a scattering charge within a bomb, rocket or grenade warhead. The warhead contents, which are composed of either volatile gases, liquids or finely powdered explosives, form an aerosol cloud. This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure. This overpressure, or blast wave, is the primary casualty-producing force. In several dozen microseconds, the pressure at the center of the explosion can reach 30 kilograms per square centimeter (427 pounds per square inch) – normal atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 pounds per square inch with a temperature between 2,500-3,000 degrees Centigrade [4,532-5,432 degrees Fahrenheit]. This is 1.5 to 2 times greater than the overpressure caused by conventional explosives. Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 meters per second [9843 feet per second]1. The resultant vacuum pulls in loose objects to fill the void....

Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal hemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets.18 Displacement and tearing of internal organs can lead to peritonitus. Most military medics are well trained in stopping the bleeding, protecting the wound and treating for shock. Many of the injuries caused by thermobaric weapons are internal and may not be initially noticed by the medic or doctor.

ye but napalm bombs killed about 4 times more people in japan than the 2 nuclear bombs did (i think it was napalm bombs, but i'm sure i will be corrected)

I can't verify your statement, but I think the nuclear bombs are more sadistic although less people died. I won't classify weapons sadistic because of their death rates but of their impacts on human lives and the environment.
Although the napalm bombs let the environment destroyed and many people dead and suffering behind them, the nuclear bombs made the landscape inheritable and caused many deaths because the population of the cities didn't know about the radiation they emitted. After that came cruel diseases and undescribable pain.
So, both weapons are very sadistic.

<snip>....

Damn, that is pretty sadistic. Where'd you get the data, btw?

Damn, that is pretty sadistic. Where'd you get the data, btw?
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

My personal favorite - a smart enhancement of cluster weapons.

The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon cluster munition combines 10 submunitions with 4 skeet type warheads in a single dispenser, providing 40 weapons total. After release, a fuze causes the dispenser to disperse the 10 submunitions, each stabilized by a parachute. At a preset altitude a rocket fires, propelling the submunition in an upward vector. As the submunition climbs, it is spun to disperse the 4 internal skeet warheads randomly by centrifugal force. An IR sensor in each warhead searches for a target, and upon discovery detonates over it, firing a kinetic fragment. The fragment drives itself through the lightly armored top of the target. If no target is found, the sensor detonates the warhead above ground to spray the battlefield with a myriad of lethal fragments. This weapon is good against armor and soft skinned targets, covering a 4,800 square yard area.

The CBU-97 is a 1,000-pound class weapon containing sensor-fused submunitions for attacking armor. The SFW is the centerpiece of the Air Force concept of operations for engaging an adversary's main armored force in the "halt" or "hold" phase of a Major Regional Contingency, in which the USAF would disrupt and stop an attack, providing time for other combatant forces to reinforce to the theater.

The primary components of this 1,000 pound class weapon are the SUU-66/B Tactical Munitions Dispenser (TMD), 10 BLU-108/B submunitions, and 40 "hockey puck" shaped skeet infrared sensing projectiles. The weapon is designed to be employed from US Air Force tactical aircraft from altitudes between 200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) to 20,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) at speeds between 250 to 650 knots. Each CBU-97/B can cover an area of about 500 feet by 1,200 feet.

The Sensor Fuzed Weapon [SFW] is an unpowered, top attack, wide area, cluster munition, designed to achieve multiple kills per aircraft pass against enemy armor and support vehicles. After release, the TMD opens and dispenses the ten submunitions which are parachute stabilized. Each of the 10 BLU-108/B submunitions contains four armor-penetrating projectiles with infrared sensors to detect armored targets.

In combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom, several B-52s used these weapons to attack two intact Republican Guard divisions in the last phases of the ground offensive as they came out of Baghdad to defend the city. In a single pass, both divisions lost nearly every vehicle, and nearly every soldier in both divisions was either killed or wounded.

holy handgrenades

With out a doubt. Germ warfare. There are somethings as to quote a move "we wish we could uninvent."

Germ weapons kill everything, and certain strains are not limited to their deployment area.

Napalm, mustard gas, land mines are limited to their area and it can be avoided.

Military Rations. :(

With out a doubt. Germ warfare. There are somethings as to quote a move "we wish we could uninvent."

Germ weapons kill everything, and certain strains are not limited to their deployment area.

Napalm, mustard gas, land mines are limited to their area and it can be avoided.

Seconded. And I'd say nuclear weapons and toxins come in second and third.

Oh, and as far as the incediary bombs in Japan, considering the tonnage to damage ratio, nukes wer far more damaging.

And here's a new evil thought from the Pentagon. Mines that move around and talk to each other...

The Self-Healing Minefield is an antitank landmine system that does not rely on antipersonnel landmines for dismounted breach protection. Instead the Self-Healing Minefield employs a novel breach response mechanism that can determine both mounted and dismounted enemy assaults on the minefield and respond to maintain obstacle integrity. Contrary to the current mixed minefield systems (Volcano, RAAM/ADAM, and Gator) which require antipersonnel landmines co-located with an antitank minefield to complicate dismounted breaching of the antitank minefield, the Self-Healing Minefield employs intelligent, mobile antitank mines alone to defeat all enemy breaching.

The Self-Healing Minefield system is designed to achieve an increased resistance to dismounted and mounted breaching by adding a novel dimension to the minefield. Instead of a static complex obstacle, the Self-Healing Minefield is an intelligent, dynamic obstacle that responds to an enemy breaching attempt by physically reorganizing. The Self-Healing Minefield consists of surface scattered antitank mines that can detect an enemy attack of the minefield and respond autonomously, by having a fraction of the mines move to heal the breach. Since the minefield is no longer a static obstacle, an open breach cannot be maintained. The Self-Healing Minefield forces the enemy to attack the minefield and deplete the antitank mines surrounding the breaching lane by either repeated assaults or a wide area breach/clearance. In either case the enemy has increased their exposure to covering fires when compared to the current mixed system minefield. An ongoing modeling effort indicates that a self-healing minefield will provide greatly increased military effectiveness of the obstacle.

Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a model warhead for the antitank mines in the Self-Healing Minefield (SHM). The DARPA concept of the Self-Healing Minefield requires that the mines to move to fill gaps when it is determined necessary by collective processing of sensor information communicated amongst the mines. The application of advanced technology in the mine required by the mobility and communication systems justifies the application of advanced technology for the warhead to minimize, or at least reduce, the warhead allowances necessary. The SHM model warhead has, to date, met or exceeded initial performance requirements (fielded capability) while maintaining attractive volume and weight characteristics. The positive design and testing results, combined with the existence of sophisticated on-board electronics, suggests that it is possible to enhance the capability of the warhead system. Such enhanced capability is quantified by increased vehicle kill probability given an encounter. Liberal use of embedded initiation points controls detonation wave propagation. The control is applied to improve the efficiency of the coupling of the explosive to the liner, as do inert wave shapers, and to open a multimode pathway to address track defeat or the defeat of other vehicles

The SHM uses radio links as the primary mode of communication between mines. Following network setup, each node transmits periodic signals to indicate its status to the rest of the network. The absence of expected transmissions from one or more mines is one of the main indicators used to identify and locate breach attempts. Remaining mines use their radio links to inform more distant mines of the breach attempt, and to coordinate the response. The SHM may also communicate with a remote controller via a reach-back option.

Mine-to-mine radio links are short range. Their low transmit power, wide-beam antennas, and low antenna height, make them susceptible to jamming by an attacker. The SHM has a multi-layered response to jamming. If radio jamming is successful, the network can maintain connectivity at lower data rates via acoustic links. If acoustic links are jammed, the network enters the autonomous response mode, which will maintain minefield integrity for several more hours. However, minefield integrity during repeated breach attempts will be maintained longest if radio communications are available. The SHM radio network uses spread-spectrum communication techniques, with robust protocols and reconfigurable networks, to minimize jamming sensitivity. Lincoln Laboratory is looking at improvements to the SHM waveform and SHM receivers, to provide even more robust radio links.

A jamming threat model has been developed based on the state-of-the-art in radio electronics and deployment strategies ranging from a large, truck-borne mobile jammer, to a large number of small "distributed" jammers scattered over the minefield. The threat model includes "smart-jamming" techniques such as frequency following, time following, and focused attacks on network control data. The threat model is used to evaluate the effectiveness of different measures that can be taken to improve network robustness. Measures under consideration include increased processing gain, adaptive modulation, increased waveform randomization, adaptive frequency hopping, time-domain interference cancellation, and adaptive array processing. Large distributed antenna arrays are being investigated for reach-back/reach-forward communications. Each array consists of multiple mines with coordinated transmission and receiver processing via the SHM network. Arrays have the ability to implement beamforming and directional interference cancellation.

The Self-Healing Minefield program is a 3-year effort focused on the development and demonstration of the key enabling technologies necessary in a mobile, intelligent, networked antivehicle mine system. The program plan establishes a two-phased approach where the first 2 years focus on the subsystem development and a small-scale integrated test. The second phase is focused on refinement of the technologies and scaling to a tactically significant field text. The program completed Phase I in March 2002 and is aggressively pursuing the overall program objectives in Phase II. Upon completion of Phase II the Self-Healing Minefield will be positioned to transition to the U.S. Army for continued development.

Willy Pete White Phospherous Grenades. That stuff will melt the skin off your bones.

Willy Pete White Phospherous Grenades. That stuff will melt the skin off your bones.
Weren't there some leaked pictures of white phosophorous being used against the insurgents in Falluja?

I'd say Bush is the most sadistic weapon of war.

Weren't there some leaked pictures of white phosophorous being used against the insurgents in Falluja?
White phosphorus is legal.

It's in the official AAR from Fallujah. If you encountered insurgents in a building, and they didn't want to come out when asked, you rigged a WP mortar shell with a block of primed C-4 and a pull igniter.

Throw it in there with them and burn them out.

I'd say Bush is the most sadistic weapon of war.


What is wrong with war?

Americans love a fight. ;)

White phosphorus is legal.

It's in the official AAR from Fallujah. If you encountered insurgents in a building, and they didn't want to come out when asked, you rigged a WP mortar shell with a block of primed C-4 and a pull igniter.

Throw it in there with them and burn them out.
I thought they were technically illegal or something. Even if it is not it sounds like a nasty weapon for crowded urban areas. Oh well.

I thought they were technically illegal or something. Even if it is not it sounds like a nasty weapon for crowded urban areas. Oh well.

No. Napalm is not illegal - but we don't use it. We do use white phosphorus. A WP mortar shell bursting in a confined space like a house won't affect the other buildings - which in Fallujah were all made of stone. It would more probably stifle and suffocate everyone in the basement - long before they burned.

They did ask them to come out first.

The Russians use flamethrowers as well as rockets with flame and thermobaric warheads - now and for years. I don't hear anyone giving the Russians crap about burning people.

The use of fear and pain is the most sadistic weapon of war.

another sadistic weapon of war is the incendiary bomb, which is designed to destroy whole cities in a fire storm when dropped en masse. just look at what the RAF did to all those german cities in world war two, that was needless destruction of life.

The current German Army even has a flame weapon - the HAFLA DM34.

A red phosphorus weapon.

another sadistic weapon of war is the incendiary bomb, which is designed to destroy whole cities in a fire storm when dropped en masse. just look at what the RAF did to all those german cities in world war two, that was needless destruction of life.

The Germans knew that war was dangerous when they started it.

Human beings.
Exactly what I was going to say.

Nietzsche said it best:

"Man is the cruelest animal. At tragedies, bullfights, and crucifixions he has so far felt best on earth; and when he invented hell for himself, behold, that was his very heaven."

The Germans knew that war was dangerous when they started it.

well yes, but places like nuremburg and dresden were of the slightest military value target-wise, and were packed full of refugees.

I thought they were technically illegal or something. Even if it is not it sounds like a nasty weapon for crowded urban areas. Oh well.

Nastyish yes. Illegal, no.

The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980e.htm)
essentially prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, the use of air delivered incendiary weapons against military objective located near civilians, the the use of other incendiary weapons against military objective located near civilians without taking "all feasible precautions", or the indiscriminant use of incendiary weapons against forest/plant cover not concealing a military target or directly a military target.

well yes, but places like nuremburg and dresden were of the slightest military value target-wise, and were packed full of refugees.

Easy for you to say.

Considering the inaccuracy of bombing (whether day or night) during WW II, and comparing them to modern GPS accuracy, you had to drop 500 planeloads of bombs to guarantee target destruction - and the average miss distance was 2 to 4 km from high altitude. Today, we drop one bomb right on whatever the GPS was coded to hit.

Civilians, in that age, were in serious risk of harm.

Easy for you to say.

Considering the inaccuracy of bombing (whether day or night) during WW II, and comparing them to modern GPS accuracy, you had to drop 500 planeloads of bombs to guarantee target destruction - and the average miss distance was 2 to 4 km from high altitude. Today, we drop one bomb right on whatever the GPS was coded to hit.

Civilians, in that age, were in serious risk of harm.
Dresden was part of a deliberate terror campaign on the part of the British air force, a plan approved by Winston Churchill, to initiate a firestorm in a major German population center. After the atrocities the Germans had comitted, the British governement felt justified in doing what amounted to incendiary carpet-bombing.

It's been said before, but human are the most sadistic weapons of war. Any tool we use in a war was first conceived by humans. Conceived to inflict the most damage, the most pain to the other side. Yay for our technological know-how. :rolleyes:

WOW

99% of the replyes ... just make sense...are intelligent...

that very hard to acomplish in the "free-for-all" internet.

congrats fellow players.

Dresden was part of a deliberate terror campaign on the part of the British air force, a plan approved by Winston Churchill, to initiate a firestorm in a major German population center. After the atrocities the Germans had comitted, the British governement felt justified in doing what amounted to incendiary carpet-bombing.

We killed a lot more civilians than just in Dresden or Hamburg firebombings.

Collateral damage was the rule and the norm, not the occasional happenstance.

Easy for you to say.

Considering the inaccuracy of bombing (whether day or night) during WW II, and comparing them to modern GPS accuracy, you had to drop 500 planeloads of bombs to guarantee target destruction - and the average miss distance was 2 to 4 km from high altitude. Today, we drop one bomb right on whatever the GPS was coded to hit.

Civilians, in that age, were in serious risk of harm.

look, im not saying that its not a good way to destroy things, but why did they need to destroy all those german cities? eutrusca is right, it was terror bombing.

plus even though they tell us our bombs are 'pin point accurate', they still do area damage, and remember you can be shredded by flying glass miles away from a big explosion. and anyway if they are so accurate how come so many missed during the kosovo war, and hit neighbouring countries? or the chinese embassy?

It's been said before, but human are the most sadistic weapons of war. Any tool we use in a war was first conceived by humans. Conceived to inflict the most damage, the most pain to the other side. Yay for our technological know-how. :rolleyes:
In the fullness of geologic time mankind will pass from the scene, as must all species. My fervent hope is that we will not be the instrument of our own passing.

Neutron bombs. They are like normal nukes, except they produce 80% of their energy as thermal neutrons. Result? Irradiated equipment and mass radiation sickness. Anyone else want to haemhorrage from every orephice?

In the fullness of geologic time mankind will pass from the scene, as must all species. My fervent hope is that we will not be the instrument of our own passing.
Methinks you ought to read 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' if you haven't already. ;)

The Russians use flamethrowers as well as rockets with flame and thermobaric warheads - now and for years. I don't hear anyone giving the Russians crap about burning people.
Russia was globally condemed, including by the United States, for their actions in the Chechen wars but nobody tried to stop them... Estimates of civilians killed from the two chechen wars are around 200,000 out of a republic with a total population of less than a million people. Now they are fighing the global war on terrorism so they get a free pass.

look, im not saying that its not a good way to destroy things, but why did they need to destroy all those german cities? eutrusca is right, it was terror bombing.

plus even though they tell us our bombs are 'pin point accurate', they still do area damage, and remember you can be shredded by flying glass miles away from a big explosion. and anyway if they are so accurate how come so many missed during the kosovo war, and hit neighbouring countries? or the chinese embassy?
The hit on the Chinese embassy was deliberate.

Nukes aren't even in the same class as VX and napalm for nastiness. They blow nukes away.

Any weapon that focuses it's attention on your nervous system isn't designed to try and disable or kill you humanely. In the few moments I spent researching this post, I saw it listed as "The effects are worst when it is inhaled and death is an end to the suffering." That's pretty nasty.

Napalm is just as bad - ask the folks in Salem, Mass. Sticky fire. You can't wash it off, put it out, or run away. It strikes, it clings, and it burns. The DI in "An Officer and a Gentlemen" wasn't joking when he said, cruely, that "Napalm sticks to kids." Not the way that *I* want to go.

On the converse, you have a nuke. Quick, bright, hot, and sudden. It does not linger - those incinerated probably never feel it. And before folks jump on the fallout bandwagon, keep in mind that modern (Western) nukes are fusion based, yielding helium and tritium (Hydrogen-3), which has a very short halflife. If I had to choose, I think I'd veto the nerve agents and incendiaries first.

The hit on the Chinese embassy was deliberate.


i think that, sadly, you might be right.

Nukes aren't even in the same class as VX and napalm for nastiness. They blow nukes away.

There is an antidote for VX (albeit a neurotoxin itself and not exactly readily available) and if your going for big burning, I imagine a 20kilos of nuke can burn more than 20kilos of napalm :D

Also, see Neutron Bomb^^

liberal media. people who dont understand why people join the armed forces.

excuse me? I get my ideas on war from books that existed before the term "media" did, and I have views on it that make the media look conservative as hell.

Napalm

i think that, sadly, you might be right.
According to the book, The Transformation of American Air Power, which has a whole chapter devoted to the incident, it was an accident.

The people who coded the targets were using recon photos and information that was 4 years old - showing the location of the Chinese Embassy as belonging to the Milosevic governing apparatus. The Chinese moved into the building a year before it was hit.

BTW, the US is planning on making several more changes to further reduce "collateral damage".

Aside from the more accurate all-weather JDAM, they are making the bombs smaller.

The future standard sized bomb will only be 250 pounds, instead of 2000 pounds (with the exception of bunker buster or earth penetrating bombs).

A 250 pound bomb landing on just about any worthwhile ground target (hangar, tank, truck, group of men, building) will destroy it without the same area of effect as a 2000 lb bomb.

Even so, the current technology has substantially reduced collateral damage.

nationalism is the most evil, if perhaps not the most sadistic. as soon as people start thinking like the difference in government matters we're screwed. people are people weither they're american, russian, chinese, mexican...whatever. as soon as an american life is considered worth more than a foreign life, we've crossed from self defense to pure evil. My best friend or my brother is worth no more than a foreigner I've never met. anybody who won't say that is in danger of the kind of thinking that drove the worst conflicts in history. you can't have justice when people aren't regaurded as equal no matter where they're from. it's never us versus them, it's allways just us.

i think that, sadly, you might be right.
No "think" about it. It was.

:sniper:

I think that the most sedistic weapons would be napalm and mustard gas, because the first burns you alive and the second simply liquifies your lungs.

No "think" about it. It was.


you mean no 'maybe' about it? well maybe youre right.

:sniper:

I think that the most sedistic weapons would be napalm and mustard gas, because the first burns you alive and the second simply liquifies your lungs.
All gases are bloody useless - too much chance of them being blown into your camp and/or the enemy having protection e.g. gas masks. I'd agree with the VX one someone posted before - that shit is nasty. And napalm would be a pretty awful death. But I'm sticking with death by neutron bomb; no-one has challenged that.

you mean no 'maybe' about it? well maybe youre right.
I know I'm right.

After all, I usually am. :)

Of course the future of American warfare is robotic and remote.

The Predator is the harbinger of American warfare to come. The Americans come to a country and attack it, and you can't even kill an American.

Shoot down a plane, and you can't capture an American. Fight on the ground, and you're fighting machines that don't sleep and can't be tortured on al-Jazeera.

That would be pretty evil - leaving your opponent nothing to grab onto in traditional combat. Just death, and more death, from implacable unsleeping machines.

http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/fireant.html

Just a vision of the future.

ye but napalm bombs killed about 4 times more people in japan than the 2 nuclear bombs did (i think it was napalm bombs, but i'm sure i will be corrected)

I think it was liquid phosphorus. But it was soon afterward replaced by Napalm, to my knowledge. :(

Of course the future of American warfare is robotic and remote.

The Predator is the harbinger of American warfare to come. The Americans come to a country and attack it, and you can't even kill an American.

Shoot down a plane, and you can't capture an American. Fight on the ground, and you're fighting machines that don't sleep and can't be tortured on al-Jazeera.

That would be pretty evil - leaving your opponent nothing to grab onto in traditional combat. Just death, and more death, from implacable unsleeping machines.

http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/fireant.html

Just a vision of the future.
*cough*second renaissance*cough*

Sorry, I'm just too geeky for words

Man.

:gundge: Definetley biological or chemical weapons. They are not the(honorable)way to fight a war. :sniper:

:gundge: Definetley biological or chemical weapons. They are not the(honorable)way to fight a war. :sniper:

There's an "honorable" way to fight a war?

So I guess showing up with stealth aircraft and bombing people with weapons that miss less than 1 percent of the time is "honorable"?

It's not supposed to be "fair". We might get hurt.

That's why the US is moving to robotics - so that none of our people get hurt in a war.

I know I'm right.

After all, I usually am. :)

agreed, i was just trying to be uncontreversial, but what the hell.

Bubble gum pop music. Brittany Spears, N'Sync, NKOTB, Jackson Five.
It turns regular people into mush

The massive electrified anal probe...

Land mines, probably.

I'd say any variety of the old-school pointy weapons whose intent was to wound severely and not kill.

Man

Mustard gas.
That, anthrax, and nerve gas.

A board with a nail in it! :eek: GASP!

Fuel air bombs, mustard gas, and nerve gas. Stuff's nasty.

Just too clear things up:

On the night of March 9-10, 1945; More than 300 B-29 "Superfortress" bombers dropped nearly a half-million M-69 incendiary cylinders over Tokyo that night and early morning, destroying some 16 square miles of the city. The attack, coming a month after a similar raid on Dresden, Germany, brought the mass incineration of civilians to a new level in a conflict already characterized by unprecedented bloodshed.

The official death toll was some 83,000, but historians generally agree that victims unaccounted for bring the figure to around 100,000 — overwhelmingly civilians. It is widely considered to be the most devastating air raid in history.

The M-69s, which released 100-foot streams of fire upon detonating, sent flames rampaging through densely packed wooden homes. Superheated air created a wind that sucked victims into the flames and fed the twisting infernos. Asphalt boiled in the 1,800-degree heat. With much of the fighting-age male population at the war front, women, children and the elderly struggled in vain to battle the flames or flee.


As for Dresden and Nuremburg and all those other nasty firebombings, anyone else here of the German bombing of Coventry? And the fact that the Allied High Command knew about it, but because their source was the ultra-top secret "Ultra" Program in Blechley Park, they did not want to reveal their ace in the hole, and as such refused to evacuate the city.



Man is the worst, all that we have destroyed, all those we have killed are our own doing. We used weapons forged by men, or by machines, which were forged by men. Indefinataly, I see Nuclear Winter in our future, which will undoubtably be the worst weapon we can unleash on ourselves.

AP mines.
Or mustard gas.

Im surprised no one mentioned this:

Children with bombs strapped to them.

I'm dead serious by the way.

The new laser weapon of the US army. It doesn't kill directly, it just lets the one on the receiving end feel a real intense pain. The laser attacks a persons nerval system, the most painful pain there is. I imagine that it must feel like your entire body is burning and the pain won' stop.

This weapon is sadistic and unnecessary, I'm strictly against firearms but I do prefer them instead of this brutal weapon. The bad thing is: it won't leave marks. Tortured prisoners won't be able to prove it.

'Human beings.'


Fucking Hippies

Of course the future of American warfare is robotic and remote.

The Predator is the harbinger of American warfare to come. The Americans come to a country and attack it, and you can't even kill an American.

Shoot down a plane, and you can't capture an American. Fight on the ground, and you're fighting machines that don't sleep and can't be tortured on al-Jazeera.

That would be pretty evil - leaving your opponent nothing to grab onto in traditional combat. Just death, and more death, from implacable unsleeping machines.

http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/fireant.html

Just a vision of the future.
These Robot weapons make me shudder. If nobody on your side is killed or wounded will anybody ever argue against going to war? Will anyone flinch at killing someone if you are just looking at a tv screen and using a video game like controller to kill your enemy? Furthermore if the enemy can't fight back against your soldiers terrorism against your cities starts to look a whole lot more justifiable.

I used to really want to be in the airforce when I was younger, until I got to be in my teenage years and read about the "Highway of Death" in Iraq, and all the carnage casued by the bombings and sanctions. With modern technolgoy war has just become cold mechanical process of destroying the enemy in the most safe efficent factory like method possible.

While it takes balls to be a grunt protecting convoys from insurgent bombs and RPGs there is absolutely nothing honorable in my opinion about the way shock and awe tactics are used to obliterate fighters armed with nothing other than AK-47s and unguided rockets with 20,000 lb daisy cutter bombs, cruise missles and Predator attack drones.

Of course it would be ludicrous to argue against using the best possible weapons for the sake of honor, and no leader would be crazy enough to do so, but it still strikes me as cowardly to destroy your enemy with weapons against which he has no possible defense.

The new laser weapon of the US army. It doesn't kill directly, it just lets the one on the receiving end feel a real intense pain. The laser attacks a persons nerval system, the most painful pain there is. I imagine that it must feel like your entire body is burning and the pain won' stop.

This weapon is sadistic and unnecessary, I'm strictly against firearms but I do prefer them instead of this brutal weapon. The bad thing is: it won't leave marks. Tortured prisoners won't be able to prove it.
So you're for weapons who's intent is to kill....but against weapons designed to be non-lethal.
Right...

How about that one bomb that was supposed to turn people into homosexuals.

These Robot weapons make me shudder. If nobody on your side is killed or wounded will anybody ever argue against going to war? Will anyone flinch at killing someone if you are just looking at a tv screen and using a video game like controller to kill your enemy? Furthermore if the enemy can't fight back against your soldiers terrorism against your cities starts to look a whole lot more justifiable.

I used to really want to be in the airforce when I was younger, until I got to be in my teenage years and read about the "Highway of Death" in Iraq, and all the carnage casued by the bombings and sanctions. With modern technolgoy war has just become cold mechanical process of destroying the enemy in the most safe efficent factory like method possible.

While it takes balls to be a grunt protecting convoys from insurgent bombs and RPGs there is absolutely nothing honorable in my opinion about the way shock and awe tactics are used to obliterate fighters armed with nothing other than AK-47s and unguided rockets with 20,000 lb daisy cutter bombs, cruise missles and Predator attack drones.

Of course it would be ludicrous to argue against using the best possible weapons for the sake of honor, and no leader would be crazy enough to do so, but it still strikes me as cowardly to destroy your enemy with weapons against which he has no possible defense.
Some truth to this.
There is another purpose, however, to having and demonstrating a willingness to use, weapons against which your enemy cannot defend. Deterance. Sadly it doesn't seem to work enough, but then again the people sending outgunned soldiers (ala the "Highway of Death") are rarely the ones on the receiving end.

ye but napalm bombs killed about 4 times more people in japan than the 2 nuclear bombs did (i think it was napalm bombs, but i'm sure i will be corrected)

Incendiary bombs.

The Russians use flamethrowers as well as rockets with flame and thermobaric warheads - now and for years. I don't hear anyone giving the Russians crap about burning people.

maybe because this isn't really a russian forum?

I'm against all weapons, lethal and non-lethal. We're deadly enough with our fists. What I meant to say is that I rather have a fighting chance and die with a gun in my hand, shot by another, then be taken out by the most intense pain.

How about that one bomb that was supposed to turn people into homosexuals.
The Gay Bomb (not to be derogatory) was indeed deemed to cruel (I think).

Some truth to this.
There is another purpose, however, to having and demonstrating a willingness to use, weapons against which your enemy cannot defend. Deterance. Sadly it doesn't seem to work enough, but then again the people sending outgunned soldiers (ala the "Highway of Death") are rarely the ones on the receiving end.
Contrary to popular (american) belief, Saddam never really wanted to fight the United States, before the first Gulf war he mistakenly believed that the US ambassador had green lighted his invasion of Kuwait. I am too lazy to research it now, but she said something along the lines of "The United States takes no position in Arab-Arab conflicts" or something like that, which seemed to signal to Saddam that the US would let him take Kuwait.


This makes sense since Saddam had been a strong ally of the US at the time, and the Kuwaitis actually were slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. The first Gulf War was basically an avoidable tragedy caused by an idiot ambassador and a belligerent US eager to prove its "New World Order" following the death of the communism, rather than negotiate an Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait.

The Gay Bomb (not to be derogatory) was indeed deemed to cruel (I think).

they need to drop that thing on washington DC. what's that line about a mile in another's mocasins?

This makes sense since Saddam had been a strong ally of the US at the time, and the Kuwaitis actually were slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. The first Gulf War was basically an avoidable tragedy caused by an idiot ambassador and a belligerent US eager to prove its "New World Order" following the death of the communism, rather than negotiate an Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait.

I'd never heard of the slant drilling thing. it's not a good reason to go to war (since such a reason doesn't exist) but it certainly changes the picture doesn't it?

PMS. Its just so, EVIL!

I don't have a problem with these new weapons. It has always been this way. One side gets a weapon that totally devistates the enemy. Take for example the english longbow. If you look at the battle of Agincourt, the long bow was the deciding factor. These numbers aren't accurate but close. In the battle of Agincourt, 4000 Englishmen faced off against 15000 frenchmen. Most of the english were longbowmen. The french kept charging, but because of the reach of the longbow, the french could not reach their target. Records say that the sky turned black because of the amount of arrows fired. The death count was so great that in the center of the battle field, french bodies piled up and the pile devided the french forces. Now take out the fact that they were french, it was a descisive victory where close to 10000 frogs, I mean frenchmen lost their lives.
It amazes me how people can monday morning quarterback and say things like "the attack on dresden was wrong", etc. Look, that war killed over 55 million people. I don't begin to feel sorry for the germans who killed millions in their reign of terror. Call me insensitive, but much things must be done in war. The bombing of dresden is one of those things. The nuke attack on Japan was one of those things. What if we didn't use nuclear weapons?? Well not only would we use techniques that would kill more people in the end, but probably an invasion of Japan would have killed over 2 million people. If you are to pick the lesser of two evils, I would take the nukes because those were your only two options.

It amazes me how people can monday morning quarterback and say things like "the attack on dresden was wrong", etc. Look, that war killed over 55 million people. I don't begin to feel sorry for the germans who killed millions in their reign of terror. Call me insensitive, but much things must be done in war. The bombing of dresden is one of those things. The nuke attack on Japan was one of those things. What if we didn't use nuclear weapons?? Well not only would we use techniques that would kill more people in the end, but probably an invasion of Japan would have killed over 2 million people. If you are to pick the lesser of two evils, I would take the nukes because those were your only two options.

Your are right, showing the ability to destroy an entire civilian population at will have a drastic effect while negociating. But NEVER EVER WONDER again why american is a target for terrorist attack

Contrary to popular (american) belief, Saddam never really wanted to fight the United States, before the first Gulf war he mistakenly believed that the US ambassador had green lighted his invasion of Kuwait. I am too lazy to research it now, but she said something along the lines of "The United States takes no position in Arab-Arab conflicts" or something like that, which seemed to signal to Saddam that the US would let him take Kuwait.


This makes sense since Saddam had been a strong ally of the US at the time, and the Kuwaitis actually were slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. The first Gulf War was basically an avoidable tragedy caused by an idiot ambassador and a belligerent US eager to prove its "New World Order" following the death of the communism, rather than negotiate an Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait.
I didn't say he wanted, indeed this isn't even hinted at in my post (so I'm wondering where this reply came from).
However, regardless of what really started the war, he did promise "the mother of all battles" so to speak, and proceeded to do as I described in the previous post.

I would have to say suicide bombers. While they are not the city destroying type of weapons posted before, they will seriously mess with peoples minds. Innocent bystanders are either the target or get caught in the way, and the sight of someone blowing up will probably scar someones mind. There is also the fear of not knowing whether the next person you meet is a walking bomb.

Off topic, but,
*cough*second renaissance*cough*

Sorry, I'm just too geeky for words
That is an incredible short/animation.

I don't have a problem with these new weapons. It has always been this way. One side gets a weapon that totally devistates the enemy. Take for example the english longbow. If you look at the battle of Agincourt, the long bow was the deciding factor. These numbers aren't accurate but close. In the battle of Agincourt, 4000 Englishmen faced off against 15000 frenchmen. Most of the english were longbowmen. The french kept charging, but because of the reach of the longbow, the french could not reach their target. Records say that the sky turned black because of the amount of arrows fired. The death count was so great that in the center of the battle field, french bodies piled up and the pile devided the french forces. Now take out the fact that they were french, it was a descisive victory where close to 10000 frogs, I mean frenchmen lost their lives.
It amazes me how people can monday morning quarterback and say things like "the attack on dresden was wrong", etc. Look, that war killed over 55 million people. I don't begin to feel sorry for the germans who killed millions in their reign of terror. Call me insensitive, but much things must be done in war. The bombing of dresden is one of those things. The nuke attack on Japan was one of those things. What if we didn't use nuclear weapons?? Well not only would we use techniques that would kill more people in the end, but probably an invasion of Japan would have killed over 2 million people. If you are to pick the lesser of two evils, I would take the nukes because those were your only two options.
The deciding facor at Agincourt was the mud the French knights had to ride through to get to the English.

The new laser weapon of the US army. It doesn't kill directly, it just lets the one on the receiving end feel a real intense pain. The laser attacks a persons nerval system, the most painful pain there is. I imagine that it must feel like your entire body is burning and the pain won' stop.

This weapon is sadistic and unnecessary, I'm strictly against firearms but I do prefer them instead of this brutal weapon. The bad thing is: it won't leave marks. Tortured prisoners won't be able to prove it.
Got a source? URL???

I didn't say he wanted, indeed this isn't even hinted at in my post (so I'm wondering where this reply came from).
However, regardless of what really started the war, he did promise "the mother of all battles" so to speak, and proceeded to do as I described in the previous post.

I was referring to the statement which said

"the people sending outgunned soldiers (ala the "Highway of Death") are rarely the ones on the receiving end."

I was just trying to say that Iraq never expected to have to fight the US when they invaded Kuwait, which is why the Iraqi leaders were not deterred by overwhelming US military superiority.

they need to drop that thing on washington DC. what's that line about a mile in another's mocasins?
The problem is that the Gay Bomb releases a POWERFUL aphrodisiac. They would be... well... you know.

I suggested to the military they should get with the times and form a group,
"The Menopausal Marines", made entirely of women enduring that peroid of thier life. Now if you've ever had to spend extended time with a menopausal women you might understand why this was a rather alarming suggestion.
The reply I got back was that it would be too sadistic.

I politely suggested he get his mother-in-law flowers and appologize.
:p

But I'm sticking with death by neutron bomb; no-one has challenged that.
A neutron bomb doesn't leave radiation behind, it just creates one powerful initial burst that kills people, it doesn't destroy their houses, it doesn't cause birth defects years down the road. It's the most humane weapon there is.

http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm

"And unlike standard nuclear bombs that leave long-term contamination of the soil and infrastructure, the neutron radiation quickly dissipates after the explosion."

the most sadistic Weapon of war?

the K-10 Bitchslapper (http://www.killfrog.com/02/usa2.html)

to me, if it's sadistic, it implies intense suffering and not necessarily death.

Thus: napalm.

Although nuclear weapons don't always imply (immediate) death - if you live far enough away from the explosion you can get away with suffering only sever disfigurement or cancer.

But man. Whoever invented napalm was a sick bastard.

Some truth to this.
There is another purpose, however, to having and demonstrating a willingness to use, weapons against which your enemy cannot defend. Deterance. Sadly it doesn't seem to work enough, but then again the people sending outgunned soldiers (ala the "Highway of Death") are rarely the ones on the receiving end.
I don't want to hear that "Highway of death" bullshit. That was a media myth and probably did more to cause the premature end of Gulf War I and thus contribute to there being a Gulf War II.

This is the sort of thing that makes me think that most liberals are total idiots. We're not playing some sort of damned game when we go to war; real people get real dead! If there's some way to shorten a war, then we'll damned well use it! This applies to things like firebombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshima, or knocking out every vehicle heading North to Baghdad! To do less is insanity and would result in even more death and destruction.

How in God's name does ending a war sooner equate to somehow "not playing fair?" Fuck that! Get the damned thing over with as quickly as possible, using whatever means are available!

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/bw/agent.htm

Have a read, especially of the effects, and then see if you don't change your mind about biological weapons. A relatively quick inceneration (nukes or incendaries) or radiation caused death has nothing on smallpox.

The most sadistic?...I'd have to say the Chinese Bayonet, The Icepick is what US Marines called it. The Chinese troops would rub them in dirt and crap so that when they stabbed an enemy and they survived the wound would fester and become infected. Thats sadistic.

http://pictures.auctionarms.com/7719232028/ACFC194.gif

the most sadistic Weapon of war?

the K-10 Bitchslapper (http://www.killfrog.com/02/usa2.html) :D
the most sadistic weapon... germ warfare...

George Bush

In the fullness of geologic time mankind will pass from the scene, as must all species. My fervent hope is that we will not be the instrument of our own passing.

We will, there's no question about it. It'd likely take millions of years to wipe us out naturally, and we ourselves can do it within a few years. The odds are just too great.

Neutron bombs. They are like normal nukes, except they produce 80% of their energy as thermal neutrons. Result? Irradiated equipment and mass radiation sickness. Anyone else want to haemhorrage from every orephice?

Radiation sickness is not a nice way to go, that's true. In fact, if there's an explosion near you, and it doesn't vaporize you immediately, you should probably keep some Cyanide pills handy or something, just in case you don't wish to expire from crapping out your own guts. Eww.

napalm, flame throwers, and other incendiary munitions

Actually, the weapons that are now being planned in US thinktanks are several times as cruel as those that already exist. Among them are not only the laser mentioned earlier, but also several soundwave-based weapons that supposedly use air vibration to literally tear people apart (it's the same effect as the one that causes nosebleed in the vicinity of very loud bells). They die from inner hemorrhaging.

Edit: Read more at memoryhole.org (http://thememoryhole.org/mil/nl-weapons_terms). They have the complete list, along with that bit on acoustic weapons. And that's just the "non-lethal" section.

Edit: The "Prophet Hologram", projecting an "ancient god" in order to stimulate mass hysteria, had me chuckling. :p

Call me insensitive, but much things must be done in war. The bombing of dresden is one of those things. The nuke attack on Japan was one of those things. What if we didn't use nuclear weapons?? Well not only would we use techniques that would kill more people in the end, but probably an invasion of Japan would have killed over 2 million people. If you are to pick the lesser of two evils, I would take the nukes because those were your only two options.

Then I call insensitive and idiot. I understand that in war some things had to be done yet imposing terror bombing on civilian targets isn't one of them.

The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't necessary: the Japanese ambassador in Moscow tried to sue for peace and offered a nearly unconditional surrender of Japan. Yet the yanks and Truman-that-slaughterer didn't want a surrender to Russia, it was their war. Even without those drastic weapons Japan would have surrendered: they were cut off from all recourses on which Japan relies to survive.

Dresden never was a military target. The city didn't had any defenses and was flocked with people that fled from the war.

Got a source? URL???

No, I don't. It was in my newspaper a week or two ago (before everbody goes on saying that is was some tabloid, I read 'De Morgen', the most objective newspaper of Belgium and it received a world's nomination for the best newspaper). Anyhow I'll go search its website maybe I'll find something.

EDIT: Check this site out: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7077 . It seems as a reliable source of info.

Yet the yanks and Truman-that-slaughterer didn't want a surrender to Russia, it was their war. Even without those drastic weapons Japan would have surrendered: they were cut off from all recourses on which Japan relies to survive.


In fact, a fairly solid theory suggests that part of the motivation of bombing Japan in this way was to make an example and a show of power to Russia. "If we can hit them, we can hit you." Because, after all, it's not like nobody saw the cold war coming.

Most ethic standards would rule that motivation to be pretty evil, and unnecessary.

Agreed. Almost forgot about that.

It can be from any time period. I say it's Napalm, that stuff is brutal.

agent orange or mustard gas..compared to them napalm is a pop gun

Most masochistic?

Easy - American bombers.

This is what they do. Sucks to be a Chechneyan. The Russians killed alot of them with these weapons.


Speaking of Chechnya, terrorists would be my answer.

The deciding facor at Agincourt was the mud the French knights had to ride through to get to the English.

Yeh, and that an arrow only had to knock a Frenchmen off his horse and his armour would weigh him down so that he'd drown. It was also the range of the longbow that allowed them to pick off the French to force them to advance into the mud.

Plus his estimate of how many Frenchmen there were was approx. 10,000 short. . . And I think there was about 1000 more English.

Battle of Thermopylae though, now that was against the odds.

My best friend or my brother is worth no more than a foreigner I've never met.

Who would you save then, your brother or someone you've never met?

EDIT: hypothetically of course.

I get your point, but I'd always value the life of a friend or family member higher.

Battle of Thermopylae though, now that was against the odds.

The Spartans lost anyhow but they did make the Persias pay.

I agree with White Phosphorus grenades if we're talking about hand-held weaponry...

But even so, they can't compare to the sheer indiscrimination of a nuclear blast. You can be born years afterwards, devoid of any guilt whatsoever, and the latent effects can still get you.

While it takes balls to be a grunt protecting convoys from insurgent bombs and RPGs there is absolutely nothing honorable in my opinion about the way shock and awe tactics are used to obliterate fighters armed with nothing other than AK-47s and unguided rockets with 20,000 lb daisy cutter bombs, cruise missles and Predator attack drones.


Ahem. The shock and awe used against Iraqi forces at the start of this most recent operation used advanced weaponry against modern armored forces.

It's not our fault that the Iraqi Army, having purchased so much fine equipment, didn't foresee (after having their ass whipped previously) that the US will always try to fight asymmetrically.

There were two complete and intact armored divisions that were annihilated outside of Baghdad - not by repeated air attacks, not by Abrams tanks, not by grunts, not by Predators, but by several old B-52 bombers dropping cluster munitions - that burst open not to reveal little grenades (as every other armed force in the world sees cluster bombs), but tiny, intelligent, vehicle-seeking munitions floating down on tiny individual parachutes. Those that couldn't find a vehicle modified their blast pattern to affect exposed personnel.

The whole "fighting fair" thing is a nice concept, but if we actually implement it, we might get hurt.

Then I call insensitive and idiot. I understand that in war some things had to be done yet imposing terror bombing on civilian targets isn't one of them.

The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't necessary: the Japanese ambassador in Moscow tried to sue for peace and offered a nearly unconditional surrender of Japan. Yet the yanks and Truman-that-slaughterer didn't want a surrender to Russia, it was their war. Even without those drastic weapons Japan would have surrendered: they were cut off from all recourses on which Japan relies to survive.

Dresden never was a military target. The city didn't had any defenses and was flocked with people that fled from the war.



Ok let me clear things up, again. Projected Casualties for an invasion of the Japanese home island Honshu was 1 million+ American and British Casualties in the first 90 days. With a total Japanese Casualty rate of over 10 million expected (including the expected mass suicides and mass charges of militia armed with pitchforks and staffs against armed combatants; just like what happened on a much smaller scale on Okinawa) in the same, or slightly longer period. Other than that, yes the Atomic bombs were really more of a "look what we can do" thing than anything else; and please keep in mind the Soviets had no wish to make a peace with Japan, they wanted the Kyushu archapelago for themselves.

Dresden was for the most part a civilian target, except for the 1000 odd workshops, factories, processing plants, and other related facilities spread out throughout the city. In reality other than individual short range dive bombers (which at the time could not get anywhere near the city) coming in to destroy these production plants, the only solution with the technology of the time was a mass bombing.

MOST SADISTIC WEAPON OF WAR???

HOWARD DEAN

...come on...imagine caging up ol deanie for about a month and then unleashing the havoc on the enemy...what could be better???



YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

The most terrible are biological weapons. They kill slowly, secretly, painfully, and last for decades. Furthermore, if biological weaponry was never developed, smallpox could have been totally eliminated rather then kept frozen in labs for "research"

What Is The Most Sadistic Weapon Of War?

The Baby Cannon.

Naked Beserkers(used by the Ancient Barbarians).

Seriously, having fat guys run at you with axes is bad enough, but naked fat guys?

Methinks you ought to read 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' if you haven't already. ;)
Here's a link to the full text for free online:
http://www.eserver.org/philosophy/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt

It's up somewhere in the original German too.

Mustard gas. amen.

I would say either nuclear weaponry or bioweapons.

what does the gay bomb do?

The deciding facor at Agincourt was the mud the French knights had to ride through to get to the English.

Not to mention the fog and the bottleneck the French had to come through to get to the English.

The longbow was the deciding factor. You couldn't expect to cross an open area of some distance, whether on horse or not, whether in armor or not, and not suffer a lot of casualties from showers of armor-piercing arrows.

Naked Beserkers(used by the Ancient Barbarians).

Seriously, having fat guys run at you with axes is bad enough, but naked fat guys?

LOL!!!

Actually, I second this :D

It can be from any time period. I say it's Napalm, that stuff is brutal.

Ethel Merman.

Flechette.
Wicked.

It can be from any time period. I say it's Napalm, that stuff is brutal.

My Ex wife with PMS...

I'd say the UN is the worst weapon of war. Never has a single group done more to prolong and give fresh life to old conflicts.

Weaponized smallpox. It's an indiscriminate killer that can spread throughout a population killing not only troops, but civilians. If it's genetically modified immunization is useless, and the mortality rate climbs into the 90% range. Also in the right conditions it can spread to other nations not involved in the conflict.

I'd say the UN is the worst weapon of war. Never has a single group done more to prolong and give fresh life to old conflicts.

Pretty good at preventing any action to stop genocide, too. Good at sponsoring UN actions that merely stand by and watch people get slaughtered, and prevent any hope of their rescue.

Also pretty good at funneling money into its bureaucrats' private pockets thus causing thousands to starve to death or die from lack of medicine - all the while blaming the US for those deaths. Oil For Food is a good example of how the UN can kill without even going to war.

Pretty good at preventing any action to stop genocide, too. Good at sponsoring UN actions that merely stand by and watch people get slaughtered, and prevent any hope of their rescue.

Also pretty good at funneling money into its bureaucrats' private pockets thus causing thousands to starve to death or die from lack of medicine - all the while blaming the US for those deaths. Oil For Food is a good example of how the UN can kill without even going to war.

Preach it brother!! US out of the UN! UN out of the US!!

MAN

Tiger pits - essentially wooden spikes meant to punture the feet and/or legs to disable a soldier. Nasty, especially in the jungle where infection sets in quickly.

I don't want to hear that "Highway of death" bullshit. That was a media myth and probably did more to cause the premature end of Gulf War I and thus contribute to there being a Gulf War II.

Oh yes... lets ignore the DOZENS UPON DOZENS of videos of destroyed vhicles and dead men... which was caused by American air raids mind you.

And the 'premature end' of the Gulf War 1 causing Gulf War 2? BULLSHIT! It was BUSH and Saddams non-existant WMDs that caused the second gulf war!

Oh yes... lets ignore the DOZENS UPON DOZENS of videos of destroyed vhicles and dead men... which was caused by American air raids mind you.

And the 'premature end' of the Gulf War 1 causing Gulf War 2? BULLSHIT! It was BUSH and Saddams non-existant WMDs that caused the second gulf war!

No, it was Saddam's non-compliance with the terms of the cease-fire agreement that he signed and his failure to live up to the terms of the 17+ UN resolutions passed designed to get rid of his capability to harm his people, his neighbors, and the rest of the world.

Bouncing Betties

"Bouncing Betty was an aspect of the Vietnam War explained to me by one of my Sergeants back in 1974. It was an explosive that when you set it off it would shoot up in the air and then explode. There was a lag when the unfortunate victim realized they were dead, although they hadn't actually died yet, since technically, the mine hadn't exploded." -- Doug McIntosh

:gundge: Definetley biological or chemical weapons. They are not the(honorable)way to fight a war. :sniper:


Not saying your applying this but I just feel like clearing it up.

When people talk about how "unhonorable" war has gotten, it never really was. In reality its propaganda just to make you feel good that you're a hero. Besides, I whould rather have my face blown off or bullet fragments in my gut, chest, ect, then feeling any sword in my gut, or the feeling of slashing. And poisenes and Flaming arrows don't help either.

I know everyone knows this, should know this, but war has never been honorable.

What is the most sadistic weapon of war, eh? (http://library.thinkquest.org/5657/furbie.jpg)

SEX
dirty, dirty sex