Ukrainian drones now spray 4,000° F thermite streams right into Russian trenches
Mechanical dragons now deliver fire on command.
Now, I'm all for the freedom of defending your country... But am I the only one thinking that this is presented in a bit too much of a good light? Like, what is the title supposed to make me feel? If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?
I genuinely thank you for sharing this info, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable reading about atrocious killing devices in a technology thread.
I'm right there with you. My first reaction to the video in the article was "well that's terrifying".
Wait until you hear about the semi-autonomous killer drone swarms, designed to prevent signal jamming (by not needing an operator).
Russia is already using thermite charges, thermobaric weapons and tear gas. They get what's coming to them.
I see where you're coming from. It's like tolerating the intolerant. There is a point where Ukraine needs to choose between total destruction by Russia, or doing whatever it takes to get their land and people back.
It's not like Russia is held accountable for war crimes. Why would we be so critical of Ukraine when no one is doing anything to stop the atrocities of Putin?
I don't happily endorse the thermite drones, but you won't find me playing judge on what Ukraine is doing. They didn't start this war.
If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?
If Russia was illegally invaded & genocided by Ukraine as a consequence for wanting to become democratic and joining the West, then yes, people would rather root for Russia instead.
If Russia don't want their men to get "atrociously killed", then they can just fuck off back into their own country.
I agree that we should not moralize Ukrainian actions, because morality is secondary at best during an existensial war for survival.
But upholding the Geneva conventions is not about morality. It's about trying to prevent the worst and most horrific actions and outcomes that happen during war.
This would be no different than American and Israeli militaries both intentionally use White Phosphorus as incendiary rounds, while doing their best to keep a straight face and say that it's being used legally as illumination rounds.
Is Ukraine using this strictly under the legally defined laws of war? I don't know.
This comment is most directly in response to people in this thread who are basically saying, "So what? Who cares if it's used illegally as an incendiary round?"
Exactly, I hate what the Russians are doing, but as a former grunt, I'll never rejoice in killing.
Boo fucking hoo. Most of them willingly went into Ukraine to kill, pillage, rape and torture innocent ukranians. They always have an option to desert, yet they still choose to murder. I will never have any sympathy towards them.
I do agree with you that the tone of the article doesn't really match the nature of what we're seeing, or that Ukraine is in a war of national survival.
I was thinking that too. We already have other weapons that are this effective, and we've banned them.
In most cases for the banned weapons, the US got to use them for a while first, which is what's happening here.
And the really fun ones we refuse to sign for so technically we aren't bound by them.
That article reads as entirely neutral. Neither positive or negative. The last lines even read as a bit of a negative to me.
It's honestly no worse than dropping bombs on them. They don't have to deal with the explosive shock blowing out their ear drums either. It's way more escapable than sudden explosions happening all around you.
Besides.... if you invade a country you're down with death. A bunch of the soldiers use rape and attack civilians as well, so my concern for their well being dried up a long time ago.
“But…” LOL
Someone go through the GC and tell me how this isn't a war crime now? This seems a lot like napalm or WP.
Yes, Russia's worse, and we all know it. But when we're done fighting monsters we shouldn't have become them.
Why would it be a war crime? Just can't use the chemical payloads over civilian populations like Russia was during their initial campaigns.
Use of napalm also isn't a war crime, the context of targets is what makes it one.
Can you point out the part of the geneva conventions that make using incendiary weapons against military targets in non civilian areas a war crime?
Yes, Russia’s worse, and we all know it. But when we’re done fighting monsters we shouldn’t have become them.
When you are fighting for your survival from an enemy who has stated their goal is genocide of your peoples, you can do whatever the fuck you want to defend yourself from them.
Becoming the monster would be turning around and invading a smaller country.
The reason to avoid incendiary weapons near civilians is the heavy collateral damage to said civilians. It's no more illegal to burn enemy soldiers than fill their torsos full of shrapnel nor their bellies full of lead nor any of the other horrible things we do to enemy soldiers.
It's not illegal why should it be?
It’s not against the Geneva convention, it’s completely within the limits to use incendiary weapons against military targets. Read for yourself:
Thermite is no joke. My initial thought was whether or not we're making the next Taliban right now. They were more fundamentalist and not seeking any kind of role in the UN but this kind of firepower is frightening in anyone's hands.
Yeah I defend Ukraine against Russia, but war is war, and war never changes. It’s been 2 years of full fighting and I can’t pretend to be okay with a continuous war even against Russia and Putin who are awful.
So you would rather Ukrainians lay down their weapons and we'll have 20 years of Bucha and Holodomor, again? I somehow doubt you would prefer that to continued warfare, more likely thinking "war is awful" is taking precedence over "not fighting it would be a hell a lot worse". But that's why wars are, by and large, fought: Because people think that not doing it would be worse. Some because they're nuts, some, like Ukrainians, because they're spot-on.
The only party which can lay down their weapons and not get absolutely kicked in the face for it is Russia. Every minute it continues is on them.
This is what international law has to say about incendiary weapons:
- It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
- It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
- It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
- It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
This treeline is clearly not located within a concentration of civilians and it is concealing (or plausibly believed to be concealing) enemy combatants and therefore the use of incendiary weapons is unambiguously legal.
Interestingly Israel has violated all three of these on hundreds of occasions in Gaza.
I expect Russians to cry foul over this but early on Russia was using thermobaric weapons on civilian targets and they said nothing, so we know they're just hypocrits and monsters.
What occasions are you referring to? I know people claim that Israeli use of white phosphorous munitions is illegal, but the law is actually quite specific about what an incendiary weapon is. Incendiary effects caused by weapons that were not designed with the specific purpose of causing incendiary effects are not prohibited. (As far as I can tell, even the deliberate use of such weapons in order to cause incendiary effects is allowed.) This is extremely permissive, because no reasonable country would actually agree not to use a weapon that it considered effective. Something like the firebombing of Dresden is banned, but little else.
Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.
This is an area where it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.
So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn't enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it's morally reprehensible, and I'd prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.
The moral high ground is often the losing low ground, unfortunately. I’d say Ukraine should stick to the rules of war (as should Russia) and we should remove all restrictions we place on our donations to Ukraine - and enforce a no-fly zone over western Ukraine, at Ukraine’s invitation. There is only one way to make Russia stop and that’s force.
Why is it even morally reprehensible? If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead and if dozens of Ukrainians die in the course of digging the Russians out of cover do you account that a superior outcome? If so how?
If a burglar strode into your home with a gun and you believed that conflict was inevitable how much risk and or suffering would you tolerate from your wife and children in order to decrease the chance of harm or suffering by the burglar? Would you accept a 3% chance of a dead kid in order to harm instead of kill the burglar? Would you take a 1% in order to decrease his suffering substantially?
My accounting is that there is no amount of risk or harm I would accept for me and mine to preserve the burglar's life because he made his choice when he chose to harm me and mine. I wouldn't risk a broken finger to preserve his entire life nor should I. That said should he surrender I would turn him over to the police. I should never take opportunity to hurt him let alone execute him. Should I do this I would be the villain no matter what had transpired before because I would be doing so out of emotional reaction I wouldn't be acting any longer to preserve me or mine.
We should expect Ukrainians to take any possible advantage for in doing so they preserve innocent life. Preserving the lifes or preventing the suffering of active enemies presently actively trying to do harm is nonsensical.
The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons
That's because incendiary weapons are great for exterminating villages full of poor people in the colonized world - ie, the kind of wars the US and UK prefer to wage.
Azeri terrorist state bombed Stepanakert with white phosphorus and napalm with no consequences.
BTW, Russia has already used white phosphorus against civilian targets in this war, if I am not mistaken.
Israel is, of course, using those in Gaza.
I'd say legality has long lost its meaning in international relations. Not that it ever had any in this particular regard.
I've read that even not using expansive (those that expand, not those that cost more monies) bullets was not result of any humanism, but of the military logic that a soldier wounded by a conventional bullet stops being a combatant and becomes a logistical burden, while a soldier dead from a gruesome wound just stops being a combatant, possibly helping to motivate his comrades in arms.
Prohibited to make forests the target except when they are military objectives. Did they add that exception because they might have to fight the battle at Helm's Deep?
Battle of Stalingrad II: Ukrainian Boogaloo
Are all of these "laws" in place because incendiary weapons are especially cruel compared to a simple shot to the dome?
Yes
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.
I assure you one thing: If it happened to you and you survived, you will not wish this on your worst enemy.
i have a hard time explaining this to people, they simply don't get it-.
Apart from that, their Russian attacker does not give a flying f-ck about international law from the start either, so after quite some illegal events (rape, torturing/killing POWs, shelling and bombing hospitals and schools), there is no reason to hold back any longer. It would just enable the Russians to maim and kill more Ukrainian civilists.
The point of these laws is to protect civilians from weapons that can't be used to target just military targets. Do you give a shit about the people in Ukraine beyond their use as cannon fodder?
2,204 degrees Celsius in non-freedom units
Thank you for posting it in normal.
Ukrainian drones now spray 2,500° C thermite streams
Looks like they turned up the heat.
Back to freedom units: 4532F.
Significant digits of accuracy befuddles everyone.
2,204C is for those in Boca Raton and Rio Linda..........
For those also wondering (and I’m quoting a comment on Ars so may stand corrected…):
Isn’t this a violation of the Geneva Conventions?
Only if used to deliberately target infantry. The videoed operations so far seem to have been intended to burn away protective cover (trees/brush), which is a permitted use even if there's a risk of inflicting casualties as a side effect of the application of incendiaries.
There’s a lot of people who seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to this “that’s a war crime!!1!”, but it really is not. Incendiary weapons (like thermite, white phosphorus and napalm) are not illegal to use against legitimate military targets, including enemy combatants. It’s only a war crime when it’s used indiscriminately against civilians or in civilian areas.
Lot of misinformation out there on this it seems.
I looked it up and you're 100% right. Incendiary weapons are allowed as long as it doesn't hit civilians or start a forest fire
https://www.weaponslaw.org/weapons/incendiary-weapons
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Incendiary_Weapons
Oh God no. Nobody cares what you do to the Infantry. It's the civilians. Don't use this around civilians.
Sincerely, an old infantryman.
The Geneva suggestions
Warfare has always been hell, but now when someone hunts you down with a drone while you’re running away it makes it a particularly terrifying personal hell.
If they collect enough real time statistical data from the battlefield i assume that that will be gamified into A.I. "soldier recognition" to deduce which people are the real threats and where and at whom fire should be concentrated.
HEROISM will be pointed out by A.I. and massacred.
AI (e.g. face recognition) is riddled with false positives. Such a tech already does wrong on civilians without being a weapon (e.g. cameras on subways). What you said is somewhat naïve.
Eh, that's pretty metal. What I like about it is that it's not some chemical weapon that floats on the air to hiteveryone in the vicinity. You will see where you are hitting clearly because it's like a bright tracer round. And it'll cause more injuries than deaths.
You almost have a sporting chance to get away once it's started compared to the relatively sudden chaos of explosions.
Eh, that’s pretty metal.
It's definitely pretty, and as thermite is a mixture of metal powder and metal oxide, your statement is entirely correct.
And it'll cause more injuries than deaths.
That is the entire problem with chemical weapons. They injure people badly.
That's why chemical weapons are banned while bombs aren't.
That's actually not the problem with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are banned due to their indiscriminate nature (being blown by the wind) and really the fact that it causes slow deaths over years. It's that it's tantamount to torture (which is also banned).
Blowing people's limbs off is considered A-OK as long as it's not done with land mines.
Yeah, good reason to not invade a country...
Yeah you can choose to just give up before getting suddenly delivered to the 360 degrees surrounding you in every direction.
Muss ich mir merken Thermit-Reaktion. Wenn dann bald die humanoiden Roboter in Kriegen eingesetzt werden (und sie endlich wissen wie Türen zu öffnen sind), dann werde ich die Terminator therminieren.
https://www.chemie-schule.de/KnowHow/Thermitreaktion
Oh, I see it’s an English thread. So, actually that will be my way of fighting the Terminator in the coming wars with Humanoid Robots (once they figured out how to handle door handles). I will thermitinate the Terminator. As a note to my future self.
Probably works well on fossil fuel infrastructure too. /s
Knokator - Gladiator und Muskelkater
Knoketer - Verräter und Thermometer
Knokator - Therminate ein Terminator
Good. As long as it doesn't target civilian areas.
Soldiers can always defect or surrender. Don't want to face Ukraine's army? Don't be in Russia's army. It's that simple.
I consider every Russian soldier complicit in this invasion of Ukraine. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.
Guess you've never been threatened with Job loss, homelessness, starvation, or anything of that sort before. Must be nice.
Actually I have. But I didn't use it as sn excuse to invade Canada, and start blowing up schools and hospitals in an attempt to take over Canadian land. I didn't run around killing others for my misfortune. But if I had, I would FULLY expect the Canadian military to do anything it could to kill me.
Oh boy! I'm hungry! Better go kill people for money!
consider every Russian soldier complicit in this invasion of Ukraine.
Careful. Cults are a thing; and powerful for a reason.
Better than the gas that Russia is using illegally that causes serious pain and often takes a long time to die painfully from.
well hot, damn.
Did someone unironically say the smell of napalm in the morning line yet?
Fuckin hell
Ok, Arrowhead, I now want a backpack drone with this
Not terribly difficult to cook up if you watch a couple YouTube videos.
Looks like something out of Reign of Fire
The good thing is that each usage thus far has only been in the narrow strips of hiding trees, so there's no risk of a large fire breaking out. A lot of the people whining on social media about killing trees are purposefully ignoring that fact.
This is the reason this war started and is still going. World factions are testing and upgrading their arsenals
They are using F in Ukraine?
This is straight up atrocious, but Russia has been using white phosphorus during this war. No side is pristine in this conflict. War is awful, period. One thing it has shown is that Ukraine has become expert in using commodity hardware to rain death on their enemy.
bOtH sIdEs sAmE
One side started the war, one side can end it by withdrawing its soldiers tomorrow, one side constantly bombs civilians and infrastructure. It is Russia. Ukraine does none of this and is fighting for its fucking survival. They are incomparable.
What the actual fuck? Defend your country sure, but this isn't that.
Isn’t it though?
If you're deploying weapons on your own territory to reduce the operational capacity of an invading force then it's by definition defending your country.
If you have a problem w/ this you're going to have to cycle to the next argument because this one is nonsense. NEXT.
Yes more war and more destruction to sate the gods of war! Paint the ground red with the blood of our enemies and the sky black with their burnt homes!
Is that bloodthirsty enough?
So what is russia waiting to use nuclear weapons? What is holding Putin to just push a button and end the whole thing. I mean US did it, twice, on civilians, no sanctions . And I’m not adding the bombings on Tokio which where even worse.
Putin is very aware that a nuclear strike would mean immediate intervention by NATO
A nuclear strike is the end of the World.
And a tactical nuke, even if it didn't trigger a wider-scale nuclear conflict, wouldn't help their situation.
If brigades of enemy tanks were closing in on Moscow? Sure, that would be a nasty but effective option. NATO had something similar planned during the Cold War in case the Soviet tanks started pouring down the Fulka Gap.
I mean US did it, twice, on civilians, no sanctions
There are of course a lot of reasons why these two situations can't really compare, but an obvious and major difference is that only the US had nukes at the time, so no MAD.
Winds would blow fallout all over Russia. China/India would break off economic ties. Also nukes wouldn't end the war anyway.
Additionally Ukraine is an asset they want to exploit. Turning it into a nuclear landscape makes it unusable.
See, he knows that if he uses nukes, the US gets dragged in. He also knows we don't have to Nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg, to effectively nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg. We developed the MOAB so that we could get away with big bada booms, with no radioactive or political fallout. He also knows that Russia never developed these weapons.
He's stuck between and immovable object and an unstoppable force.
Nobody's dropping a MOAB on Moscow, because it's dropped out the back of a C-130.
And even if they did it's got less than 4% the yield of a B61, on it's lowest setting, that fits inside an F-35. On it's highest setting the B61 is 30,000 times more yield.
Conventional explosives are toys compared to nukes.
