[proceeds to demonstrate he understands nothing by spewing disinformation]You guys do understand,
From what I can find, not against military targets. Airborne incendiaries in areas of civilian concentration would be a violation I think.
Why would anyone downvote this comment? How could you not think it's horrendous? What the fuck is wrong with people these days, is your "side" really so important to you that you think a weapon like this is ok, in any hands? The world is not binary. Grow up for fuck's sake.
no MAD has actually led to fewer full scale wars, so the nukes can staySigning a treaty to dispose of all nuclear weapons would be the first step, but many countries can't even do that.
Putin's Tearsdragon's fire is such an obvious name. they should have come up with something cooler to call it
Publicizing war crimes is a pretty important thing, actually.
But it should please you that story isn’t particularly about that, it’s about the tech. Granted, tech that the victims are inventing to defend themselves against an illegal war conducted under the reign of a criminal indicted for crimes against humanity. But there’s little in the story that discusses war crimes.
It's my view that as the invaded party fighting an existential battle for survival, it is not possible for Ukraine to commit war crimes. Any means necessary.
They are free to leave the war zone at any time. Innocent civilians in Ukraine that they are murdering can't say the same. If necessary grant your officers an early retirement first.As much as I want Russia to GTFO of Ukraine—including the Crimean peninsula—I can’t help but feel for anyone who actually comes into contact with this stuff.
[proceeds to demonstrate he understands nothing by spewing disinformation]
Followed a ute with a spray drone on the back yesterday. Took up the entire tray and had about 15-20 L of spray capacity.Military "drones" AKA UAVs can get rather large, the Northrop Grummin RQ-4 Global Hawk is appoximately the size of a small commercial passenger aircraft.
not napalm...and napalm sticks to kids.
"Why aren't the Ars Technica commentariat, the overwhelming majority of which live nowhere near Russia or Ukraine, seriously discussing solving world peace in this article about a novel use of thermite and drones in contemporary warfare?"Great. This is the stage humanity is still at. Nobody (in power) is seriously even talking about what it takes to end the human era of violence and war (our heretofore state, of course); so then when will it actually happen?
It is possible, it's just that most people aren't willing to do what it takes, because they're greedy, stupid animals (including the readers here; note this will be largely downvoted.) You don't realize (hence the 'stupid' part) that doing it in fact increases security and your standard of living and everything else, compared to the simplistic greed we have now. Save the silly objections about lenin, utopia, communism, etc., blah blah - shutup. There is no required one specific method of achieving it.
TIL. Thanks for the information!Aluminum and iron oxide is just one type of thermite. A test of 25 metals and 32 metal oxides found that 288 out of the 800 binary combinations were thermites that burned at a temperature of 2000 K or hotter.
Thermite isn’t a new thing the Ukrainians created just for this weapon… if the Houthis, or Putin, or pretty much any actor with the resources of a nation-state behind them want to make this, they can already do it.You cheer when it's used on "orcs", but you won't be cheering when the e.g. Houthis start dropping this stuff on US ships.
And regarding the Geneva Convention, nobody cares. We certainly didn't when we dropped thousands of tons of Napalm in Vietnam.
Whiskey Papa, from current NATO alphabet anywayyes its a phonetic for white phosphorus, I think the proper phonetic is whiskey Pluto.
or access to a metal pulverizer.Thermite isn’t a new thing the Ukrainians created just for this weapon… if the Houthis, or Putin, or pretty much any actor with the resources of a nation-state behind them want to make this, they can already do it.
I just want to point out that there's a BIG difference between dropping a termite and dropping thermite.Russians used termite indiscriminately on cities before (in this war). Footage of termite raining on urban areas was circulated widely.
ahh ok makes sense pluto is too close to tangoWhiskey Papa, from current NATO alphabet anyway
I really, REALLY wish it were that easy, and don’t mean that sarcastically or as a knock on you. To my limited knowledge of relevant history, forced de-armaments make for a fragile, short-lived peace. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable about this in history, with real receipts instead of the handful of examples I can think of.step 1 disarm countries like Russia that are interested in expansion through military force..
That sounds suspiciously like the old "you're not allowed to target a soldier with a 0.50 cal, so aim at their belt buckle because it's equipment" myth that was started when troops were told to conserve ammo that was more valuable to use against vehicles than against dismounted combatants.Back when I was in Armor school it used to be a (quite sick) joke. You can't use smoke rounds (white phosphorus) as offensive weapons, but you can use them as marker rounds after which the burning troops show up well on thermal sights.
yeah nobody here has a thermite drone, everyone here (except you, apparently) is plenty capable of having a rational discussion about modern (government owned, military) weapons and their implications without having it be some kind of full-throated approval for the continuation and expansion of human warfare and death, or having or owning them ourselvesThanks for the useless bogus psychology lesson.
Also, nope. It's like coming into a forum of school shooters who are talking about the latest AR15 mods and telling them they're all crazy f-ups. Then being told you're the one who's mentally ill. I'll let you figure out who's who in that analogy, if you can.
its the same word in both Russian and UkrainianI just want to point out that there's a BIG difference between dropping a termite and dropping thermite.
Please review the legislative record of Republicans since the invasion started and reconsider your position.Don't listen to the foreign agents planting disinformation. It wasn't that long ago that Republican's were being criticized for warning about Russia. Putin doesn't have much support from members in either party; it's only about how to deal with him and how close of an ally to the Ukrainian government they want to be (both parties have pointed out corruption in their government as a problem).
https://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149476004/romney-gop-pounce-on-obamas-russia-comment
And don't confuse the meaning behind what Trump says about respecting strong leaders like Xi and Putin. It's the same kind of respect people (should) have for dealing with large wild animals, firearms, or heavy equipment - be aware of their capabilities and don't be lax in your approach to dealing with them or someone can end up hurt or dead. Obvious if you listen to his unedited speeches and interviews instead of just the short, juicy sound bites taken out of context that put a completely different spin on what he says. (The guy's way of talking causes a lot of unforced errors for his campaign due to the way they can be easily spun by his opponents, IMO).
Right, apart from the "drone delivery" bit of the equation, the "can you make thermite" checklist isThermite isn’t a new thing the Ukrainians created just for this weapon… if the Houthis, or Putin, or pretty much any actor with the resources of a nation-state behind them want to make this, they can already do it.
I mean, who knows, it could be a really mean termiteI just want to point out that there's a BIG difference between dropping a termite and dropping thermite.
In this case I am mostly referring to turning Russia's Soviet era stock into Ukraine's scrap metal reserveI really, REALLY wish it were that easy, and don’t mean that sarcastically or as a knock on you. To my limited knowledge of relevant history, forced de-armaments make for a fragile, short-lived peace. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable about this in history, with real receipts instead of the handful of examples I can think of.
Because the alternative is even more horrendous.Why would anyone downvote this comment? How could you not think it's horrendous? What the fuck is wrong with people these days, is your "side" really so important to you that you think a weapon like this is ok, in any hands? The world is not binary. Grow up for fuck's sake.
Why do you think both sides of this war are equal?Why would anyone downvote this comment? How could you not think it's horrendous? What the fuck is wrong with people these days, is your "side" really so important to you that you think a weapon like this is ok, in any hands? The world is not binary. Grow up for fuck's sake.
Direct wars between peer or near peer adversaries are extremely rare, at least for major powers, they didn't used to beNo it hasn't. Wars are less common due strong global trade, not nukes. Really, are you arguing that, without nukes, the US, China, and Russia don't have enough bombs to destroy each other?
Get rid of the nukes.