The Russian army has deployed the TOS-1 heavy flamethrower which shoots thermobaric rockets,

[Celerity]

this was South of Belgorod.

Link to tweet

TOS-1A (Solntsepyok) ⚔️ Russian Heavy Flamethrower MLRS [Review]

[Deminpenn]

1. Way worse than any weapon

the US used in VN.

[JanMichael]

2. Napalm?

[Deminpenn]

7. No, from wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

A Human Rights Watch report of 1 February 2000[15] quotes a study made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency:

The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique—and unpleasant. ... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs. ... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as with most chemical agents.

[JanMichael]

9. The web death game? This just sounds like a napalm knockoff with explosion.

"Napalm became a necessary weapon of every modern military force, even though its consequences were among the most inhumane. The effectiveness of the weapon overruled its cruelty. In fact, napalm caused carbon monoxide poisoning when used on enclosed environment which wasn’t directly hit by fire. The effects of carbon monoxide were well known after the end of WWII, as it was one of the main gasses used for poisoning concentration camp victims.

Out in the open, napalm caused severe burns all over the body, burns which were far worse than the ones caused by fire in general. Human skin becomes covered with viscous magma that resembles tar. Napalm causes wounds that are too deep to heal. In contact with humans, it would immediately stick to the skin and melt the flesh. There is no way to put the fire out, except by smothering it, which causes unbearable pain. In panic, many victims would try to wipe it off, but this only causes the fire to spread, expanding the burn area."

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/vietnam-war/history-napalm-vietnam-war-x.html?chrome=1

It is 2022 compared to 1960's. I would expect some improvements in barbarity in 50 or 60 years. Also in 1980 the UN tagged use of Napalm around civilians a war crime.

Yes the Russian weapon is awful but I don't get saying it is "way" worse than anything used by the US in Vietnam.

Oh wait we still use versions:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-admits-it-used-napalm-bombs-in-iraq-99716.html

Ugh.

[Scrivener7]

11. OMG. Those poor people. Four days ago, Ukrainians were just living their lives

like we are now. And now they are subject to this.

Those effects are nauseating.

[Liberal In Texas]

3. Some well placed cruise missiles would neutralize them.

[Celerity]

5. cruise missiles are only for surface targets, not air

[Buckeyeblue]

4. I don't understand how we can just watch this happen without intervening

At some level aren't we morally obligated to try to stop the Russians. Isn't this like watching one neighbor assault another? Isn't there a human obligation to intervene?

[Celerity]

6. Intervening how?

NATO/US troops directly engaging with Russian troops?

At that point, you kick off WWIII.

[Buckeyeblue]

8. Is WWIII inevitable?

Putin has essentially announced that he will do what he wants, threatening grave consequences to any country who attempts to intervene.

I think we need to think long and hard about when we want to fight WWIII. Is it now. Or is it in the future with an even more emboldened Russia and their ally, China.

I realize we sat and watched for quite a while as Germany decimated Europe before getting into WWII. Maybe we shouldn't have.

I'm not typically hawkish. This feels different to me though.

[Celerity]

10. No, no it is not

Is WWIII inevitable?

[marie999]

12. One major reason there has not been a WWIII is the US and Russia use proxy wars.