Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk (Timothy Brown) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Flamethrowers synopsis Message-ID: <1991Feb15.070138.10154@cbnews.att.com> Date: 15 Feb 91 07:01:38 GMT References: <1991Feb13.221434.5832@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK. Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Timothy Brown In article <1991Feb13.221434.5832@cbnews.att.com> drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes: >>From: techno@lime.in-berlin.de (Techno) >>As far as I know, flamethrowers are banned by the Geneva convention. >>I consider this a good thing. > >library and couldn't find flamethrowers. Article XXIII of the >second Hague Convention (1899) prohibits the use of poison and >"arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous >injury." I doubt that this has been interperted to include flame- >throwers as they have been used in every war since WWI and fire >has been a valid implement of war since prehistory. Comments >anyone? Is this the article which bans shotguns? I read that shotguns were banned under the Geneva convention, but the Americans still used them in Vietnam as a last resort. Back to flame thowers though, granted they are very painful to be attacked with, but they are meant to be lethal weapons. Shotguns and some mines are in many cases used to debilitate soldiers- and this article probably refers more to these kinds of weapons, which leave a lasting pain. Tim B. -- ,------------------------------------------------------------------------^^ | HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED... BUT BRITISH JUSTICE CONVICTED THE WRONG |oo| | MEN. FREE THE HUMPTY DUMPTY 6! (or mailed flames sorry) \v / '-Sorry, can't respond to international E-mail^(YET)---tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk--mm