Technology

59605 readers

3434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

617

Ukrainian drones now spray 4,000° F thermite streams right into Russian trenches (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

282 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 241 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (43 children)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 months ago (22 children)

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.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Fire is a weapon of war. There is nothing immoral about employing it as such.

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

"Mustard gas is a weapon of war. There is nothing immoral about employing it as such."

I honestly hope you never have to experience war.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Mustard gas is ineffective. That is the actual reason it's outlawed: The opposing force dons gas masks, completely negating the effect, the only stuff that it still kills is collateral damage. That's precisely what happened during WWI: It made everything nastier without actually having an impact on the strategic level.

There's this notion among many people that the Geneva convention is about preventing cruelty or something, not at all: It's about preventing pointless cruelty. Cruelty that does not actually serve a military objective. War is hell, that's already a given.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago

They gave up pointless cruelty precisely because doing so cost them nothing.

[–] dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Whereas you have no issue with people who agree with you having to experience war?

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't know how you got that from my comment.

[–] dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I was being mildly sarcastic, not antagonistic

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Sorry, that didn't come across well via text I guess

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can't help but feel that being mildly sarcastic in response to someone's comment is, by its nature, somewhat antagonistic.

[–] dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I accept this.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (18 replies)

load more comments (38 replies)