Ukrainian drones now spray 2,500° C thermite streams right into Russian trenches
arstechnica.com
Mechanical dragons deliver fire on command.
  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    This is what international law has to say about incendiary weapons:

    1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
    1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
    1. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
    1. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

    This treeline is clearly not located within a concentration of civilians and it is concealing (or plausibly believed to be concealing) enemy combatants and therefore the use of incendiary weapons is unambiguously legal.

    • Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Are all of these “laws” in place because incendiary weapons are especially cruel compared to a simple shot to the dome?

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlEnglish
        01·
        15 days ago

        It’s because of their indiscriminate nature.

        The US use of napalm on cities in Korea contributed to the nearly 20% of their population that was wiped out.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Apart from that, their Russian attacker does not give a flying f-ck about international law from the start either, so after quite some illegal events (rape, torturing/killing POWs, shelling and bombing hospitals and schools), there is no reason to hold back any longer. It would just enable the Russians to maim and kill more Ukrainian civilists.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlEnglish
        01·
        15 days ago

        The point of these laws is to protect civilians from weapons that can’t be used to target just military targets. Do you give a shit about the people in Ukraine beyond their use as cannon fodder?

    • booly@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.

      This is an area where it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.

      So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn’t enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it’s morally reprehensible, and I’d prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.

      • masquenox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        15 days ago

        The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons

        That’s because incendiary weapons are great for exterminating villages full of poor people in the colonized world - ie, the kind of wars the US and UK prefer to wage.