but the designer does not use it to kill, he merely designs a weapon for killing, inhumane but not as inhumane as killing. He is merely providing the tool to the inhumane to utilise, and this design may also have 'peaceful' variations... ie space craft, nuclear power etc...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Ah but the soldier uses his mind when firing a weapons. it is not just an impulse. they may have been trained but they must still use their mind. As to designers they often are just developing weapons. Nuclear weapons aside. Most weapons have very little use except for killing. Therefore, that is inhumane.

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

But designing a weapon is not the same as the rational motivation to kill. Although this could be viewed as humane as a sense of self preservation... IE kill or be killed in a battle.

Is not the sense of self-preservation a key part of human behaviour?

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Afraid I can't agree on blaming the designers.Just a couple examples; steak knives,baseball bats or even shovels can and have been used as weapons.Although designed for peaceful purposes. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________

Flame throwers.
We had at our disposal the “Lifebelt” type that sat on your back. The tank in the shape of a lifebelt. We never used them in assault work, in fact we never used them at all. They were not liked by those that had the onerous job of being the “Carrier”

Why? Simple, if a stray bullet hit the tank the man carrying this weapon would immediately be in the centre of a huge mass of billowing flame. A flame of intense heat that would do more than singe your eyebrows.

A great ball of flame, say about 40/50feet in diameter. From within that flame it would be possible to hear someone screaming in some very unethical language.

Flamethrowers? Sod it, no! Now friends! If you go to a certain wood in Belgium, dig down about 30 feet or so, in that large pit you uncovered you may find a whole bunch of flamethrowers. “Lost in action” for an armoured bulldozer dug a huge pit in that wood and dumped them there.

As a matter of interest, in that wood that we discovered, we found it absolutely stacked with German munitions of all types. Huge amounts of ordinance, stacked all over this wooded area. One thing I did find surprising there was one perfectly good “Konigs? Tiger tank” King Tiger tank, and a bloody great massive thing it was.

Anyone wants to volunteer to be the Flamethrower operator? Any comments? let me know, for I find keeping up with these pages, difficult.
Like, now where did I see that article?
Sapper.

Sapper said:
"Simple, if a stray bullet hit the tank the man carrying this weapon would immediately be in the centre of a huge mass of billowing flame. A flame of intense heat that would do more than singe your eyebrows.

A great ball of flame, say about 40/50 feet in diameter. From within that flame it would be possible to hear someone screaming in some very unethical language."

That’s only the unfortunate soldier who CARRIES the flame-thrower, not to mention what happens on the receiving end. Ever see "Saving Private Ryan"? I'll always remember the men on fire falling out of the bunker...

__________________
"That's FUBIJAR."
(Fu--ed Up, But I'm Just a Reservist... )

Ya, that scene was a prime example of the destructive nature of humans. But the there is of course the question: are humans violent by nature?? Can we really help creating weapons? Do the designers just want to benefit from a conflict between humans. I could go on and on about this, but basically, it all depends on our nature, our human nature. Are we born with instincts that cause us to become violent, and therefore necessitate weapons to give us the advantage over our enemies? I believe that we are natually agressive to some degree. We all think aggressively towards others constantly, and that also, there are weapons far worse than those that can be seen or touched.

__________________
These are the men who gave us our world. The simple sounds of freedom we hear today are their voices speaking to us across the years.
-Bill Clinton, June 6, 1994

wow midget, aren't we the philosopher today .
I have to say I agree with you though about there being weapons worse than those we can see or touch.

__________________
"That's FUBIJAR."
(Fu--ed Up, But I'm Just a Reservist... )

You may be correct. Perhaps the most inhumane weapons are humans themselves. This phrase may seem contradictory, but i believe the word "inhumane" is paradoxal itself. We are the ones creating the weapons and using them. It is our minds that create the need for weapons.

__________________
These are the men who gave us our world. The simple sounds of freedom we hear today are their voices speaking to us across the years.
-Bill Clinton, June 6, 1994

We have already done the philosophy bit above...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I like this philos...whatever it was. Quite simple really.. For the most part men are only violent when pushed into it, unless they unfortunately have a family history that way. If someone angered me in my younger days? I would wack him. a stupid thing to do, specially when I busted my left hand on the blokes head.

Beautiful left hook though! But still stupid!
Sapper

Gee, I'd like to know more 'bout this!

__________________