Most Inhumane Weapon - Page 2

SpikedHelmet · #26 (**permalink**) January 7th, 2004, 08:11 AM

I don't think it's so much the "most inhumane weapon", but how inhumanely a weapon is used. Whether it's firebombing a city with napalm or sticking a bayonette into a child..

I may be biased of course but I think the most inhumane *usage* of a weapon was Churchill's desire to incinerate the German people. Sure the Nazi's tried to do the same but they were self-proclaimed "evil" people. Churchill & Co. were supposed to represent democracy and human rights, so why was he so keen on mass murder? Not to mention his (failed) attempt to drop poisons and chemicals on Germany.. thankfully the RAF convinced him incindiary bombs did more damage.

Martin Bull · #27 (**permalink**) January 7th, 2004, 08:31 AM

Can we please include the US desire to incinerate Tokyo with mass B-29 raids and to eradicate Hiroshima and Nagasaki...or do different moral standards apply in that theatre of war ?

Arminius · #28 (**permalink**) January 7th, 2004, 08:34 AM

my personal opinion is that the russian habit of forced marching noble and sometimes not so noble soldiery to thier death must be one of the worst weapons.

Onthefield · #29 (**permalink**) January 7th, 2004, 04:06 PM

If we are speaking of homefront weapons I have to voice the weapon of Germany against the Jews: the concentration camps. In this war, there was no fighting, just genocide, only one weapon, death. Pulling people out of marching lines and shooting them because someone feels like it, inhumane does not describe those actions. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

Sami · #30 (**permalink**) January 14th, 2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheRedBaron:
But the Germans first came up with the flamethrower... As for vehicle mounted flamethrowers, was the PnzII Flamingo and FlammPanzer III around first???

This comes from Parada's site:

"During African campaign, small number of Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf As was converted in the field by Africa Korps (5th Light Division) during Battle of Tobruk in 1941 into Flammenwerfer auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf A (a similar conversion was done to Ausf Bs during Spanish Civil War). It was armed with light portable infantry Flammenwerfer (flamethrower model) 40 and MG (in place of right hand machine gun). Some 10 to 12 bursts could be fired with a range of 25m." http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz11.htm#panzer1

"On February 21,1939 German Army HQ ordered the development of Flammpanzer (flame-thrower tank)."
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/flam.htm

However, it seems the Russians were a bit earlier in their testing:
"OT-26 (HT-26) - flame-thrower (chemical) tank 1933-1934. Armament: flame-thrower and one machine-gun. A few tanks were produced."
http://www.battlefield.ru/t26.html

Cheers,
Sami

P.S. didn't check whats the history in other Allied forces.
However, flame tanks seem to have appeared in real numbers in the Red Army only in 1938.

SpikedHelmet · #31 (**permalink**) January 25th, 2004, 12:09 AM

I don't see the flamethrower as being that bad a weapon. It might be inhumane to roast someone alive but the flamethrower can do things no other weapon of the time could. It's best use was probably by Allied forces in Europe fighting against the Germans' many fortifications and in the Pacific, burning out Jap foxholes.

Also wasn't there (or isn't there) a ban on automatic weapons larger than 15mm during the war, because it was "inhumane" or something of the sort? Seems to me I'd rather be blown apart and instantly die than slowly bleed to death with gunshot wounds to the stomach in the mud like an animal.

All weapons are inhumane by design; they're made to kill other humans.

Fredd · #32 (**permalink**) February 10th, 2004, 08:45 AM

Mine quess is flamethrower, either. No wonder germans had a habit sumarily shoot all crocodile tank crew member. I would do the same. However I know none soldier picks up its allocation.

Colin · #33 (**permalink**) February 18th, 2004, 08:44 PM

The most inhumane weapon ever built is the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb does not belong in the hands of anyone.

Pvt.Liam · #34 (**permalink**) February 18th, 2004, 09:05 PM

Most inhumane weapon ever was school, it traumautises our brains. Makes us senseless, and worst of all, it's happening EVERYWHERE.

T. A. Gardner · #35 (**permalink**) February 18th, 2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pvt.Liam:
Most inhumane weapon ever was school, it traumautises our brains. Makes us senseless, and worst of all, it's happening EVERYWHERE.

Obviously someone who believes as Mark Twain did: "Soap and education aren't as sudden as a massacre but they are more deadly in the long run."

urqh · #36 (**permalink**) June 15th, 2004, 09:57 AM

Most inhumane weapon? An officer with a map.

BigBert_96 · #37 (**permalink**) June 29th, 2004, 08:14 PM

I must say, Im new to this forum and this particuliar thread bothers me. To ask which is the most inhumane weapon is an oxymoron. Nobody even mentioned the weapon that killed the most people in WWII. Starvation, and the diseases associated with it. And since I can guarantee that nobody on this thread has been shot, grenaded, napalmed, or atomic bombed, all at once in thier lifetime, how can you pick which one would be the most inhumane? Since nobody has been exposed to all of them. Cant the smallest bullet lodged in the belly of its victim be just as painful as peeling flesh from your own skin due to white phosphorous, flamethrower or a-bomb? Once again nobody knows, so this is a null and void question.

Friedrich · #38 (**permalink**) June 29th, 2004, 08:27 PM

That's certainly a valid point, Bert!

Welcome to the forums. Hope you enjoy yourself here. Swear the rest of the threads aren't as silly as this one.

TheRedBaron · #39 (**permalink**) June 29th, 2004, 08:32 PM

I had a pint glass smashed in my face once... DOes that count BigBert?

So, by definition of experience, as that is the only weapon that has been used on me, I will go for that...

Most Inhumane Weapon - The Pint Glass

I do however see Bigberts point, how do we know! And personally, I dont wanna find out!

Surely, by being designed to kill, all weapons are inhumane by nature? How can you have a humane weapon?

Stevin · #40 (**permalink**) June 29th, 2004, 08:50 PM

Monty Python's deadly joke....it killed, but at least they died laughing...

urqh · #41 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2004, 11:00 AM

We dont know, but then some on the forum may have experience of a weapon used against them, but thats not the point either.

I think the question was asked from a social/moral point as to what the majority of us on here would deem to be the most inhuman weapon, although none of us can qualify as experts we all have a view rightly or wrongly.

We all look at it differently some from a personal point of view, some from a social point of view. None can be expert I think thats accepted, but neither can any of us be expert if the question was asked...what was the best place to go on leave from the front in ww2?

Ill stick to my officer with a map for most inhuman weapon, its my experience an officer with a map can like the old story say indeed lead to great danger, but its a personal point from my own experience.

Mahross · #42 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2004, 03:07 PM

Red - good pint all weapons are deadly in inhumane by definition but i suppose the point is a humane weapon would be something which kills quickly. For example Sarin CX gas tends to kill rapidly but even then while you die it is very painful. You would think that a weapons such as a nuclear warhead is humane, but it is only humane when you are at the centre of the blast because as you move out from the blast radius people take much longer as they will die from the effect of radiation poisoning. again the same is try of a rifle. If it is well aimed with a bullet that will kill on impact then it can be humane but if it is being shot by a badly trained conscript and using a dum dum bullet then it can inflict a lot of pain. therfore, it is inhumane.

drache · #43 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2004, 05:10 PM

Land mines - millions all over the world - old, hidden, forgotten, just waiting to cripple innocent children - probably some of the worst stories. People that have absolutely nothing to do with a conflict that happened decades before get their limbs blown off for nothing.

TheRedBaron · #44 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2004, 05:13 PM

Why is a well aimed bullet more humane than a poorly aimed one?

A quick death does not equate to humane, as anything used to kill is in effect, inhumane as it is used to destroy a human. I cant see how any weapon, regardless of the quickness of death can be humane. Look at the struggle with executions to find a painless and humane way of killing. The seemingly only humane way to kill would seem to be via lethal injection that educes a sleep-like coma followed by death.

At the end of the day we cant ask people how it feels to be killed by this or that as they are dead.

It is more a case of which form of killing is more socially acceptable to us, but this depends on your culture, religion and upbringing.

For example, in Nepal or Tibet, I forget which, human bodies are sent into the afterlife by being chopped up and fed to the birds... hard to bury in mountains and not enough wood to burn the bodies. This would seem repulsive to those who have to have the body whole to pass into the afterlife.

Its all a matter of perspective but a weapon, of any description has to be inhumane, otherwise it would be of no use. It is used for the destruction or injuring of humanity, and is per se inhumane.

What is a humane sword or rifle?

Thats my philosopy rant over with...

But if I got pick a 'nasty' weapon it would be one of the 'flame' variety... or a chemical or biological agent... yuk! Dirty war!

Martin Bull · #45 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2004, 05:23 PM

Agree with your points, RedBaron, and I sincerely hope never to have encounters with any of these weapons...

But personally, since reading a first-hand description of the effect of a German flamethrower at Arnhem in Ken Allerton's 'The Cauldron', that weapon seems to me peculiarly horrible.

TheRedBaron · #46 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2004, 05:40 PM

I agree Martin, the Flamethrower has a peculiar fascination/fear for all soldiers... Not bloody surprised really!

Mahross · #47 (**permalink**) July 1st, 2004, 02:29 PM

To be really philosophical the must inhumane weapon is man himself. For who is it that presses the trigger or presses the button? It is irrelevant what the weapon is it is who chooses to use it.

TheRedBaron · #48 (**permalink**) July 1st, 2004, 02:59 PM

Its not the gun that kills, its the drunk lunatic I sold it too...

Mans own inhumanity is the causality for a weapons inhumanity as without a human operator it is merely an inanimate object and incapable of inhumane actions on its own.

Hey that sounded really good... Total BALLS though!!!

Think we got this topic wrapped up with that Mahross!

White 3 · #49 (**permalink**) July 1st, 2004, 04:41 PM

I voted for the atomic bomb because it is a horrible weapon to me. How is killing thousands of people with a single bomb humaine? Not to mention the after effects of the people who weren't ensinerated! But as red says all weapons are horrible, but I think that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And a gun cannot pull it's own trigger.