When did that happen? I thought it was still ok to use it in a field of war.

Really? thats to bad. I guess its to "inhumane"

yup there is nothing like the smell of roast pig in the morning air to let you know there are no enemy in this area for now anyway.

at least they are already cooked.....

It happened back in the 70's. Stockpiles are being destroyed. You might recall the photo of the little Vietnamese girl running down the road naked and burnt (which I agree is a horrible thing). So media attention helped get an effective weapon removed from service (for the US anyway). Funny nobody objected to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese fatalities from the same weapon (Used since WWII). It shows just how one photo can change things. Will Napalm be missed? Not sure, there are other ways to kill with fire, that are more effective, fuel/air explosives (FAE) comes to mind. It has intense heat, just being close to the device when it explodes will sear the lungs, closer and your a crisp, but it is not sticky like napalm, in fact they is little fire left after the explosion, due to the explosion using up oxygen. Near by combustibles might catch fire though.

The MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) is one such device. Info is here for your viewing pleasure.

Thank you for this informative answer!!!!!

yet white phosphorus and flame throwers are still allowed, white phosphorus can melt a tank. Flame throwers use a liquid mixture that sticks to people much like napalm. I cannot for the life of me see the difference between napalm and the other two I mentioned.

Your welcome, no problem.

WP can be nasty too, however it was initially used as a smoke screen (because the smoke is very dense). It was also weaponized, as you mention, but is not currently used in that manner because of public outcry. IMO its use would be limited in recent battles anyway because of close proximities to the enemy (we don't want our guys breathing that stuff in if the wind changes).

MM as you stated Napalm is similar to flame thrower fuel, I think the big difference there is with a FT you have to look the target in the eyes, so it's a remote chance you'll light up a civilian accidentally, unlike that which might occur in an air strike.

So in essence it's ok when you can see the whites of their eyes, but not ok when you are at 1500 feet zipping along at 450 MPH.

Unless you are Bill Clinton and the target is a Chinese embassy.

Well yes, lets just say it makes for less of a potential for burnt children photo ops, to feed the anti-war movement.

That was an accident!

That picture of the running child all burned up was one of the most powerful pictures to come out of the Vietnam war.

Since 1943 the US flamethowers used napalm as fuel.

True, but technically after WWII and Korea, even Napalm used in ordnance wasn't the same ingredients:  powdered aluminum soap of naphthalene with palmitate,  also known as napthenic and palmitic acids. Modern day napalm uses no Napalm (naphthalene or palmitate) -- instead using a mixture of polystyrene, gasoline and benzene. After the Korean War a safer but equally effective napalm compound was developed. This new formulation is known as "napalm-B", super-napalm, or NP2, and it uses no napalm. Instead, polystyrene and benzene are used as a solvent to solidify the gasoline.

Chadwbaker also found this on your link - "The M9A1-7 and other flamethrowers have been replaced by the M202A1 Incendiary Rocket launcher" (No particular date given). So it appears the flame thrower is now regulated to the history books. Thermobaric weapons are more effective in killing enemies in caves.

Yes absolutely, but on a brighter note I saw a follow up story (back in the late 80's or early 90's)on that girl, she was living in the US and had seemed to be doing well from what I can remember. She was in her late twenty's when I saw the story and she looked beautiful. It doesn't make up for her pain, but it's a start.