• Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Are all of these “laws” in place because incendiary weapons are especially cruel compared to a simple shot to the dome?

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Preface: I am no expert, this is just my understanding.
      Weapons that are illegal/considered war crimes fall roughly into categories of:

      A. Indiscriminate - kill soldiers and non-combatants/civilians alike (eg. Land mines, incendiary, cluster bombs, etc)

      B. Cruel - especially painful ways to die or designed to cause ongoing suffering and maiming. (Eg: gas/chemical warfare, dirty bombs, etc)
      A lot of weapons tick both of those boxes, and there are possibly more i am unaware of.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s because of their indiscriminate nature.

      The US use of napalm on cities in Korea contributed to the nearly 20% of their population that was wiped out.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hasn’t the US also repeatedly allegedly accidentally hit targets with white phosphorus that was intended just as a marking flair?

      • atlas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not even mentioning the severe lasting impact it had on generations to come. There are still many who are battling birth defects due to the toxins that remained after the napalm attacks.