[antivenom]

Open to discussion

[Smartaleck]

"Because flamethrowers spew jellied fuel that sticks to skin and clothes, the fire they produce is extremely difficult to put out."

Just like the people in the WTC that were vaporized by jet fuel.

... "fight fire with fire"

[this_ol_patriot]

I had a "discussion" with a liberal clinton lover yesterday, we were talking about weapons like this and indeed he thought they were inhumane but he did have another solution. He said we should unshield and dump all our old nuclear waste into all the caves in Afghanistan before or after they get there, then pack our bags and go home.

[Vulpes]

I would say a flamethrower is just the thing for a simple cave and will probably be used if our land forces have to mop up an area.

But I don't think the Afghan caves are that simple...remember flamethrowers and gas and high explosives did not do much to the tunnel complexes in Vietnam. It took brave men (tunnel rats) to go in and see what was what.

Besides I like the idea of bunker buster bombs and bulldozers to seal off the caves and leave the occupants in place.

[ppaul]

:

[George Smiley]

FAEs. Lots of them.

[Lurker]

I like it.

The only problem with flamethrowers is that someone has to walk around with several gallons of pressuring, highly flammable napalm on their back.

L

[hang 'em]

Every munition in the US arsenal should have some small quanty of pig lard in or on it. Every FAE, mine, bullet and bomb.

[ppaul]

Link to CNN article and cool video:

Flame Thrower now an option on S. African Cars

:

[uncommonsense]

What a coincidence. I had a dream this Sunday that my neighbors and I were facing off against a much larger group of Islamic militants who were seeking to purge the earth from us “infidels” by attacking our neighborhood. My strategy was to open up on them with a flamethrower to prevent their forward movement (homemade gas thrower using gas siphoned from our cars) while others used street-sweeper 12 gauges from the tops of their house to maximize coverage.

[KC_Conspirator]

I was thinking the same thing days ago. We will have to flush them out WWII style.

[Nineteen_Kilo]

In discussion with an officemate a few weeks ago, it occured to me that we should be looking at ways to make the caves uninhabitable. Filling them with carbon dioxide would work (and would seem to avoid any issues with the Geneva convention's prohbitions against poison gas, since CO2 is harmless). Sealing the cave entrances is also a good option ... provided we're sure we seal ALL the entrances, to prevent them sneaking out a 'back door'.

Sadly, mustard gas and similar heavier-than-air gasses would be ideal for this purpose, but are outlawed by the Geneva Convention. This, of course, raises the interesting question: does the Geneva Convention apply only to military forces? And, if so, would the CIA be considered a military force? You can see my train of thought developing, I'm sure ...

[connectthedots]

Because flame-broiled is better than fried. Just like Burger King, tell them they can either surrender or be broiled. Then tell them they can "Have it your way".

[gunshy]

If it was good enough to use on the people at Waco, it ought to be good enough to use on the Talibans.

[LibKill]

A 66 mm man-portable rocket launcher that fires an incendiary round is still on the books, but most experienced U.S. military folks contacted this past week weren’t familiar with it. (One retired Army officer did remember that “years ago” the rocket was used at a U.S. base in a demonstration for visitors. He says such a fire rocket would be “dandy” for caves.) As the Afghan war bogs down against opponents willing to literally go underground, one very promising U.S. weapon for going after them is missing in action.

The M202 Flame Launcher was a four barreled weapon that was still in the Marine Corp's books when I joined in the 1970s. I never saw one except in the books.

I heard they were phased out because the payload would sometimes ignite on launch, incinerating the operator.