Things to make him want to go home

Nevermind, I got it.

OP is butthurt over being called out as a retard that does not know what he's typing.

OP here, that guy wasn't me.
To , I've seen this video where he talks about the Ukrainians being bombed with thermobarics and the medics having to come up with new ways to deal with that, one being to shoot his comrade as he was begging him to shoot him. Vid related.

...

Okay, how the fuck did he survive the shockwave then?

My bet is it's another uneducated propaganda piece some retard shill made up. Nothing new.

Attached: 0f6ab3dbb68489b25a65aec30e2b717208f3fa54e32052ae4c9c42c962919964.jpg (1491x1206, 162.44K)

Burger here, I was making a reference to his tumblur shit.

According to Wikipedia

Attached: 1436617715-3144.jpeg (620x400, 52.43K)

Thread theme

THERMOBARICS DONT MELT ANYTHING. THERMOBARICS HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A NORMAL EXPLOSION.
All of you faggots are parroting Human Rights Watch from an article published in 2000, which in turn "quotes" a study supposedly performed by the DIA in 1993 and another done by the CIA in 1990. Both of those documents are supposedly unclassified and openly available, but guess what: they never existed. Neither the CIA or the DIA ever published studies with the titles stated by HRW.

All of you faggots are falling for propaganda published by human rights watch, the same organization that succeeded in banning cluster bombs, and which's current executive director is Kenneth Roth. A man famous for stating:
on his twitter in 2014.
The man and his entire organization is a massive fuckup that somehow gained enough financial backers to still be around today.
And all of you are believing their propaganda published in 2000. Why?

The book is disturbing not horror just disturbing.
I do like what the father tells him though

I think everyone might be barking up the wrong tree here. The worst times for desertion are probably times of boredom. Bad food, nothing to do, all interactions with leadership being pointless garrison bullshit, and the like give people a sense that there's no reason to be there. If there's no reason to be there then why not go home? Once you start chopping off heads and burning people alive you run the risk of giving soldiers a reason to fight. Sure, it would be pretty scary to see your buddy get fucked up but it also gives you a very personal reason to hate the niggers on the other side who did it to him.

I'm not sure where to begin proving it, or if records on this are even kept, but I suspect the worst morale problems are for units behind the lines and basically inactive. Especially as it relates to actual desertion. Who the heck is going to be dumb enough to try to run away by themselves in a live combat zone? Even surrendering would be contraindicated if the enemy has demonstrated that he's an absolutely bloodthirsty and ruthless savage.

There's a thermal component to the blast wave, which expands at the speed of light and can set dry brush ablaze quite a ways away. But if you're getting hit with thermobarics, the fact that the shockwave seperates your meat from your bones and causes instant edema of every blood vessel is probably a larger cause of death. Being near the epicentre would probably be a peaceful way to go, even if it looks ugly afterward. Getting only wounded by one though…. that would be pretty fucking bad.

Also you can simulate thermobarics yourself at home, it's not difficult, you could even cause instant sunburns using some UV releasing gas like hydrogen.

I kinda really doubt the the pressure wave has the capacity to flay you alive without fatally crushing your coelom. Kraut's explanation seems more likely.

invest into cyberwarfare

Not a bad idea actually

Thought you were going to mention his wife fucking a nigger, but this would be pretty bad too.

Attached: 148d3d04cb24a34831ae0f47a791d764ffed7b3dd7ebd44158cdbb11796998bd9dd.png (200x333, 339.2K)

Chemical weapons to degrade the lungs and melt flesh, traps designed to just blow off legs, electrical shocks to cause nerve damage, and liberal use of poisons come to mind.

wew

That's the sad part

It's a given that a military man's wife will cheat on him at this point. Really a given for anyone who's away from his wife for more than 8 hours at a time, honestly, and even that's not a guarantee this day. Hacking a soldier's wife's social media and showing him she's fucking another dude seems more likely than getting into his bank account and stealing his money, which the bank would know is being processed to a hostile country.

Attached: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA_BATTERIES.mp4 (240x240, 300.71K)

This post is underrated.

Knowing a bunch of Iraqi war vets, I'm pretty sure IEDs are about as effective as it gets. People have nervous breakdowns when they're told to get in a Humvee and go in patrol. The constant stress every second you're out of the wire, you have to worry about having all your arms and legs blown off. Not just because its a possibility, but because it happened to that one squad yesterday on the same fucking road.

To make them go back where they came from. They're invading our own country in this scenario.

Yes, something to note as well is public opinion. If the parents know one of their sons might return with his face disfigured, blind, missing arm or leg or so handicapped from nerve agents he needs help for the rest of his life, they will want the war to stop asap and their sons home. Even the enemy's own propaganda to show how savage the enemy is would work against them in that case.
Pic related, this is what needs to happen to the enemy soldier, not the exception of wounded but the norm.

Attached: hed.jpg (400x300 41.57 KB, 27.46K)

The greatest enemy to soldiers is indeed boredom with no outlet, and the wish to participate with orders otherwise. Roman Trirarii, the most veteran and wealthy soldiers before the reforms, were often made to sit on their knees and watch the battle until they may have been needed so they wouldn't rush in to join the fight themselves. Otherwise, if the rest of the roman line could handle the battle just fine they would sit out the whole thing, and they hated it.

Bodily harm is for sure a great fear, but what is the role of a soldier? His role is to fight, and to defend the motherland at all costs. However, how can a soldier fight if his basic security of food and water is denied for days to weeks on end would be the worse than death.

Sure, he could fight, but he would be greatly impaired when doing so, and just think of the despair when he dies not in combat, but in some shitty dugout suffering from malnutrition and disease. It's a slow and mentally destructive process.

Attached: starvation.jpeg (1800x1200 167.99 KB, 371.96K)

Show the soldiers how their country deals with the veterans – no glory, no fame, just a shit pension, a few pieces of ribbon, and a kick in the ass followed by dying miserable and alone in a retirement home. Follow it by listing the shit the people they fight for do - how the neighbour rakes in big money because he has time to invest, how he's probably buying a new car and fucking the soldier's wife, and how everyone just laughs at the troopers for throwing their lives away in some shithole instead of actually living. Finally, delive coup de grace by including various goybook and forum posts from their own country calling them bloodthirsty mercs that only fight for money and are probably sadistic (there's an infinite supply of such posts online).

Kill the troop's vision of bright future, turn his greed against him (convince him he is wasting money with every second he spends there), and taint the ideals he fights for.

Enough DAKKA

I remember reading through some official unit diaries from WWI, and when the units were being held in reserve they said that the men sorely wanted to be set back to combat. They'd gotten so fed up with training exercises and drills that these guys were actually wishing they'd get sent back to the Western Front.
It probably wasn't just bullshitting to keep up appearances either, because in one case the same officer had also written an entry flat-out stating the brass's fuck-up had gotten men killed unnecessarily (exactly as the author had predicted in an entry a couple weeks earlier when the new orders, regarding the use of signal flares, were issued).

So life in modern USA basically

It being true is why it'll work

The acts described in these threads are cruel but they can just very well backfire on you because your enemy will be more determined to eliminate you. Nothing like a gruesome war crime to remind the enemy that you are truly a monster he has to destroy at all costs. You are doing the enemy propaganda for free and their leadership will thank you for it.
If I am in a conflict and a friend of mine gets executed in a horrible way by the enemy I want to stay even more because my hate for them increases. Hate is stronger than fear.

You should definetly tell your men how cruel the enemy can be so that everyone who gets surrounded goes out like the Russian Rambo instead of getting executed on camera. For the other nasty injuries there should be some kind of rule that you are allowed to mercy kill your comrades.

I sincerely hope they're glad that Israel has been made safer by their sacrifice.

Fuck soldiers tbh

You misunderstand, you think I am saying to be as cruel and evil to the enemy as possible, this is not the case. I don't want the enemy soldier to keep fighting until his last breath, I want him to surrender. I want the soldier to know that he can surrender, yet if he does not, he can expect livelong disfigurement, handicaps and more were he to survive.
What I want is the equipment my guys carry to be most maiming and hurting thing they can carry, that when the enemy is pinned he is more likely to surrender than see his buddies and himself get shredded by airburst frag that burns inside of him.
Understand that I do not wish to hurt the soldier just to hurt him, it is a means to an end. The end being to end the conflict as quick as possible.

Attached: kuklinski.jpg (280x260, 36.2K)

Germany, Germany, you're getting it wrong man. We're not saying to be cruel to soldiers and then kill them. That's outright inhumane. We're saying to be cruel to soldiers in such a way that they survive but are useless/fucked up for the rest of their lives because it's far more demoralizing to hear Joe killed himself because he had no arms/couldn't see any more. The whole point is to demoralize your enemy to KEEP them from continuing the war with you. Combine it with propaganda saying "we're just trying to keep you fuckers on your side of the border. Sign this trade agreement (that's beneficial to us) and we can let bygones be bygones, intermarry our families or whatever, and not be at each other's throats. Why won't YOU end this war with us?"

Attached: 1471544135497.png (1280x720, 821.17K)

you retard, if he surrenders you must now feed him and clothe him and keep him safe
you are just wasting your money, money that could be spent on war effort, on your enemy

Did the US ever fought a war against a foreign power that posed an actual (inb4 Germany, Japan) existential threat? This isn't meant as a personal insult but it seems to me that Americans can not get behind the idea to actually fight for something important like their very survival. Look at the treatment the North Vietnamese forces got. Flamethrowers, Napalm, Agent Orange, CIA Psyops and more. Did this stop them from fighting? No and even your creative methods wouldn't have stopped them because for them it was a war over their very existence. Wars during medieval ages had atrocities that make the suggestions here look like a joke. Did those scare people from fighting? Some got scared but the rest got even more determined. People traveled half the known world to fight their enemies even if it could end up in slavery, getting maimed and tortured. The point I try to make here is that it is very well possible to scare enemies into not fighting because of your own cruelty however history shows that in most cases your enemy gets more determined to fight you or is in a morale state where they don't give a damn. There are many accounts of mass routes and mass desertions but they rarely ever happened because the enemy was a bit mean. The only exception you can make here are sieges. If you cut off the enemy from all supply and now let them deal with hunger and disease for months you can very well force them to give up.

Does the CSA fighting against the USA count?

Oh wait

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (657x527, 297.21K)

Medieval wars were actually pretty tame. The Church even made things more tame. It was largely secular rulers torturing their inhabitants (especially in Spain) where a lot of medieval torture techniques came from.

Damn Yankees were a foreign power, damn it.

Attached: 1523754410265-2.jpg (861x900, 203.03K)

Maybe in regards to the raw number dead, but not by everything else. You are committing a warcrime if you give no quarter nowadays, but back then if you hated your opponent enough the guy in charge could execute every prisoner with the wave of his hand. Agincourt being a good example of that.

As in the same Agincourt where the English were vastly outnumbered, exhausted, and under the presumption that they were about to be attacked again/their prisoners would just pick up weapons from the previous battle and they'd be skewered by the French from both within and from the surroundings?
As in the Agincourt where there's only 300 confirmed killings, of which the English knights considered extremely dishonorable as a huge violation of chivalric code and of which they had to be forced to kill them or be hung for disobedience? Where they tried to make the slaughter as quick as possible because they knew it was wrong?
That Agincourt? Because that's a really shitty example basically showing that Medieval wars were actually pretty tame when you consider the weaponry and what could have been.

Attached: be7664039664667792865339b84a051785089c76b0f8f9bd86b166b691b1642c.png (677x1024, 700.61K)

Pray tell, what's wrong with that? From what I understand, cluster bomblets often stay unexploded and that will practically have the same effect as land mines, except arguably worse since unlike land mines you can't make a very accurate map of where they landed, detonated and which ones are UXO.
For some reason Estonia has cluster munitions, some sort of artillery shells according to the government. So we're non-signatories to that convention. I have no idea how we got our hands on that shit, they're NATO spec and not USSR era.
They're made in Germany and have 63 bomblets.

Want to give excuses for village razing next?

Modern militaries just don't take prisoners and do the same damn thing in many cases. As far back as I can recall, and it's probably still the case, the US military considers any male age 11 or older to be an enemy combatant automatically and if women/children are killed in a bombing it's "collateral damage" by all accounts. If your basis is prisoners of war, than things are in fact worse today then they were in the middle ages.
What village razings? Can you actually provide examples or do you get all of your history from movies/fantasy games? Are you referring to the starving mercenary bands who were retaliating against the French/English who promised and failed to feed/supply them during the 100 years war? Are you referring to the shitty Vikings who got their shit kicked in, in practically every peasant revolt or war they fought in? Perhaps you're referring to the "highwaymen" who existed on the roads to London who were basically just local medieval gangs that were broken up as soon as they became a legitimate threat and not just a nuisance to foreigners? I'm hoping you aren't getting your accounts from Spain who was dealing with Muslim hordes or Romania and the massive shit-heap that was going on over there with the Asians flooding in, because I've been avoiding making direct comparisons to 3rd world shit holes in modern times, but if we use those particular egregious examples to come out of those countries, then we can't keep the discussion in Europe, now can we? I'd say the threat of my village being razed to the ground was far lower than my modern chances of being incarcerated on a whim by the local police and having everything stolen from me by them. The German police just sold a family's dog on Ebay because they weren't paying taxes, and from what I understand the German police are on less of a power trip than the UK or USA.
Yes, crazy shit happened in the Middle Ages, but Germany's claim, and I quote, was:
And my response was simply that most of the atrocities that took place in the Middle Ages were done by secular rulers torturing their own population because various protestant reformations made it so that the Catholic Inquisition, which was largely a forgiving organization based on law and theology that prisoners would beg to be trialed by to avoid the local earl or duke's punishment, had very little power in the region to enforce their policy of forgiveness. The Spanish Inquisition who are the main culprits of many of the alleged Medieval crimes against humanity were denounced by the pope. This was the late middle ages when most of these atrocities happened, so even if we use those atrocities as a basis, it still stands to reason that for most of medieval history the wars and ways of doing things were pretty tame due to influence from the Catholic church and the chivalric code that had to be followed. Do you think kings just had tons of resources to raise soldiers and could go on mass killing sprees? Soldiers were fucking expensive, requiring the taxation of roughly 10-12 peasants to feed, clothe, and arm one recruit. You can cut those costs down by taking a peasant and making them part of the town guard or a part-time soldier who's a farmer, but then he's only slightly more useful than a peasant who was trained for a few months in preparation for battle. In mainland Europe it took quite a long time to get from one land to another, so anyone who would be doing some warring would be doing so against a nearby village or township which very likely had someone's buddy or daughter or mother living in it. Most medieval battles were settled with small skirmishes where you were more likely to die from infection from a stab wound rather than from being killed in battle (if you were likely to die at all). Major battles with hundreds or thousands of troops involved and killing prisoners at the drop of a hat were exceptions to the rule, not the norm, user. Again, much unlike modern warfare where it's considered normal to just bomb an internationally recognized hospital because it might have one or two enemy insurgents in it.

Attached: your_mother_Was_a_hamster.mp4 (480x360, 693.97K)

Was there a point to this rambling? As long as you don't sell cluster munitions to african shitholes, or make like pissrael and deliberately drop them on mudshit civilians who are too stupid to not step on the BRIGHT YELLOW bomblets, EOD techs can remove/destroy the bomblets after the battle, even if they're not the more modern types that have a clean-up element where it explodes after an hour or so anyway.

Civilians were picking them up because they were bright yellow.

Attached: humanitarian.png (1920x1090, 2.08M)

Do you think soldiers are unaware of these things? All but the most sheltered know, but they rationalize and dismiss it.
Whatever pamphlets you drop are already suspect because what retard would take enemy propaganda at face value. So these demoralization ideas you have will be rationalized even stronger than the soldier's own personal experience.

And the refugee MRE's were changed to a different colour after the former Yugoslavia was made safe for jewish exploitation democracy. Clearly burger designers aren't the smartest, why was this ever in doubt?

Some of those ration packs are pretty lethal on their own tbh.

Thankfully, I gather that omelette thing is no longer included.

Attached: I have seen some shit....jpg (1280x813, 52.83K)

I wouldn't want to try it. On a tangent, the worst MRE I've had was the Pork Sausage patty, Maple Flavored, which was way too sweet and tasted alien to anything I've ever eaten. The muffin top was great though.
btw Polish Rations are the best I've had so far.

Attached: steve disgust.jpg (568x518, 60.35K)

As said in the post before, we are the one being invaded here. Assume to be in a position like Saddam.
You should certainly use different means if you are invading a country, unless the enemy is so determined to go on untill the end and not prone to negotiation, then you should break out the big hurt.

I'm saying the opposite, but I assume this was a typo.
In restricted under-the-table ways maybe, which you have no way to prove the prevalence of. In an era where there are no rules to warfare, there is no Geneva convention and no Red Cross the warfare is going to be more brutal. And it was, again, in regards to everything but raw bodycount. To kill a mounted knight, he has to be knocked off, likely breaking bones in the process, and then he gets a dagger shoves through his eyeslit until he gives up or dies. You think that's a nice way to go? Do you think getting slammed with a mace and slowly dying of internal organ damage in an age with effectively no medical technology is a nicer alternative to just taking a bullet?
Well thanks for listing a bunch of people who razed villages
Anyways en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée
also
lmao retard
Why are you so dead set on torturing? No one's mentioned torturing but you, we're talking about warfare. Regardless if a noble's family couldn't come up with a ransom said noble usually got the very short end of the stick.

Anyways en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

People who could actually afford a warhorse and full plate were nobility. Troops were explicitly forbidden from killing enemy nobles – the order has always been to capture them but not harm them. Why? Because you then made some pretty crazy money ransoming him back and selling his armour, not to mention you'd be given the same courtesy if tables were to be turned. Sure, shit happened, sometimes the noble got killed anyway because he fell off a horse and broke his neck or was hit by a weapon that overcame his armour, but that was unavoidable. Nobody fucking crawled on top of a fallen knight and started poking his eyes out through the visor, what the actual fuck?

You're skipping the declarative portion of the sentence. The thermal portion is just radiation, it's photons.

About 55 seconds in

Yes, they did
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger

Do you even read the shit you link
Nobles were allowed to kill other nobles, obviously
exactly what I've been saying
So let's sum up – a weapon used by a KNIGHT as his last means of defense, capable of killing the enemy should he refuse to surrender. Now tell me how the fuck does that fit in your story about a knight breaking his bones from getting knocked off and then getting poked in the eye by some nigger? Why the fuck would anybody do that? If some peasant did it, he'd get executed by his own lord, and a noble would be depriving himself of ransom by killing his powerless foe as well as showing himself to be cowardly scum. The only time this shit would be applicable would be hand to hand combat, where the enemy is still very much fighting and you're fighting for your life.

A rondel is a particular dagger. Many people carried daggers, especially those who couldn't afford more. And remember the part where I said
and not just

But few got into an armed confrontation with a knight in full plate and none would dare to kill one unless forced to because a) they'd be executed if they're not nobility and b) they'd be wasting large amounts of money if they are nobility, as well as breaking the chilvaric code.
Nigger, if the knight is lying on the ground with broken bones, he cannot continue combat. He gives up by default. Your entire scenario is fucking retarded in an attempt to demonize medieval warfare for whatever reason. No, if a knight lay helpless on the ground, he wouldn't get finished off like a bitch; he would be captured and ransomed. If he is not helpless and is fighting, THEN he might get killed just like any other combatant, only it's unlikely thanks to his defenses and he will only die if the wounds he gets mid-combat happen to be fatal. At no point is somebody gonna sit on top of a collapsed knight and start poking him through the visor – if the knight actually gets killed by stab through the visor, it would have been done in the middle of a fight, it would be unexpected, and it wouldn't be something out of some sadistic fanfiction.

It was an example in the first place, not the sole thing I'm using to say that medieval combat wasn't tame. You admit it happened, and that proves my example right.
That's the ideal scenario. It's what I've said from the beginning, continuously repeating yourself once you retardation has been exposed doesn't win you the argument. Daggers were used to capture them, but not always would they submit to capture as is the ideal, or were they always offered surrender. To lazily rip from the article, King Richard III as an example. They would've gotten a literal king's ransom. Doesn't change reality.

Richard III. got killed in the middle of a battle and made no attempts at surrender.
Yeah, sometimes the knight fought until last breath and got killed as a result. There's nothing wrong with that. Think a knight actually had it worse nowadays than a soldier? A knight often got many chances to surrender, precisely because he was so hard to kill. A modern soldier is often dead before he even realises he's in danger because a sniper or a mine or something else entirely killed him. And getting stabbed through the visor into your brain won't take much longer than a bullet.

Via a dagger stab. Which is directly in contrast to what you were saying originally
Exactly correct, which is a hell of lot more humane than the ways medieval soldiers died.

I was saying nobody would kill a surrendering knight. A knight usually had plenty of options to surrender, giving him much better odds than a modern soldier has.
I'd rather get the option to not die, as opposed to dying in a random IED blast, thank you very much.

From what I remember, the middle-eastern & African civilians won't even use half the things included in the kits like shampoo/soap because they either know what it is and don't want to be clean since it would make them a rape target, or really have no fucking clue what shampoo is. So is it really a loss?

I was about to respond, but by the time I read I just gave up because you're quite literally retarded and the reason this country needs to separate so I have the chance to kill your city-nigger ass in modern warfare, potentially with a horse piss IED that won't completely kill you but leave you in constant pain for half a decade before your brain finally is able to block out most of it even though it's still there. Jesus fucking Christ are you dense, user.

Yeah, and shit like chemical weapons/agent orange and flamethrowers exist as well as rounds laced with depleted uranium that cause real birth defects and cancers for decades after the battles. You can't deny their existence so that proves my example is right that "modern" warfare makes medieval warfare look relatively tame. Now fuck off.

Attached: 68846fe82191dabc088d5cc111ac0535607fe707699dfb9f2bc0d4424cd3bce0.png (1100x1000, 1.29M)

All of which are banned. Do you really think that medieval warfare was more tame because of the possibility that someone nowadays can be crippled by an IED? Is that your actual chain of logic?

Attached: holocaustanza.jpg (5000x5000, 404.12K)

bait or genuine retard

Attached: ttt.png (619x756 31.67 KB, 72.51K)

Flamethrowers aren't banned, they are just largely irrelevant for combat. Cluster munitions on the other hand are largely banned but we still use them. Modern combat is much deadlier than medieval combat. Like half of the medieval population of Britain died at the Somme in one day

Attached: Clustermunitions.gif (240x180, 478.98K)

The U.S defense department banned flame throwers. Agent Orange was essentially pesticide, but is extremely looked down upon and is essentially banned from any future use.

Attached: retard race.gif (460x260, 8.23M)

Herbicide.

Attached: 1.jpg (1469x85, 53.33K)

lol no, they just don't use them because flame throwers have shit range, and if they get hit with fire become a danger to people around them.

Also they're so common that they're used to burn the hair on a pig after killing it, so you don't end up with pig bristles in your soup. Also to clear brush, pests and previous years stalks off of farmland before planting. Better believe any civil war will be heavy on the molotovs and flamethrowers.

Head on a spike would probably work.

A 'real' flamethrower squirts burning jelled fuel. What you're talking about is an oversized propane torch.

I do a Psyops and say secret Chemical Weapons are being used that will either/or Turn him gay, or make him impatient, irreversibly.
It wont kick in for a few months, and his leadership is not telling him the truth for their own selfish reasons. There is an antidote but its very rare and expensive, so only The Brass gets it.

I suspect public crucifixion carried out in disputed territories in open spaces obviously covered by your snipers or loaded with hidden IEDs would be an effective strategy.

Having to watch your fellow solders die in such a drawn out manner while you have to sit there and watch because the area is an obvious killzone would be quite demoralizing.

Ass on spike would work better.

Attached: darth vlader.jpg (558x528, 38.42K)

Got back to your coffin, Alucard.

Attached: 20190310.jpg (850x1157, 175.86K)