An inhumane weapon is determined arbitrarily. While weapons of mass
destruction such as poison gas and nuclear weapons obviously fall into this
category, on occation weapons that would seem very humane have been banned CS
(Tear) gas was banned from U.S. Army use in Viet Nam after it was proven
effective at clearing out "spider holes" or the tunnel system the filthy* VC
used. After the ban soldiers had to go in with flashlights and.45's (rather
more dangerous than rolling in a few cannisters...)
Orbital Bombardment might be considered inhumane if it can't be done
surgically, for example. Land mines in the shape of colorful toys dropped in
civilian occupied areas are probably also very inhumane. Of course it didn't
stop the Soviets from dropping helicopter loads of them on the Afgans. Oddly,
weapons that maim are considered more humane than weapons that kill it seems
in some cases.
Check out "Acts of War: The Behaviour of Men in Battle" Free Press; ISBN:
0029148510 while not so much about inhumane weapons, it does go into the
psychological aspects of behavior in battle. The book is by Richard Holmes.
For a clear description of Inhumane weapons check out "Weapons of Mass
Destruction & Terrorism" by James Campbell. It isn't the best book in the
world, but it should prove interesting as a primer on terrorism and so forth.
I have not read it myself but I have heard it has positively awful editing.
Reader Beware.
A well recieved book on counter-terrorism gear (take not FMA/SG2 fans!):
"Counter-Terrorism Equipment " by Ian V. Hogg and Ray Hutchins is pretty
good. It's ISBN number is: 185367267X.
> An inhumane weapon is determined arbitrarily.
Also, don't forget the relevant international agreements, such as the
Geneva convention and more recent ones, banning such things as Dum-Dum
bullets, chemical weapons and, m9ost recently, anti-personnel mines.
> While weapons of mass destruction such as poison gas and nuclear
would seem very humane have been banned CS (Tear) gas was banned
> from U.S. Army use in Viet Nam after it was proven effective at
You mean 'filthy because they lived in tunnels'?
I have read that the use of tear gas was banned because it was considered a
chemical weapon and in violation of the Geneva convention. Still, odd
reasoning.
> After the ban soldiers had to go in with flashlights
Greetings Karl Heinz
There are a few weapons I've heard about which may not be classified as
"inhumane", but they sure meet my personal criterion.
For instance, laser weapons designed to permanently blind enemy soldiers,
Inhumane Weapons:
[def.] Any weapon employed by a Kra'Vak, Sa'Vasku, Phalon, or any other
non-human species.
:-)
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> Inhumane Weapons:
Even better. Inhumane is anything that can cause you to be convicted of crimes
against humanity. In other words, any weapon you use against non-humans
is by
definition not inhumane:-)
F.
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
Sometime in the Middle Ages, the pope tried to ban crossbows as inhumane
weapons. Following just that logic, he banned their use against
Christians, but not against infidels.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> You mean 'filthy because they lived in tunnels' ?
Yeah, that's it!
Someone has mentioned to me that CS would also potentially suffocate people in
the tunnels instead of driving them out. Not a good way to go. I wonder if WP
grenades will be banned as well? Honestly, I'd rather face CS with the chance
of escape than HE. Of course being a POW would suck, but if wars continue to
be these short duration things then perhaps it won't be as bad as it used to
be.
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Frits Kuijlman wrote:
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
This reminds me of the Pope's attempt at arms control in the late middle ages:
the crossbow was so terrible a weapon that it was no longer to be
used by Christians - when they were fighting other Christians.
Against infidels, Arabs, pagans, and similar, it was prefectly acceptable to
use a crossbow.
Like most arms control attempts, this one fell through...
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:54:20 -0800 (PST), Brian Burger
<yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> This reminds me of the Pope's attempt at arms control in the late
It was a "terrible weapon" because it allowed relatively untrained peasants to
penetrate the armour of noblemen. In fact, crossbows were less effective than
longbows, in range, rate of fire, and armour penetration. But longbows
required a higher degree of skill to operate. You could also aim at precision
targets easier with crossbows, hence their use in seige warfare. On the
battlefield, they were much less effective.