I was thinking about the grotesque nature of naplam today, and It inspired me to start a poll on what we perceive the most inhumane weapon to be. I'm going with napalm...Any queries as to why please don't hesitate to ask, It's just too much of a long winded explanation to say now.
I will give a short description of each with the choices...

__________________
"GARRY OWEN"-Traditional war-cry of the US 7th Cavalry.
"CURRAHEE"-War-cry of the US 506th PIR.
"Everybody thinks that they are going to get the chance to punch some Nazi in the face at Normandy-and those days are over, they are long gone"-Lt Chris Burnett

I went for white phos, scary stuff. Really I do not think its so much a question of the most inhumane weapon, because if you think about it how inhumane it is depends on the circumstances, a shotgun at close range will make a mess of you, at 20 meters you will probably survive, a bayonet slammed into your leg may not kill you but will hurt like hell whilst having one pushed through your chest could finish you off quite quickly. I would like to add so called 'greek fire' to the list since a) no one knows what it was made of and b) it is supposedly impossible to put out.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

I would say the most obvious (no offence, PK) is missing from the list - POISON GAS.

Admittedly not in very widespread use these days, but I think it's by far the most inhumane weapon that's seen use.

I would have to say it is the flamethrower. With this weapon it is up close and personal. Burning its victims to death is a hideious way to die.
Gas is insidious but can be dealt with. Willie Peter is noxious but does not incinerate its victims. Really, it is no worse than large scale HE weapons in its action.
Napalm is impersonal. It is sort of in the same category as nuclear weapons only on a smaller scale.
What really makes a weapon feared and reviled is its effect up close and personal. This is why so many fear the bayonet, which by medical records is virtually worthless as a casuality agent. It is the threat in this case of personal violence that casues it to be effective. The flamethrower is the same way only it is effective.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

I would have thaught that we are not talking about fear so much as how it kills you, that is how we usually determin how humane things are. In that case actually napalm is a strong competitor, roasting you, turning your skin to cracking, gar less humane than most of the others. I thought the reason the flamethrower is feared is because it chucks a stream of sticky burning liquid at you and will roast you alive, the two blokes carrying it are (IMHO) a sort of bonus, I mean if you see it they are a really nice target to take a pop at. I do however agree with what you are saying about the bayonet, though the reason it kills far fewer people these days is because it is a last resort weapon, you do not goin with the sole intention of using the bayonet these days as they did in its hayday (for example the napoleonic wars, the great days of bayonet charges)

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Not all victims of an atomic attack die in a neat and instantaneous fashion. I do remember reading in Hiroshima accounts of people peeling the flesh off their own hands "like gloves" and others leaping into the Motoyasu river to be boiled to death. I wish i had direct quotes on hand.

I'd consider the inhumanity of the nuclear bomb as awful as any weapon if not far more awful.

I would have to vote for the flamethrower or anything where you have to burn to death. The firestorms that the heavy bombers caused such as Dresden would be a bad way to go also.

Also being trapped under a bombed building or shelled building and left to die over a few days would not be pleasant either.

Also being trapped in a disabled submarine underwater would be unpleasant since you have some time to think about it all.

Being tortured to death by the Gestapo or French Marquee would be unpleasant too.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Ok, hows this. Hitler has imagination, you've got to give him credit for that. I saw on a BBC documentary that when he caught his would-be assassins, 100s of them it appears, the top echelons got a quick easy death, most of the rest (grammar?) were hung...by piano wire.

It took them on average 30 minutes to die.

Hitler's personal camera man who was ordered to film the grisley scene refused to film anymore after the first "batch".

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

My personal non-favourite of these was fire-the flamethrower. I would definitely not want to be burnt alive....

__________________

I chose flame-throwers... Gas would come next...

A bayonet is not that bad...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

I think that a cluster bomb is a very inhumane weapon.

__________________

I definitely have NO idea from what point of view a flamethrower might be more inhumane then the A-bomb, but if you think so...

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

Burning alive for three minutes before you are unconscious?


Besides, I think we are talking about battle-field weaponry, aren't we?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Panzerknacker's poll is about weapons in general... and suffering for years is more inhumane than dying in three minutes!

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

This difference of opinion could go on for ever & Panzerknacker originally asked for member's perceptions.

Let's be honest, no form of killing is especially 'nice' & much depends upon the viewpoint. For instance, if you were unlucky enough to be 'caught' by a flamethrower on the battlefield, you may think that people vaporised at Hiroshima ground zero were lucky....If you lingered with burns or radiation sickness after Hiroshima, you may envy someone catching the full force of a flamethrower.

It seems from the poll that death by various types of liquid fire seem to appear particularly repellent. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I would have to go with white phosphorus. Just the fact that the stuff will keep burning until it's cut out of your skin is just a wretched thought. That's just pure torture in my mind.

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

I also said "willie peter".

Yours,
Paul

Wellbesides the atomic bomd i have to go with napalm or white Phosforus (spelling?). Also the diabolical enginer behind the monstrous contraption of the soviet OT-34 flametank [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"Don't send me any more Lithuanians ... my Russian soldiers keep shooting them"
Sturmbannführer Magill
Staff officer, SS-Regiment Dirlewanger, in correspondence to the SS main office.

Don't forget, Fenrir, that the US Marines put a flamethrower into the turret of a Sherman and mass-produced them for the island campaigns. I've seen films of those babies in action, and they look like genuine fire-breathing dragons!

Yours,
Paul

Agreed but it's a sherman fer crying out loud.. noones scared of a firebreathing sherman drake.. a T-34 firebreathing drake now thats scary

__________________
"Don't send me any more Lithuanians ... my Russian soldiers keep shooting them"
Sturmbannführer Magill
Staff officer, SS-Regiment Dirlewanger, in correspondence to the SS main office.

Bizarre topic... surely anyway to go is bad enough! Whatever the cause! By definition any weapon is inhumane as it is designed to kill or maim another living being?

I would have voted for dum-dums...

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

I would think that flamethrowers were the worst. Havig to burn to death doesn't sound all that inviting. The british led quite well in this field with the wasp and crocodile.

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

Homo Homini Lupus

__________________

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

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

True but i dont think they were ever as effective as the british vehicles.

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