They were designed during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.
The Soviets were primarily a land power and their way of war was mass formation of tanks followed closely by mass formations of troops.
I understand perfectly well why much the world has signed on to the treaties banning them, but I also know what they were designed to do, and it wasn’t to commit war crimes.
It just so happens, they’re awfully good at it, similar to landmines.
But putting aside that miniature history lesson, my comment was matter of fact. It was not endorsing their use, much less minimizing their impact on civilian populations, which I also called attention to.
You skimmed a comment, saw what you wanted to see, and then tried to attack me based on your erroneous interpretation of said comment.
I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
Not now, not during the cold war.
The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn’t have?
Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
It’s like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren’t designed to kill people because that wasn’t Nobel’s intent.
You made clear you don’t endorse their use, not denying that.
While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
That is all.
Bye serious person
They were designed during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.
The Soviets were primarily a land power and their way of war was mass formation of tanks followed closely by mass formations of troops.
I understand perfectly well why much the world has signed on to the treaties banning them, but I also know what they were designed to do, and it wasn’t to commit war crimes.
It just so happens, they’re awfully good at it, similar to landmines.
But putting aside that miniature history lesson, my comment was matter of fact. It was not endorsing their use, much less minimizing their impact on civilian populations, which I also called attention to.
You skimmed a comment, saw what you wanted to see, and then tried to attack me based on your erroneous interpretation of said comment.
Like I said, you’re not a serious person.
I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
Not now, not during the cold war.
The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn’t have?
Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
It’s like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren’t designed to kill people because that wasn’t Nobel’s intent.
You made clear you don’t endorse their use, not denying that.
While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
That is all.
Bye serious person
That a lot of words just to say, “Sorry, that I mischaracterized your comments”.
let it go dude