How flammable are most modern structures, such as skyscrapers, bridges, roadways, etc? Webm related talks about how the firebombing campaigns in Japan during WWII were so destructive, because Japanese architecture was almost entirely wooden (that may be wrong, someone correct me if it is, please). Clearly these same firebombing campaigns would not be as effective today, since Japanese architecture has changed a great deal since then. But to how much destruction can modern building design/materials prevent in the face of a military firebombing action?
Fire as a weapon
Chase Jackson
Christian Baker
People that think you use massive fires to cause massive casualties are wrong. You use fire to drain resources and man power. A large forest fire in a populated area will demand a national response, you will see the national guard deployed, wildland firefighters by the thousands, and a fuck load of money being poured into fighting the fire.
Its not a tactical weapon most of the time, but a strategic one. And considering you can cause millions of dollars of damage with a single lighter/match/magnifying glass and some basic wildland firefighting methodology, it's amazing we don't have lighter control.
Alexander Hughes
Very susceptible. The frame may be made of steel, and the outside walls may be made of concrete slabs, but nearly everything inside the building is flammable. Wall panels, furniture, carpets, curtains and drapes, and paper files are just some of the things inside modern buildings that can burn.
It might be harder for a fire to take hold, and a well designed building will have fire alarms, sprinkler systems, and (hopefully) a means for people to escape before the flames and/or smoke traps them. But modern buildings can burn just as well as one made completely from wood.
Also, remember that modern buildings are filled with furniture, carpets, and curtains/drapes made from synthetic materials. Some of those produce lethal fumes when burned - even if the flame don't reach those inside, they can still die from the fumes and smoke inhalation.
Jace Robinson
From TM 31-210 Improvised Munitions Handbook.
Blake Howard
More things from TM 31-210 Improvised Munitions Handbook. This is the section on improvised gelled fuels. 12 pages in total.
Aiden Bennett
Noah Green
Last lot of pages in gelled fuels.
Kevin Martin
Alexander Russell
Jose Thomas
This is a big part of why weaponizing fire on a large scale isn't all that great of an idea, the other part is that fire isn't all that effective at killing people in comparison to its effectiveness in destroying infrastructure. Yes, the firebombing campaign against Japan was more effective than the nuclear campaign in terms of lives lost and infrastructure destroyed. The problem is that the ratio of deaths/destruction is heavily, heavily skewed towards destruction.
Not only do you generally want to preserve as much of a city or nation's infrastructure as you can while still winning the battle/war, you also want to keep the civilian population as self sufficient as possible to ensure a peaceful occupation. A total burndown of a city without killing its population in roughly equal measure just leaves you with an enormous number of displaced, hungry, and increasingly unruly refugees and no chance of restoring local self sufficiency, thus stability, in short order.
A firebombing campaign is great if you have no intention of invading or otherwise occupying the enemy city/nation after it surrenders. Unfortunately, wbatever burden thag displaced population places upon the enemy regime will inevitably fall upon your people once the day is won. The US could not have "won" against Japan by continuing the firebombing campaigns and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. The end result would have been the complete and utter destruction of Japan to the point that Japanese "society" would revert to a fuedal, massively impoveriehed, completely deindustrialized state decades. Even if we ignore the number of American lives lost in the pursuit of such a total victory, the loss of everything Japan has contributed to post-war society wouldn't be worth it.