View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
From: Rudnicki, Edward J Mr CIV USA AMC <email@example.com> Subject: RE: REPLY: Weapons--Napalm/Flamethrowers (2 Responses) Date: March 1, 2010 12:49:33 PM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> R J Del Vecchio writes: > As one whose major concern is for our military to destroy the > enemy with minimal losses of our own, I find the increasing > narrowing of resources available to accomplish that > destruction to be of concern. Attempting to achieve some > theoretical level of "clean" combat ultimately translates to > putting our people in more danger. A cynic might say that most of these bans and treaties, whether actually ratified or merely observed by common consent, seem to be directed at the weapons that give small sophisticated armed forces an advantage over the less-well-equipped mass armies of the Third World. Incendiary weapons fall in that category. Cluster munitions absolutely. Mines less clearly so. And any future action on small arms obviously affects all players. Fortunately or unfortunately the R&D community invariably responds, with things like thermobaric munitions and inexpensive guided unitary munitions, to replace the lost capability to a greater or lesser degree. Ed Rudnicki ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----