During World War 2 flamethrowers were used extensively and on both sides on all theaters of war. The question is weather the use of such weapons is justifiable. Flamethrowers shoot fire and cause the victim to be burned alive. In the best case scenario the victim dies from inhaling to much smoke or loss of oxygen. Is it ok to use these weapons to save your brothers in arms at the expense of such a savage death. Being burnt alive is probably the most painful way you can die. There will never be a definite answer on these questions just opinions from each person.
I do believe that since flamethrowers were often used to kill enemies in bunkers, tunnels or other enclosed spaces that there seem to be other solutions. I think if fragmentation grenades to cause a quicker and less painful death would work they should be used. I also feel that if fragmentation grenades are not working in this particular fortification then tear gas which is prohibited like other Flamethrowers and other Chemical weapons by at Geneva is still less horrible than Flamethrowers. Then the enemy would be forced to run out of the fortifications to surrender or otherwise be shot. This would seem much less horrible than any death being burnt alive.
How do you feel about flamethrowers in war?
