Bring Back Chemical Weapons

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by digginit, May 12, 2017.

  1. digginit

    digginit Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    We are already destroying the planet with pesticides. So why not have pesticides that work on humans. If you are going to have war and kill people, to have limits on how they are killed is pretty stupid. The best way to do it is to do it as efficiently as possible. Also, the U.S. already does something that should be a war crime. There was an agreement made long ago to make all military bullets full metal jackets. So as to make the wounds caused by bullets to be less terrible. But look at the M-16 bullet. It enters the body and fragments. Leaving all sorts of trails of tissue damage that any doctor is hard pressed to fix. If it can be done at all in a reasonable amount of time.
     
    ESTT likes this.
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    Oh, and please find me a reference that states that there is an agreement that all bullets must be "full metal jacket".
     
  3. digginit

    digginit Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you think bullets are made that way. Just for the hell of it? Also, soldiers in WW I used to do something that was generally considered to be against the "rules" of war. They would take the bullets out of their casing and turn them around. Making the flat end the leading end. You could imagine what kind of terrible would that would make.
     
  4. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Chemical weapons are not the good as proven in WW1 to WW2, conventional shells can do.
     
  5. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    7,792
    Likes Received:
    4,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They did that because for some reason they penetrated plate metal that was used by snipers to protect themselves better than with the soft point.

    In WW I they used hollow points, those are banned.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...l-filmmaker-michael-moore-says-ar-15-bullets/

    Sometimes I think back to that Star Trek episode where the two planets were in a war for a hundred years or so and by treaty, would kill a number of civilians that a computer program would say would have died according to a simulated attack. They thought it was better than having the infrastructure destroyed in a real war. But once the reality of a real war hit them they went to the peace table. I wonder if war would be so common if there were no rules.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  6. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Developing stronger biological weapons would be more efficient. The weapon's effects would become contagious. Of course, the nation or group deploying the biological weapon will require a vaccine.
     
  7. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Dropping chem/bio stuff into the enemies water supplies to make them ill or sterile would never get past the do-gooders at the United Nations and the Geneva Convention.
    But others have a free hand to do as they please..;)-

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Drone shot: prowlers near water supply in Afghanistan
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
    ESTT likes this.

Share This Page