The U.S. Needs To Act Against Russian Threat To Ukraine!

[Mushroom]

Whatever... Russia actively use individual rocket flamethrowers, heavy flamethrowers and incendiary bombs in Syria, and there is no any reason to think, that they won't use it in Ukraine, too...

No, they did not. Holy hell, why not just do everybody a favor and stop it. It is rather annoying to correct every single one of your posts because you do not know what in the hell you are talking about.

The TOS-1 is a thermobaric weapon. Commonly called an FAE or Fuel-Air Explosive.

They are not used against people, but buildings. And they do not kill by fire, they kill via causing a vacuum and a large shock wave that collapses bunkers and tunnels. Hence, "Fuel Air Explosive", not a "flame weapon". A great many countries use them, including the US.

Oh, and radiological weapons are also illegal. But that does not outlaw depleted uranium rounds, even though they do contain uranium.

And incendiary weapons are not "flame weapons" either. In the same way, they are legal to use against things like munitions, fuel, and supply depots, motor pools, and things like that. It is not legal to use them against soldiers though. This is similar once again how the US still uses White Phosphorous. It is legal to use for it's smoke producing capabilities and because the thermal signature obscures heat sensing optics and devices. But you can not use them against personnel, that is illegal. In US doctrine, they are typically fired between withdrawing US and allied forces and enemy forces to prevent them from being seen, and sometimes for purposes of artillery spotting.

But go ahead, try again and I will likely just shoot you down again, like I seem to do all the time. And please, "rocket flame throwers"? Yes, I am aware that is what the Soviets called the TOR-1, but they also called what China now uses an "Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser". Or their weird 1970's LASER tank "The Compression". Or their weird jet powered mine cleaning machine the "Warm-up". Unlike the US, they often name their equipment for strange, esoteric, psychological, or just silly reasons.

 

[Silver Cat]

No, they did not. Holy hell, why not just do everybody a favor and stop it. It is rather annoying to correct every single one of your posts because you do not know what in the hell you are talking about.

The TOS-1 is a thermobaric weapon. Commonly called an FAE or Fuel-Air Explosive.

They are not used against people, but buildings. And they do not kill by fire, they kill via causing a vacuum and a large shock wave that collapses bunkers and tunnels. Hence, "Fuel Air Explosive", not a "flame weapon". A great many countries use them, including the US.

Oh, and radiological weapons are also illegal. But that does not outlaw depleted uranium rounds, even though they do contain uranium.

And incendiary weapons are not "flame weapons" either. In the same way, they are legal to use against things like munitions, fuel, and supply depots, motor pools, and things like that. It is not legal to use them against soldiers though. This is similar once again how the US still uses White Phosphorous. It is legal to use for it's smoke producing capabilities and because the thermal signature obscures heat sensing optics and devices. But you can not use them against personnel, that is illegal. In US doctrine, they are typically fired between withdrawing US and allied forces and enemy forces to prevent them from being seen, and sometimes for purposes of artillery spotting.

But go ahead, try again and I will likely just shoot you down again, like I seem to do all the time. And please, "rocket flame throwers"? Yes, I am aware that is what the Soviets called the TOR-1, but they also called what China now uses an "Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser". Or their weird 1970's LASER tank "The Compression". Or their weird jet powered mine cleaning machine the "Warm-up". Unlike the US, they often name their equipment for strange, esoteric, psychological, or just silly reasons.

First of all, all Russian reactive flamethrowers (both individual and heavy) have three types of warheads - thermobaric, incendiary and smoke (for individual flamethrowers it is RPO-A, RPO-Z and RPO-D).
Second, Russia use her flamethrowers (both individual and heavy) against buildings, vehicles, soldiers.
Third, it means, that unprotected infantry (even in trenches) with ATGMs is defenseless against the real Russian attack.

 

[Mushroom]

First of all, all Russian reactive flamethrowers (both individual and heavy) have three types of warheads - thermobaric, incendiary and smoke (for individual flamethrowers it is RPO-A, RPO-Z and RPO-D).
Second, Russia use her flamethrowers (both individual and heavy) against buildings, vehicles, soldiers.
Third, it means, that unprotected infantry (even in trenches) with ATGMs is defenseless against the real Russian attack.

Holy hell, you just ignore everything I see.

It uses thermobaric, and incendiary. Which are completely legal against bunkers and equipment. We use the same kinds of weapons, as do most other countries. So why are you whining and screaming, and still calling it a "flame thrower" when it is not? It is a 220 mm rocket.

And if they are using it against "soldiers", then call the Hague and get them charged with war crimes. TO be honest, I have seen such screaming off and on for years now, normally by the uninformed that know little to nothing about the actual equipment or when/how it was used.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[Silver Cat]

Holy hell, you just ignore everything I see.

It uses thermobaric, and incendiary. Which are completely legal against bunkers and equipment. We use the same kinds of weapons, as do most other countries. So why are you whining and screaming, and still calling it a "flame thrower" when it is not? It is a 220 mm rocket.

And if they are using it against "soldiers", then call the Hague and get them charged with war crimes. TO be honest, I have seen such screaming off and on for years now, normally by the uninformed that know little to nothing about the actual equipment or when/how it was used.

Man, I'm not whining and screaming. I call it a flamethrower, because the Russians call it so.
TOS-1 - Wikipedia


The Russians call it so, and assign their flamethrowers not into artillery, but into their chemical units mostly because, as they say, the chemists must think offensively.


The Russians don't care about Hague, and the very conception of the conventional warfare is hardly fit their military mindset. But it's not important.
All what I want to say, the light anti-tank weapons are almost useless against regular Russian Army or even the People's Militia of Donbass Republics, because the infantry on the battlefield is highly vulnerable to artillery, aviation and chemical units.

 

[Mushroom]

I call it a flamethrower, because the Russians call it so.

I already discussed that also. What they call it does not matter, is what it is.

I can call my dog a horse, but no matter what she will never neigh. And throwing a saddle on her would be of little use. And Russia-Soviet Union has a long history as I said about giving items nonsensical or incorrect names, or overly convoluted names.

But tell me, if it is a flamethrower, then why have they not been called to the Hague for war crime trials? Why has the UN not castigated them for the use? Where are the sanctions against them for using illegal weapons?

Obviously, there are none. Because it is not a flamethrower.

I am amazed that I am going back and covering this all over again. I already did so expecting you would do that. And I'll be damned if you did not go ahead and do it anyways.

You rally should stop commenting on things you have absolutely no clue about.

 

[Silver Cat]

I already discussed that also. What they call it does not matter, is what it is.

Do you want to say, that marines, fighting in a desert are not "marines", but "sand soldiers"?

I can call my dog a horse, but no matter what she will never neigh. And throwing a saddle on her would be of little use. And Russia-Soviet Union has a long history as I said about giving items nonsensical or incorrect names, or overly convoluted names.

Actually, they don't call it "heavy flamethrower", they call it "tyajolaya ognemiotnaya sistema". So, you can say, that the whole language and mindset are incorrect.

But tell me, if it is a flamethrower, then why have they not been called to the Hague for war crime trials? Why has the UN not castigated them for the use? Where are the sanctions against them for using illegal weapons?

First, and most important - they are a nuclear power and do whatever they want. Second - because the convention doesn't restrict usage of incendiary weapons against military targets.

-----------
PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS

(PROTOCOL III)

Article 1
Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.

5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.
* A note, statement, declaration, or reservation, is attached to the signature or depository action. Click on the action date to view the details.
--------

 

[Rigby5]

Coward. Plain and simple, you chose the coward's approach.

Wrong.
The problem is the Ukraine is not real.
There are Ukrainians living in Kiev, but most of the people in the Ukraine are actually Russian, and always have been.
Like in the Crimea.
There really aren't any Ukrainians in the Crimea.
And the Ukrainians are the worst liars and theives.
For example, the world court has already found them guilty of stealing $billion in gas and oil from pipelines running through the Ukraine.

{...
On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of diverting gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[11][12]
...}

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the Ukrainians are not the good guys.
They not only sided with Hitler in WWII, but were the ones running the Holocaust death camps.

 

[Rigby5]

No, they did not. Holy hell, why not just do everybody a favor and stop it. It is rather annoying to correct every single one of your posts because you do not know what in the hell you are talking about.

The TOS-1 is a thermobaric weapon. Commonly called an FAE or Fuel-Air Explosive.

They are not used against people, but buildings. And they do not kill by fire, they kill via causing a vacuum and a large shock wave that collapses bunkers and tunnels. Hence, "Fuel Air Explosive", not a "flame weapon". A great many countries use them, including the US.

Oh, and radiological weapons are also illegal. But that does not outlaw depleted uranium rounds, even though they do contain uranium.

And incendiary weapons are not "flame weapons" either. In the same way, they are legal to use against things like munitions, fuel, and supply depots, motor pools, and things like that. It is not legal to use them against soldiers though. This is similar once again how the US still uses White Phosphorous. It is legal to use for it's smoke producing capabilities and because the thermal signature obscures heat sensing optics and devices. But you can not use them against personnel, that is illegal. In US doctrine, they are typically fired between withdrawing US and allied forces and enemy forces to prevent them from being seen, and sometimes for purposes of artillery spotting.

But go ahead, try again and I will likely just shoot you down again, like I seem to do all the time. And please, "rocket flame throwers"? Yes, I am aware that is what the Soviets called the TOR-1, but they also called what China now uses an "Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser". Or their weird 1970's LASER tank "The Compression". Or their weird jet powered mine cleaning machine the "Warm-up". Unlike the US, they often name their equipment for strange, esoteric, psychological, or just silly reasons.

I disagree that thermobaric weapons are not used to incinerate people.
That is exactly why the US used thermobaric weapons on the retreating Iraqi on the Highway of Death.

They are barbaric and should be totally illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you want to say, that marines, fighting in a desert are not "marines", but "sand soldiers"?


Actually, they don't call it "heavy flamethrower", they call it "tyajolaya ognemiotnaya sistema". So, you can say, that the whole language and mindset are incorrect.


First, and most important - they are a nuclear power and do whatever they want. Second - because the convention doesn't restrict usage of incendiary weapons against military targets.

-----------
PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS

(PROTOCOL III)

Article 1
Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.

5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.
* A note, statement, declaration, or reservation, is attached to the signature or depository action. Click on the action date to view the details.
--------

The reason thermobaric weapons should be illegal is because they do not kill quickly like a projectile does, but are weapons of mass destruction that incinerate all people in a large radius, (like half a mile), with chemical burning. Slowly incinerating people with chemical burning is illegal. Killing civilians who might be just be withing range is also illegal. So thermobaric weapons should be illegal.

 

[Mushroom]

Do you want to say, that marines, fighting in a desert are not "marines", but "sand soldiers"?

Marines are "Amphibious Forces".

Actually, they don't call it "heavy flamethrower", they call it "tyajolaya ognemiotnaya sistema". So, you can say, that the whole language and mindset are incorrect.

It is "тяжёлая огнемётная система". Which translates to "Heavy Flamethrower System". You literally gave us a Romanized spelling of the name, without actually translating what it is. Too funny.

Strike two.

First, and most important - they are a nuclear power and do whatever they want. Second - because the convention doesn't restrict usage of incendiary weapons against military targets.

Yes, they do. Holy hell, I already clarified that as they fall under Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

Here, I am providing a link to the complete Protocol III, but here are the most important parts of it.

1."Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons – UNODA

www.un.org

As such, the use of those weapons against personnel is illegal. All flame weapons are illegal, period. Does not matter what you use it against, they are illegal. Do I need to put this in bright flashing neon for you to get it?

And the fail just continues. I can give you the exact translation of something, and even the exact quotes from the actual Laws of Land Warfare, and you still insist you are right and I am wrong. Tell me, when did you start studying this? Because for me, it was in 1980. And as I said, I actually taught it for a couple of years.

 

[petro]

Members of Azov battalion attend a rally on the Volunteer Day honouring fighters, who joined the Ukrainian armed forces during a military conflict in the country's eastern regions, in central Kiev, Ukraine (credit: GLEB GARANICH/REUTERS)

Basically the Ukrainian forces are chock full of neo nazi white nationalists.
But hey, they hate Putin, so idiots in America wish to send aid to questionable people.

That's never bit us in the ass before...

 

[Mushroom]

Members of Azov battalion attend a rally on the Volunteer Day honouring fighters, who joined the Ukrainian armed forces during a military conflict in the country's eastern regions, in central Kiev, Ukraine

Basically the Ukrainian forces are chock full of neo nazi white nationalists.

Too bad that is not the Ukraine military. That is "Centuria Ukraine", and they are not part of the military in any way. Hell, just the fact that they can not even get uniform on their footwear should be an obvious clue about that. Plus those in the Ukrainian Army can not wear beards.

They are no more part of the Ukraine Military than the Michigan Militia is part of the US Military.

 

[petro]

Redirect Notice

Our track record getting involved in this shit speaks for itself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 595072Members of Azov battalion attend a rally on the Volunteer Day honouring fighters, who joined the Ukrainian armed forces during a military conflict in the country's eastern regions, in central Kiev, Ukraine (credit: GLEB GARANICH/REUTERS)

Basically the Ukrainian forces are chock full of neo nazi white nationalists.
But hey, they hate Putin, so idiots in America wish to send aid to questionable people.

That's never bit us in the ass before...

Are neo nazis worse than commies?

 

[petro]

Are neo nazis worse than commies?

According to liberals they are.

 

[Rigby5]

Are neo nazis worse than commies?

Yes, and the Ukrainians fought with the Germans against us in WWII.
They manned most of the Holocaust death camps.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, and the Ukrainians fought with the Germans against us in WWII.
They manned most of the Holocaust death camps.

How many have neo nazis killed?
How many have commies killed?

 

[Rigby5]

How many have neo nazis killed?
How many have commies killed?

The Russians never invaded anyone I know of.
They were totally defensive, and lost about 35 million people when Germany invaded in WWII.
Before WWII, there were conflicts cause by the White Russian imperialists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Russians never invaded anyone I know of.
They were totally defensive, and lost about 35 million people when Germany invaded in WWII.
Before WWII, there were conflicts cause by the White Russian imperialists.

Why did they occupy Eastern Europe for 45 years?
Germany was the only country that invaded them.