Most Inhumane Weapon

We dont know, but then some on the forum may have experience of a weapon used against them, but thats not the point either.

I think the question was asked from a social/moral point as to what the majority of us on here would deem to be the most inhuman weapon, although none of us can qualify as experts we all have a view rightly or wrongly.

We all look at it differently some from a personal point of view, some from a social point of view. None can be expert I think thats accepted, but neither can any of us be expert if the question was asked...what was the best place to go on leave from the front in ww2?

Ill stick to my officer with a map for most inhuman weapon, its my experience an officer with a map can like the old story say indeed lead to great danger, but its a personal point from my own experience.

 

Red - good pint all weapons are deadly in inhumane by definition but i suppose the point is a humane weapon would be something which kills quickly. For example Sarin CX gas tends to kill rapidly but even then while you die it is very painful. You would think that a weapons such as a nuclear warhead is humane, but it is only humane when you are at the centre of the blast because as you move out from the blast radius people take much longer as they will die from the effect of radiation poisoning. again the same is try of a rifle. If it is well aimed with a bullet that will kill on impact then it can be humane but if it is being shot by a badly trained conscript and using a dum dum bullet then it can inflict a lot of pain. therfore, it is inhumane.

 

Land mines - millions all over the world - old, hidden, forgotten, just waiting to cripple innocent children - probably some of the worst stories. People that have absolutely nothing to do with a conflict that happened decades before get their limbs blown off for nothing.

 

Why is a well aimed bullet more humane than a poorly aimed one?

A quick death does not equate to humane, as anything used to kill is in effect, inhumane as it is used to destroy a human. I cant see how any weapon, regardless of the quickness of death can be humane. Look at the struggle with executions to find a painless and humane way of killing. The seemingly only humane way to kill would seem to be via lethal injection that educes a sleep-like coma followed by death.

At the end of the day we cant ask people how it feels to be killed by this or that as they are dead.

It is more a case of which form of killing is more socially acceptable to us, but this depends on your culture, religion and upbringing.

For example, in Nepal or Tibet, I forget which, human bodies are sent into the afterlife by being chopped up and fed to the birds... hard to bury in mountains and not enough wood to burn the bodies. This would seem repulsive to those who have to have the body whole to pass into the afterlife.

Its all a matter of perspective but a weapon, of any description has to be inhumane, otherwise it would be of no use. It is used for the destruction or injuring of humanity, and is per se inhumane.

What is a humane sword or rifle?


Thats my philosopy rant over with...


But if I got pick a 'nasty' weapon it would be one of the 'flame' variety... or a chemical or biological agent... yuk! Dirty war!

 

Agree with your points, RedBaron, and I sincerely hope never to have encounters with any of these weapons...

But personally, since reading a first-hand description of the effect of a German flamethrower at Arnhem in Ken Allerton's 'The Cauldron', that weapon seems to me peculiarly horrible.

 

I agree Martin, the Flamethrower has a peculiar fascination/fear for all soldiers... Not bloody surprised really!

 

To be really philosophical the must inhumane weapon is man himself. For who is it that presses the trigger or presses the button? It is irrelevant what the weapon is it is who chooses to use it.

 

Its not the gun that kills, its the drunk lunatic I sold it too...

Mans own inhumanity is the causality for a weapons inhumanity as without a human operator it is merely an inanimate object and incapable of inhumane actions on its own.

Hey that sounded really good... Total BALLS though!!!

Think we got this topic wrapped up with that Mahross!

 

I voted for the atomic bomb because it is a horrible weapon to me. How is killing thousands of people with a single bomb humaine? Not to mention the after effects of the people who weren't ensinerated! But as red says all weapons are horrible, but I think that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And a gun cannot pull it's own trigger.

 

Red - True but the philosipher in me wants to delve deeper. Maybe it is the human mind that is too blame. For it is not only the soldier that uses the weapon who is inhumane but the person who develops it.

 

but the designer does not use it to kill, he merely designs a weapon for killing, inhumane but not as inhumane as killing. He is merely providing the tool to the inhumane to utilise, and this design may also have 'peaceful' variations... ie space craft, nuclear power etc...

 

Ah but the soldier uses his mind when firing a weapons. it is not just an impulse. they may have been trained but they must still use their mind. As to designers they often are just developing weapons. Nuclear weapons aside. Most weapons have very little use except for killing. Therefore, that is inhumane.

 

But designing a weapon is not the same as the rational motivation to kill. Although this could be viewed as humane as a sense of self preservation... IE kill or be killed in a battle.

Is not the sense of self-preservation a key part of human behaviour?

 

Afraid I can't agree on blaming the designers.Just a couple examples; steak knives,baseball bats or even shovels can and have been used as weapons.Although designed for peaceful purposes.

 

Flame throwers.
We had at our disposal the “Lifebelt” type that sat on your back. The tank in the shape of a lifebelt. We never used them in assault work, in fact we never used them at all. They were not liked by those that had the onerous job of being the “Carrier”

Why? Simple, if a stray bullet hit the tank the man carrying this weapon would immediately be in the centre of a huge mass of billowing flame. A flame of intense heat that would do more than singe your eyebrows.

A great ball of flame, say about 40/50feet in diameter. From within that flame it would be possible to hear someone screaming in some very unethical language.

Flamethrowers? Sod it, no! Now friends! If you go to a certain wood in Belgium, dig down about 30 feet or so, in that large pit you uncovered you may find a whole bunch of flamethrowers. “Lost in action” for an armoured bulldozer dug a huge pit in that wood and dumped them there.

As a matter of interest, in that wood that we discovered, we found it absolutely stacked with German munitions of all types. Huge amounts of ordinance, stacked all over this wooded area. One thing I did find surprising there was one perfectly good “Konigs? Tiger tank” King Tiger tank, and a bloody great massive thing it was.

Anyone wants to volunteer to be the Flamethrower operator? Any comments? let me know, for I find keeping up with these pages, difficult.
Like, now where did I see that article?
Sapper.

 

Sapper said:
"Simple, if a stray bullet hit the tank the man carrying this weapon would immediately be in the centre of a huge mass of billowing flame. A flame of intense heat that would do more than singe your eyebrows.

A great ball of flame, say about 40/50 feet in diameter. From within that flame it would be possible to hear someone screaming in some very unethical language."

That’s only the unfortunate soldier who CARRIES the flame-thrower, not to mention what happens on the receiving end. Ever see "Saving Private Ryan"? I'll always remember the men on fire falling out of the bunker...

 

Ya, that scene was a prime example of the destructive nature of humans. But the there is of course the question: are humans violent by nature?? Can we really help creating weapons? Do the designers just want to benefit from a conflict between humans. I could go on and on about this, but basically, it all depends on our nature, our human nature. Are we born with instincts that cause us to become violent, and therefore necessitate weapons to give us the advantage over our enemies? I believe that we are natually agressive to some degree. We all think aggressively towards others constantly, and that also, there are weapons far worse than those that can be seen or touched.

 

wow midget, aren't we the philosopher today .
I have to say I agree with you though about there being weapons worse than those we can see or touch.

 

You may be correct. Perhaps the most inhumane weapons are humans themselves. This phrase may seem contradictory, but i believe the word "inhumane" is paradoxal itself. We are the ones creating the weapons and using them. It is our minds that create the need for weapons.

 

We have already done the philosophy bit above...