• Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

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

    • alcoholicorn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months 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.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hasn’t the US also repeatedly allegedly accidentally hit targets with white phosphorus that was intended just as a marking flair?

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Preface: I am no expert, this is just my understanding.
      Weapons that are illegal/considered war crimes fall roughly into categories of:

      A. Indiscriminate - kill soldiers and non-combatants/civilians alike (eg. Land mines, incendiary, cluster bombs, etc)

      B. Cruel - especially painful ways to die or designed to cause ongoing suffering and maiming. (Eg: gas/chemical warfare, dirty bombs, etc)
      A lot of weapons tick both of those boxes, and there are possibly more i am unaware of.

    • addictedtochaos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I assure you one thing: If it happened to you and you survived, you will not wish this on your worst enemy.

      i have a hard time explaining this to people, they simply don’t get it-.