Why can Allies use Chemical weapons?

[Nequis]

Just curious as of why they can barrage me with phosphorus rounds and get away with it.

[AxisInfantryAreOp]

just for the same reason why you can drop a stuka dive bomb and still get away with it which is the opposite for what they do

[Sitatop]

because they can

[Nequis]

Originally posted by 3rd Guard Army:

just for the same reason why you can drop a stuka dive bomb and still get away with it which is the opposite for what they do

Normal bombs are forbidden by Geneve?

[Apocalypse_Later]

Prior and during WWII, the Geneva Conventions were less of an entity than they are to us now. It was revamped in 1949 because of how insanely out of control some of WWII's weapons got. Firebombing the ♥♥♥♥ out of people tends to cause a bit of outcry.

You should also note that both sides have access to flamethrowers, which is easily the last thing anyone wanted to see pointed in their direction. We don't use these anymore as indicated in the GC because they result in horrific deaths, and their potential for abuse is too high.

[CatMeowMeow]

There was no rules about mines or chemical warfare back then.

Now no more mines and chemical weapons.

But US does not give a ♥♥♥♥ and use WP and Agent orange anyways

[M1 Garand]

Originally posted by CatMeowMeow:

There was no rules about mines or chemical warfare back then.

Now no more mines and chemical weapons.

But US does not give a ♥♥♥♥ and use WP and Agent orange anyways

Yep, ♥♥♥♥ the Geneva Convention. We should start using napalm and flamethrowers again, they work great for COIN operations. And we should start firing on mosque's as well, "place of worship" can go ♥♥♥♥ itself.

[LupineWitch]

Originally posted by M1 Garand:

Originally posted by CatMeowMeow:

There was no rules about mines or chemical warfare back then.

Now no more mines and chemical weapons.

But US does not give a ♥♥♥♥ and use WP and Agent orange anyways

Yep, ♥♥♥♥ the Geneva Convention. We should start using napalm and flamethrowers again, they work great for COIN operations. And we should start firing on mosque's as well, "place of worship" can go ♥♥♥♥ itself.

Well, that escalated qucikly.

[Julius]

If there will ever be a serious war again do you really think anyone will keep up all the geneva rules?

[CatMeowMeow]

Originally posted by thomasrepko1:

Originally posted by CatMeowMeow:

There was no rules about mines or chemical warfare back then.

Now no more mines and chemical weapons.

But US does not give a ♥♥♥♥ and use WP and Agent orange anyways

AND NAPALM

Napalm is just more advanced fire bomb. Not Biohazard chemicals, Nerve gas or Corrosive substance

[CatMeowMeow]

Originally posted by thomasrepko1:

Originally posted by CatMeowMeow:

Napalm is just more advanced fire bomb. Not Biohazard chemicals, Nerve gas or Corrosive substance

ok then but wasint it banned awsell?

No.. I think Geneva convention does not specify that you cannot use incendiary weapons.

[Maschinengewehr]

.50 cal anti-infantry weapons are technically banned too, as are incendiary rounds. Shotguns arent allowed either.

As for chemical weapons in WWII, Hitler despised them (he experienced a mustard gas attack in WWI) and basically prohibited the use of them by German forces. Except on Jews and other undesirables..

Napalm was only fairly recently banned, as the effects of it came to light in the late 80's - early 90's.

[Julius]

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

.50 cal anti-infantry weapons are technically banned too.

i really dont get that one,in what way is a 50.cal more inhumane than a frickin drone strike or AC-130?

[Maschinengewehr]

Originally posted by Julius:

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

.50 cal anti-infantry weapons are technically banned too.

i really dont get that one,in what way is a 50.cal more inhumane than a frickin drone strike or AC-130?

No idea. I guess its just that .50 tends to cause some pretty gruesome wounds. Compared to a missile that causes gruesome wounds but kills everyone anyway.

Its not abided to by everyone however.

[Julius]

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

Originally posted by Julius:

i really dont get that one,in what way is a 50.cal more inhumane than a frickin drone strike or AC-130?

No idea. I guess its just that .50 tends to cause some pretty gruesome wounds. Compared to a missile that causes gruesome wounds but kills everyone anyway.

Its not abided to by everyone however.

What even if someone wont abide the rules?
Dont the US stiill usewhite phosphoruous and 50.cal rifles and Machine guns?Its not like anyone can tell them to stop using them.

[captain gimmick]

Originally posted by Julius:

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

No idea. I guess its just that .50 tends to cause some pretty gruesome wounds. Compared to a missile that causes gruesome wounds but kills everyone anyway.

Its not abided to by everyone however.

What even if someone wont abide the rules?
Dont the US stiill usewhite phosphoruous and 50.cal rifles and Machine guns?Its not like anyone can tell them to stop using them.

The thing is that if everyone followed the rules war would not be needed. And when it comes down to it, which would you rather have? A few people who are trying to kill you dying a inhumane death or the war dragging on longer endangering innocent civilians?