Technology

58138 readers

4338 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

617

Ukrainian drones now spray 4,000° F thermite streams right into Russian trenches (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

287 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rade0nfighter@lemmy.world 79 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] ilega_dh@feddit.nl 86 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You can start a forest fire if said forest is used for cover or concealment by enemy military forces. All feasible precautions must be taken to limit the damage to military targets only.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Lot of misinformation out there on this it seems.

I wonder why? 🤔

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly war crimes just have a lot of misinformation generally. Even in the military. There were people who thought we couldn't shoot someone with a .50 cal machine gun. While this spawns funny jokes like aiming for their uniform buttons, it just isn't true.

[–] ilega_dh@feddit.nl 4 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly, I think it’s more that people take this info from movies and just run with it than malicious (Russian) misinformation bots (although they don’t mind giving this an extra push I imagine).

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

The Geneva suggestions