54
Russian invader fails to outrun an ATGM
(streamable.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
54 points (92.2% liked)
Ukraine
8242 readers
505 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You aren't wrong. I'm not sure about the context here but using this type of weapon on infantry is normally considered a war crime. I really want to emphasize the lack of context but folks should know.
Edit: do you guys downvote all true things you find inconvenient?
Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as … incendiary weapons is prohibited.”
Antitank guns are legal, incendiary weapons such as the above are not. Napalm was made illegal against infantry through this but also antitank industry weapons.
I think people are downvoting the fact that you are insisting the "...incendiary weapons such as the above...", when the weapon is not in fact an incendiary, also according to UN Convention
What weapon was it? US made weapons, even with shaped charges, are incendiary. It's in the field manual and training. I don't know what to say beyond this. There hasn't been a court case around it to my knowledge so there is no precedent set.
Did you read my link?
... Yes have you read the training manuals for US weapons such as the AT4?
It's irrelevant since, as in the link:
Having an incendiary mechanism doesn't mean it is an incendiary weapon in the sense of your quote of Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin.
Yes, which is why the target of the usage of the weapon matters. Was the target in the video an armoured vehicle, aircraft and installations or facility?
Exactly why it doesn't matter, it's not an incendiary weapon meant to target ppl in the incendiary way, thus it's not seen as bad of a thing as an incendiary weapon. To put it in other way: that person didn't feel the horrible (and longer) incendiary effect because of the other effects of the weapon. Does it really matter if the person is outside or inside of an armoured vehicle? The actual incendiary weapons are whole different thing.