So why is using a flamethrower to flush out a cave any more morally reprehensible then gassing it, and sending down men to shoot anyone who survives? Because its more painful? Ok, I agree with that, but if it means less casualties altogether because one side doesnt have to send men down into the caves/bunkers, then its a worthwhile investment.
Of course, fire doesnt discriminate between civilians and enemy like a soldier with an rifle (Supposedly, in theory) does. I dont have any objection to using any kind of weaponry to defeat your enemy, except those with long term effects (Landmines, nuclear weapons, etc) and those that cause unnesscessary amounts of civilian deaths. Being able to eliminate your enemy faster and more efficiently results in less deaths all round, and death is bad, so less deaths is good. *Hands out flowers and "Peace" signs with Flamethrowers painted on them. Smokes bong and torches something with a 'thrower.*
Of course, you have to wonder how much money it'd take to "reintroduce" flamers to an army, and how much more effective they would make the average fighting unit, and whether society could be bettered by allocating the money to hospitals or librarys or whatever rather then MORE military toys.
_________________ I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn
|