Ukraine (31 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

I don't understand the use of these. I know thermite burns hot but unless you're out in the open I feel like it would be hard for this to sneak up on you. Is it meant to burn buildings vs killing people? I feel like that's the only thing that makes sense. Seems you could get the same job done with napalm

Seems to me like the thermite is to damage/destroy infrastructure although it certainly will injure and even cause death.

I thought napalm use is banned by the Geneva Convention. Although I think how they're using the thermite incendiaries (use on civilian targets) is a violation as well.

 

[nolaspe]

Seems to me like the thermite is to damage/destroy infrastructure although it certainly will injure and even cause death.

I thought napalm use is banned by the Geneva Convention. Although I think how they're using the thermite incendiaries (use on civilian targets) is a violation as well.

Off of Wikipedia...

International law does not specifically prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[41] but use against civilian populations was banned by the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980.[42] Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of all incendiary weapons, but a number of countries have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), countries are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, as long as they ratify at least two of the five protocols. Approximately 25 years after the General Assembly adopted it, it was reported that the US signed it on 21 January 2009, President Barack Obama's first full day in office.[43][44] Its ratification, however, is subject to a reservation that says that the treaty can be ignored if it would save civilian lives.[44][45] The UN has also acknowledged that the US had ratified the CCW in March 1995, 13 years after the country became a signatory to it.[46]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[boutte]

Why are they burning shopping centers?

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[BigFrosty]

 

[BigFrosty]

Clarification, this was a UA attack on a RU headquarters.

 

[BigFrosty]

Many reports the last 2 days of UA preparing to use JDAMS in upcoming attacks, of which they are particularly excited about. I'm not familiar with the system and wonder if we've teamed up to devise some sort of unique use for them.

What Joint Direct Attack Munitions Could Do For Ukraine

JDAMs could provide Ukraine with an urgently needed all-weather precision air-to-ground capability with some standoff range.

www.thedrive.com

Nevertheless, JDAMs would fill an important gap for Ukraine, providing a heavier precision-strike capability with a weapon up to the 2,000-pound class. Even the 500-pound version would provide a greater punch than M31 rockets fired by HIMARS, in some regards. The kind of standoff aerial attack possible with JDAM would be especially useful for hitting Russian key targets near the front lines, even ones that are large and heavily fortified. The other big advantage the JDAM offers is the sheer number of these weapons available from the United States and many of its allies; in that sense, it shares many of the benefits of supply with the AIM-120 AMRAAM.