As other people mentioned, the only correct way to approach wars is to not have them in the first place. But since we do have them... The article failed to co

As other people mentioned, the only correct way to approach wars is to not have them in the first place. But since we do have them... The article failed to convince me that flamethrowers would be in any way less destructive than artillery and/or bombardment. As a Pole, we have had experience of our cities being systematically burned to the ground by Germans during WWII. Notable examples would be Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Warsaw Uprising. In both cases Germans used flamethrowers to deliberately burn the place to the ground, building by building. "Almost all Warsaw is a sea of flames. To set houses afire is the surest way to deprive the insurgents of their hiding places. When we crush the uprising, Warsaw will get what it deserves – complete annihilation." - Hans Frank, German Governor-General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw On the other hand tear gas seems like quite civilized way to force an enemy out of a building. I don't see why it should be banned in close range combat.