my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Russians used banned "Vacuum" bombs in Chechnya! (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Russians used banned "Vacuum" bombs in Chechnya!
Tracer
Member
Member # 259

posted 03-10-2000 07:01 AM     Profile for Tracer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I know this should go in the weapons forum,but it very "quiet" over there and i thought you guys would be interested in this?
I watched a documentary last night which looked at the war in Chechnya and the atrocity that the Russian soldiers carried out against the civilians.
They(the reporter)went into one house and found the remnants of a "Vacuum" bomb which had gone off and apparently sucked everything out the house!-the glass was all outside not inside the house.
Victims of this bomb(civilians) had there lungs sucked inside out(what a sick way to go!)This weapon has been banned and already Vladimir Putin is guilty of a War Crime by using it!!
I know that it descends on a parachute so that the weapon detonates as much above ground as possible to maximise the damage it does.
Does anyone know exactly what this weapon is-weight,contents etc?
The actual theory that has been put, is that this war was started deliberately to boost the popularity of acting Russian president Putin and his new regime?

Tracer

------------------
"Flying is the second greatest thing known to man!
The first is landing!!"


Posts: 681 | From: Edinburgh,Scotland | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 03-10-2000 07:54 AM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Dude...have you EVER heard of Fuel Air Explosives...or FAEs? These wonderful weapons were designed and created by the good ole USA to KILL enemies hidden in bunkers.

Whether or not civilians were killed during the employment of these weapons in Chechnya is irrelevant. They were given the opportunity to leave but unfortunately, the muslims 'rebels' did not permit them to do so. What's more...they sniped people walking on 'secure roads'.

Since they could not leave they had to hide out in basments and unfortunately...that's the last place that you want to be when a FAE goes off.

NATO is also guilty of war crimes for bombing civilians yet nobody is going out of their way to charge them of these crimes. Remember the civilian train on the bridge...? Hmmm?

BTW...those Chechen 'rebels' are just as willing to kill you (A Scot) as they are willing to kill a Russian. So be careful who you're rooting for...ok?


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
gabbys
Member
Member # 2607

posted 03-10-2000 09:02 AM     Profile for gabbys   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I don't think that FAE's were banned. Pretty sure that the US used them in the Gulf War. If they are banned I bet the US didn't sign, they are cheap and work too good.
Posts: 193 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
'
Member
Member # 3472

posted 03-10-2000 09:10 AM     Profile for '   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tracer
Keep watching TV...

------------------
... --- ... --- ... --- ...


Posts: 445 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 03-10-2000 10:05 AM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Indeed. The US did use FAE's on the Iraqi frontline during Desert Storm.

To my knowledge, these weapons are not banned by any convention.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lucky_1
Member
Member # 352

posted 03-10-2000 10:59 AM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
This is old news.

Not only did they use aerial bombs, they also used rockets and artillery shell types.

War is not pretty, and of course there are no rules.

------------------
Two beers, or not two beers. There is no question.


Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SPOT
Member
Member # 453

posted 03-10-2000 01:08 PM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
FAE have no place where civilians are mixed in with guerilla fighters, terrorists or whatever you want to call them. They just kill a lot of innocent people and create a hate in surviving civilians who probable were not inclined to support the Chechan fighters but just want to get out of the way and be left alone. For any government, including my own (US), who gets themselves in a postion where it has to use FAE's against an enemy using civilians as shields or intermingling with them just proves that government lacks any political judgement or foresight and is morally bankrupt.
Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
'
Member
Member # 3472

posted 03-10-2000 01:45 PM     Profile for '   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"War is not pretty, and of course there are no rules."
Yup, agreed completely. But what's a big deal? I mean, is it the first time something like this happened in a world. Me, I am really pissed about getting a fine, for riding my bicycle on sidewalk, and preventing my, or other person's death on a road.

------------------
... --- ... --- ... --- ...


Posts: 445 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Ser
Member
Member # 3115

posted 03-10-2000 02:49 PM     Profile for Ser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
My dear Tracer, try to know more about Russian history and history of Cacasus wars in particular!Pacifism is not new thing. I hope all your relatives will never be killed by terrorists by cutting their heads! Best wishes from Russia
Posts: 26 | From: Kaliningrad Russia | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jay
Member
Member # 3216

posted 03-10-2000 04:09 PM     Profile for Jay   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Re:FAE explosives like most weapons they are neither intrisically good nor intrisically bad:- Only their actual use. Employing these weapons in built up areas with alarge civillian population remaining was and is an act of barbarity and can in no way be compared with the use of FAE`s during the gulf in comparitivly "clean" (IE No Civilian desert Area`s)
And before anyone mentions Bunkers and Trains I think the word is INTENT!!

Posts: 119 | From: Nottingham/England | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Johnny
unregistered

posted 03-10-2000 05:47 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
FAE's are ALLOWED TO BE USED IN INTERNAL CONFLICTS.
IP: Logged
Johnny
unregistered

posted 03-10-2000 05:49 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
According to international law FAE is ALLOWED to be used in internal conflicts.
IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 03-10-2000 08:11 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
SPOT, Jay - I guess this means the US is also morally bankrupt, because we used napalm on guerillas during the Vietnam war, with little regard for civilian casualties. We killed thousands of civilians with napalm, cluster bombs, and other munitions from the air.

And we were killing people in another country. At least the Russians are doing this stuff on their own territory.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Ozias
unregistered

posted 03-10-2000 09:13 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I saw the documentary that Tracer is referring to, during which the reporter alleges that after the Russian military dropped FAE weapons on the village, they then gave the survivors an hour or so to leave the village. They were told to mark their vehicles with white sheets on the roofs and doors, so they could be easily identified as civilian vehicles.
As soon as the convoy of several dozen vehicles started moving, the russian military began bombing and shelling the vehicles, reputedly killing about 360 civilians.


IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 03-10-2000 09:28 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Listen...the first casualty of war is TRUTH. That's an age old saying.

Some of these so-called 'reports' about attrocities and the likes usually are overblown by the other side to draw attention and/or look for external support.

I for one have absolutely NO SYMPATHY for the Chechen 'rebels'. The majority are muslim radicals funded by Osama bin Laden and many are mercenaries from Afghanistan and other regions.

Before ANYONE starts saying how 'good' or 'noble' the Chechen's fight is...remember who these people are. Their philosophies are the exact same ones as the nut cases that bombed the American embassies in Africa. Let's cut the bullsh!t and start supporting the Russians in a war that could spread to other regions and cause greater havoc later on.

BTW...take this topic somewhere else please...


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SPOT
Member
Member # 453

posted 03-10-2000 10:03 PM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
M Baxter-

The way we fought VietNam was abysmal. Napalm - you don't use weapon like that around civilians. And no democracy should get themselves in that position where they have to use such weapons to take out an enemy that close to civilians. And our policy in VietNam was morally bankrupt. Free-fire zones, defoliation, body-count obsession, B-52 strikes in rural areas (Cambodia). We didn't do ourselves proud. AND what the f*ck were we doing most of the fighting in S.VietNam. We destroyed our ally with half-*** poltical/military thinking and tactics and then cut them loose when we didn't want to "pay any price and bear any burden" (JFK quote) anymore. If that isn't morally wrong I don't know what is.
We still have a slight hangover from that war and the troops who were their certainly weren't pumped up on the objectives (What was the objective of that war by the way?)

As for Chechnya - I think the Chechans soldiers and civilians don't feel like Russian citizens today. Whether the Russians like it or not they are building a stronger sense of Chechan nationalism then there was before this military campaign. If that's possible.

Think about this scenario:
Your an American general on a Korean Battlefield
If you were fighting a North Korean Army in the field you would throw the kitchen sink at them - but if you are fighting a North Korean Army thats in a South Korean City filled with scared South Koreans civilians to terrified to move are you going to drop FAE? I KNOW the S.Korean military and politicians wouldn't stand for that.

All weapons have there time and place on how they are used.

The way the Russians are fighting in Chechnya doesn't impress me and will not pay any dividends for them in that area in the future?

The Russian are showing the same amount of political and military finesse in Chechnya we showed VietNam.

Putin wanted this war to solidify his power.
Putin cares about as much about Chechans as he does for those 300+ Russian civilians killed in the apartment blast. Frankly, anyone willing to use FAE on his own civilians (doesn't Putin see Chechnya as part of Russia) is perfectly capable of blowing some poor Moscovites up to secure his power.


Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
'
Member
Member # 3472

posted 03-10-2000 11:27 PM     Profile for '   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"The way we fought VietNam was abysmal. Napalm - you don't use weapon like that around civilians. And no democracy should get themselves in that position where they
have to use such weapons to take out an enemy that close to civilians."

Comes up on my mind the situation with a farm(or something), when US citizens, in US, were burned alive.
If you ask me, I'd never use weapons against all terrorist lunatics, so nobody will be bitching after. I'd use dozers, to wipe them clean.
Another thing. How do you think Russian army must feel, when they realized, that their people(military and civilians)get killed by pure strangers, who don't even speak Russian. Mostly from arabic, and African countries. All looking for extra $$$.
Now about Putin. Putin doesn't care about being in power. He is fairly younge, and from different company. He is not yet corrupt. And because of that, he gets a major support of population. Not because of Chechnya. Russia is still the largest country, and little Chechnya means nothing(in terms of territory). The idea, that Putin has about "fixing" the situation around Chechnya, is to show, that Russia(hopefuly)got a new goverment. Which won't do the b***t, the previous did during past years(including the idiotic withdrawing from Chechnya during last war)
Trust me, Russians people, have seen "alot of" government during past years, to whom they lost their trust. But now they are awaken. There got to be the reason.
I just want to say last thing. I lived in Russia. Been few times in 80's in Georgia(Russia) Not too far from Chechnya. Was at that time(to me) heaven on Earth. Also, lived in Israel(around Desert Storm time), and lived few years in Guatemala. Now live for 11 years in Canada. And I think, that EVERYWHERE(here goes stereotype)RUNS THE SAME B***T, under different sauces.

------------------
... --- ... --- ... --- ...


Posts: 445 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tracer
Member
Member # 259

posted 03-11-2000 06:26 AM     Profile for Tracer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Spectre,
You OBVIOUSLY need to watch a "wee" bit more TV and pull your head out your backside!
I was refering to unarmed civilians that were not given the chance to leave-or chaneled through one route so that men old/young were killed by Russian troops.
This was a major grudge re-match that Russia *had* to win! and as for the FAE,it is banned for use over civilian areas-this was no frontline-which is why you wont see the USA or NATO trundling an M1-Abrams or Challenger through a civilian area blowing rebels or the like out of windows in streets!! It is not politicaly correct.
As for NATO taking out the train on the bridge-it hardly was "a populated area" as in any war these are prime targets and the proof in the footage proved that it was unlucky timing!(accidents do happen in war)
This was a topic Spectre- who made you "judge and jury"? I am no sympathiser when it is soldiers against soldiers-but is a different story when it is civilians! As for the end of your passage;
BTW...those Chechen 'rebels' are just as willing to kill you (A Scot) as they are willing to kill a Russian. So be careful who you're rooting for...ok?
That is absolute bull*&^%! and more of a direct threat from you! never mind any Chechenya rebel!....................besides there is more chance i would be attacked by a lion at the local zoo!!!
It is strange that when a news topic such as this is put up, you get some good replies and some pretty thoughtless ones- that sound more like they would reply from a holster first than with a bit of clear thought??????????????????

Tracer

------------------
"Flying is the second greatest thing known to man!
The first is landing!!"


Posts: 681 | From: Edinburgh,Scotland | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 03-11-2000 06:59 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tracer,
save it...people don't change their minds on this forum...even if the arguments are good ones...missed that doc., what channel was it on?

Zed

(to get some idea of what type of people you are talking to, read the OPEC string in 'current'...)

[This message has been edited by Zed (edited 03-11-2000).]


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
'
Member
Member # 3472

posted 03-11-2000 10:09 AM     Profile for '   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes, save it. You may miss a TV program

------------------
... --- ... --- ... --- ...


Posts: 445 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 03-11-2000 01:37 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As someone said, those Vacuum bombs are properly designated FAE for Fuel Air Explosive. They eject a mixture of different petrochemical substances into the air and ingnites it.

IIRC, the main function is not to create a vacuum and suck people's lungs out but to create a huge blast (almost comparable to a tac. nuke) which as well as causing normal blast damage is reported to cause brain damage, ouch...

Anyway, I think using _any_ weapon on civilians is "illegal" and if you want to keep somewhat in proper morale, you should avoid anything but LGBs and other fairly limited damage weapons against targets with civilians in the vicinity.

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: PiteŚ, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SPOT
Member
Member # 453

posted 03-11-2000 03:52 PM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I couldn't agree with you more.
Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lucky_1
Member
Member # 352

posted 03-11-2000 08:19 PM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter,

How in the hell can you compare the war in Chechnya with the Vietnam conflict? It sounds like all you want to do is stir up trouble and say how corrupt the U.S. government is. Just like your arguement about the F-22 in the politics forum. There you were making a speech like a hippy at an anti-government rally.

If you only knew the history between the Chechens and the Russians, then maybe you would understand why they use PAE's.

Oh yes, the atrocities of the U.S in Vietnam, all the those Civilians killed and maimed! Ha! Like the VC and NVA were angels! Lets see, how bout the VC shooting at helicopters with Red crosses on them. Or maybe peeling the skin of captured pilots or soldiers and cutting off their private parts. Or maybe chaining civilians to their AAA guns so that we had to kill them in order to take out the guns.

Need I say more?

The U.S. was not supposed be in Vietnam, but that does not make the actions of VC/NVA just or the US actions.

As I said earlier, there are no rules in war. And what little regulations there are, they are very unclear.

So, please, do not crticize the US, unless you were there and can comprehend what they were actually involved with over there.

------------------
Two beers, or not two beers. There is no question.


Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Casey
Member
Member # 873

posted 03-12-2000 01:11 AM     Profile for Casey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
It's always disturbing when civilians are killed by military attacks but the sad truth is, it's nothing new.

How many Japanese and German civilians were killed in Allied bombings? What about Tokyo fire raids? And Berlin? And you can go way back... It wasn't as widely accepted at the time but civilians were killed during the American Civil War and the Revolution. Hours before the battle of Lexington and Concord, British troops shot a retarded boy off a fence after he yelled "bloody British bastards!" Check out the French and Indian Wars in North America.

I think it's good to oppose tactics which lead to civilian deaths. Allied forces did a good job of it in the Gulf War. But we have to admit, it happens and all nations which have gone to war are guilty of it.


Posts: 636 | From: America | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tracer
Member
Member # 259

posted 03-12-2000 07:29 AM     Profile for Tracer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hi Zed,
The prog was "Dispatches"- CH4 last Thursday 9.30pm.
Yes i know!-It's just a shame that if any of the "for's" had read my post properly they would have saw that i was talking about a "house" not a bunker/frontline etc.
Ah well............................

Tracer


Posts: 681 | From: Edinburgh,Scotland | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 03-12-2000 03:16 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
There is only one truely banned "conventional" type weapon that I know of. I forget the name. It acts like a cluster bomb. But instead of releasing explosive pellets, it releases tens of thousands of solid metal pellets no rounder than a .45 ACP bullet. The weapon was classified as anti personel.

And I assume we all know what happens when you drop a penny from a few thousand feet up in the air? This anti personel weapon will litterally shred every living thing in a 1000 yard radius.

The last time this little sucker was ever used was in Vietnam from my understanding. Most definately the best thing since Napalm, even better than napalm. Unfortunately the UN, LBJ's administration, the Russians and Bleeding heart liberals didn't much like a weapon that had the scarey potential of being more than effective.

As far as I know this one is banned from all types of conflict, unless the rules have changed in the last few years? Anyhoo this weapon is the nastiest of the nasties. Silent, deadly as heck and costs a slight percentage of the price of conventional munitions.

Oh did I mention that it more or less leaves the surrounding foliage intact? It just tears appart solid human flesh.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Johnny
Member
Member # 3636

posted 03-12-2000 03:33 PM     Profile for Johnny   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Wasn't napalm banned too?
Posts: 102 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Lucky_1
Member
Member # 352

posted 03-12-2000 07:20 PM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here's whats funny...

According to Geneva Conventions regulations, shotguns are illegal to use in combat. We used shotguns in Vietnam. It was illegal, but you must remember, the United States, nor Vietnam, ever signed what became the geneva conventions. So I guess it was like a free-for-all in Vietnam.

Banning a weapon like the shotgun for example, because it is considered inhumane is strange. On the other hand, blowtorches are not banned. Heh, don't wound em with buckshot, but you can burn them to death! Heh, go figure!

------------------
Two beers, or not two beers. There is no question.


Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 03-13-2000 12:00 AM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Heh heh heh Dont you know the UN considers all small arms not in the hands of US or British soldiers are tantimount to contraband

Wonder why flamethrowers aren't illegal...

The only thing the UN is good for is imaginary red tape.


Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Hevyg
Member
Member # 1830

posted 03-13-2000 08:51 AM     Profile for Hevyg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I am reluctant to involve myself in this string of reactionary conjecture, but I cannot keep silent while these ludicrous comparisons of Chechnya and Vietnam go on, along side freshman college-political club sloganeering; there are some people who read these forums, putting credence in what they read here.

The only thing these two "situations" have in common is a history of imperialism. The Chechens, a pretty savage group of people, had enjoyed independence (even from the Ottoman Turks!) for their entire recorded existance. It wasn't until 1859 (the time of the American Civil War) that the Russian Empire claimed the region that included Chechen territory. But the Chechens were far from domesticated (today's headlines are evidence).

In today's geo-political reality, one must keep in mind the huge "Mullahcracy" (Iran)just to the south of Russia. And for those of you who never crack open an atlas, the last time I checked, Chechnya's borders were within the Russian Federation. Read: the Russians have real and legitimate geopolitical interests in the stability of this region.

The Chechens who pepper the Russian cosmopolitan landscape haven't been very good ambassadors-at-large, either. They treat women terribly, they are more cruel, corrupt, and vicious than any members of the Odessa Mafia, and this is played out in popular opinion of the Russian masses; in 1995, they were not against the war because it was an unjust war in their minds, they were against the war becasue it was handled badly, and their boys' lives were being wasted needlessly in the Caucases. The Chechens are by far the most despised ethnic group in the former Soviet Union.

As far as the righteous hyperbole you see on network news, where was this righteousness when NATO was showering bombs on Serbia?Where was this righteousness when Turkey (a very good NATO ally) was exterminating Kurds in its southeast region?

Do the Chechens have a right to fight Russia? Certainly! Does Russia have a right to pursure its national interests? Certainly! Is it productive for semi-informed people to spew out slogans and opinons about regions of the world that they know nothing about, or worse yet, regions of the world they know only from public school textbooks? Probably not.

Thanks for listening!


Posts: 120 | From: Puget Sound | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
bighead111
Member
Member # 3318

posted 03-13-2000 09:34 AM     Profile for bighead111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hi Y'all,

Playing combat sim or war game are fun. However, try not to be real war maniac. War is a very ugly business. So call "Moral War" is just a total ******** propaganda by politcains with their own agenda. War should be avoided ocmpletelly!!!!


Posts: 299 | From: london | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Hevyg
Member
Member # 1830

posted 03-13-2000 10:34 AM     Profile for Hevyg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here Here!

Moral superiority belongs to he who has access to the greatest number of TV sets!


Posts: 120 | From: Puget Sound | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
bighead111
Member
Member # 3318

posted 03-13-2000 10:50 AM     Profile for bighead111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bighead111:
Hi Y'all,

Playing combat sim or war game are fun. However, try not to be real war maniac. War is a very ugly business. So call "Moral War" is just a total ******** propaganda by politcains with their own agenda. War should be avoided completely!!!!



Posts: 299 | From: london | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
JA
unregistered

posted 03-13-2000 11:50 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A couple things to keep in mind. The US is most certainly a signatory to the Geneva Convention, although it has not (to my knowledge) ratified all of the additions and appendices to it. There are numerous UN resolutions and protocols addressing and prohibiting the use of such things as chemical weapons and firearm rounds designed to deform and fragment (such as dum-dum bullets, non-jacketed small-caliber rounds, etc.), causing "superfluous injury". FAEs are not prohibited as such, but the use of any air-delivered incendiary munition in a civilian-inhabited area (such as a city!) is. We have certainly come a long way to arrive at a point where Americans applaud the use by Russian armed forces of indiscriminate "horror" weapons against civilian populations...
IP: Logged
SPOT
Member
Member # 453

posted 03-13-2000 11:51 AM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bighead111-
An admirable sentiment - until someone like Adolph Hitler comes along promising you peace.

[This message has been edited by SPOT (edited 03-13-2000).]


Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 03-13-2000 02:05 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If I lead a country going to war, I'd regard the Geneva Convention as so much used toilet paper. An enemy is an enemy, whether they wear a uniform or not, the only thing that's different is the direct level of harm they can inflict on you.

Going out of your way to kill harmless civilians is one thing, Denying the use of vastly more effective weopons and subsequently losing far more of your own people shows neglect and disrespect for your soldiers. If some noncombatants get their life shortened, so be it. War must be fought to win, It's not some Victorian gentleman's game of honor.

------------------
"And those that don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kletteer
Member
Member # 1842

posted 03-13-2000 05:52 PM     Profile for Kletteer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The first rule of WAR is there are no Rules.


462 Day & Nights in Nam (No fun at anytime!)


Posts: 28 | From: Flushing, New York, USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Hunter Cole
Member
Member # 3440

posted 03-13-2000 09:01 PM     Profile for Hunter Cole   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Gentlemen.
War is a state where a loss of live, destruction is a FACT. People die, get maimed, suffer untold hardships and deprivation. Families are torn apart as loyalties are split apart, friends who have known each other for years suddenly find themselves killing one another.


It doesn't matter what weapon is used People die in war. Fact of life.

Two generals of the American Civil War called it right.

Sherman said "War is Hell." Robert E. Lee said while observing the slaughter at Gettysburg I beleive, "It is good that war is so terrible, else we'd grow too fond of it"

War has progressed to the point where NO ONE is not affected. The principal of Total War is being the norm. The days when battles took place between armies and the civillians were out of the way.

Weapons and tactics have put civillians into the killing fields and there isn't anything one can do about it. Cities will be bombed, guerrilla warfare will use the civillian to hide their actions and the forces they are fighting against will in turn strike at them using all the tools available to them.

Viet Nam, Chezchnia, it's still the same thing - People are going to die comabtants and non combatants alike.

Unconventional war where the line between the troops and ncs are blurred is the worst type of war and the hardest to fight, because the ROE aren't as defined as they are between regular forces.

There aren't any battle lines. We found that out in Nam, the Whermacht at Stalingrad before that when it took them 5 days and a battalion to take a grain elevator held by small platoon. They only found 40 bodies in the rubble against 200 KIA for them.

The USSR found that out in Afganistan and the lesson is being taught again.

Anyway, war is a part of humanity ever since the first man picked up a stick and hit his brother over the head for the right to move into his cave, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

So in closing, I will remind you that War is Hell and people unfortunately, both combatant and nom combatant are going to die..

And one more thing if you fly a military sim like Falcon then you are simulating delivering those vacum bombs, you don't want that then you need to fly FS or some other civillian flight sim..

My thoughts such as they are..

Semper Fi


Posts: 184 | From: Danville, Va USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
JA
unregistered

posted 03-14-2000 01:59 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"It's not some Victorian gentleman's game of honor." No, apparently honor is unfashionable and irrelevant these days - winning is all that counts, whether one's cause is good or evil, whether one's tactics are militarily valid or not, no matter how many noncombatants (women, children, etc.) have their eyes melted and their lungs sucked out. I haven't seen such a fetishization of the idea that "the ends justify the means" since I studied Leninism and Stalinism back in college. I urge you to read the Geneva Convention and its attendant protocols yourselves. I don't see anything there that is inconsistent with waging an effective war and minimizing casualties among one's own forces. The Allied bombing campaign against the Third Reich had a valid military objective - the crippling of Germany's ability to wage war through systematic destruction of industrial targets, although many civilians lost their lives. Germany's wholesale slaughter of Russian Jews had no valid military objective, although the German war effort in the East was advanced, I suppose, by killing those who were potential partisan guerrillas. Apparently, the two acts are of equal moral worth - when there's a war on, anything goes! Please. I'm aware that wars are confusing, unpredictable, and brutal, and that sometimes, even often, events that some would characterize as "atrocities" are unavoidable - that is reality, unfortunately. However, that does not excuse us, as individuals or as societies, from the responsibility to attempt to behave morally on the battlefield. If we are in fact not morally obligated to do so, what right have we to criticize Nazis, Communists, or Islamic terrorists? These remarks are not directed to any specific incident or incidents in question - Russian FAEs in Chechnya or napalm strikes in Vietnam, for example - but to the underlying idea that the suffering and death of noncombatants is not trivial.
IP: Logged
Heretic
Member
Member # 722

posted 03-14-2000 06:21 AM     Profile for Heretic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
war has no rule,
Geneva treaty today is toilet paper as it has always been, and frankly they are ********.. as sayd before,shotgun not allowed but nuke, blowtorch, landmines etc are...ha!
The first intent of war is winning, the most you kill the better it is.
Is there's no one left there's no threat right!
look at human history... no war was ever clean or fair. They never will be.
And you americain talking of fairness, how innocent you guys are...
You look almost like the first war european soldier that went to war with flowers in theyr rifles, smiling happys!!!
The worst of all is the fact that you play WAR sims, do you think ~virtual~ population doesn't suffer???
The funniest is the fact that you aren't able to stop your internal war. have someone looked at how many people are killid/injured/krippled by fireweaponry in us by year??

Wars a **** ... but it brings money,power and status to the winning side....
As long as greed exist we're f*ck*p....


Posts: 546 | From: Brasil, Rio de Janeiro | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved