Hacker News Reader

Comment by swartkrans | Hacker News Reader

> they used large non-atomic bombs

America was dropping napalm on Japanese cities filled with civilians[1]. Firebombing was a popular tactic in the 1940's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#Military_use

View on HN

Well, USA was using white phosphorus in "cities filled with civilians" in Iraq in 2004 (Fallujah), which is more like "is using".

So when talking about scary stuff like incendiary weapons it's better to not to try and fool yourself with words like "yeah, past was dark, but now it is 2014, we have all these conventions and stuff, and even in times of war people know limits of humanity, so worry not". Humans are wicked animals.

This ties in well with the fact that the US has not ratified the appropriate Geneva convention on destroying civilian supplies ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth )

According to Wikipedia, USA signed part of "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" which bans white phosphorus in incendiary weapons in 2009 under Obama administration.

I think the problem is that it's still one of the most effective smokescreen generating compounds out there, so militaries are hesitant to ban it entirely and not have it available for that use.

But, just because it's not marked 'incendiary' on the side of the munition doesn't mean it can be used (both purposefully or accidentally) to horrible effect on people.

"Humans are wicked animals"

Indeed. As Jonathan Swift put it: "the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth"

I was going to dispute this but found you are correct - late in the war Napalm was used - 1944/5. I had though that incendiary bombing (just as bad really) was what you were talking about. The bit that is most fascinating for me in that article is the bit about the treaty banning use of napalm on civilian targets. Obama signed it with a provision: "America’s ratification, however, is subject to a diplomatic reservation that says it can disregard the treaty at its discretion if doing so would save civilian lives."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com