Rules:
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
What, you didn't think those huge forest fires occur because of things like, oh, I dunno, climate change or poor management and not allowing smaller natural fires to occur to temporarily benefit some overly rich assholes living in forested areas?
No, flamethrower helicopters!
Reject climate action
Embrace flamethrower helicopters
We actually use them to clear homeless encampments. Sure, it burns down half the city with the encampment, but it's a small price to pay to make our homeless even more miserable <3
To a man with a hammer...
That's water you stupid basβ
[notices where I am]
Excellent work, carry on.
Stupid Bassoon player?
perchance.
We can ask this question from the other direction: why doesn't everywhere else have a flamethrower helicopter?
Woke libs cancelled their flammencopters
Is this even a serious question? Because a freaking helicopter that shoots fire is Awesome! Every state should have one. I want one myself!
Unfortunately this is not a flamethrower helicopter.
I've seen drones with flamethrowers used to clear brush and trash from powerlines.
Easy.
To defend the Brotherhood of Nod against the GDI.
Oof this is digging deep, was that from Command and Conquer?
Yes, I believe the Brotherhood of Nod faction was introduced in the Tiberium Wars game, but its possible I may be wrong. Its been a while since Command & Conquer had a truly new release.
Brotherhood of Nod has always been in C&C since the first game.
Strangely enough, this reminds me that, at the time, even as a kind, I thought it was kind of unrealistic that there was no way that a stateless belligerent faction could amass military hardware and tech enough to threaten a global superpower across multiple different continents.
Then Al Quuaeda and ISIS came along and did just that.
If you watch how they work, these actually scoop up water and convert it to fire. And still all the woke libs act surprised California has constant water shortage and wildfire issues. You're literally converting your water into fire, sheeple!
Cause, you fight fire with fire.
if you don't understand burning firebreaks - ooof....
The day after taco bell
ate day and a half old pizza last night that gave me upset stomach. Can confirm. I am dieing π
Hope you never see an idiot throw flour or powdered milk at an open flame.
unpasturised powdered milk
Is that even relevant?
Next step: Fighter Jets with flamethrowers.
I am heavily disappointed at humanity for not coming up with it until now.
Ok, figuring out how to project a stream of fire ahead of a jet traveling at MACH Speed would be an interesting engineering exercise.
Ok now, hear me out. Take a ramjet, and stick it on the accelerant nozzle.
Jungle jelly
It's called thrust vectoring.
They're called "Fire Men"
This photograph appears to be a helicopter dropping fire retardant on a fire.
Damn, bro dropping the r word π
Not the hard R, thatβs a war crime
Bet you're the life of the party bud
That seems a horrifically cruel and ableist way to fight fires! Not to mention ineffective.
The militarization of police departments has gone too far. /s
Wait, they made a flame throwing helicopter?
Perhaps I have misjudged you, California.
looks at their rifles
Never mind, I judged correctly the first time.
Cool helicopter though!
Jokes aside, setting shit on fire is a legit firefighting tactic: The idea is to burn off all the fuel before the actual wildfire can reach it, forming a barrier the fire cannot easily spread over.
High winds obviously complicate this, but it can still work under the right circumstances.
Also a legit forestry tactic - you set a controlled fire in a part of the forest, and keep it well-controlled, to burn off leaf litter and dead wood that would otherwise easily fuel a wildfire, and to encourage the growth of some species (or discourage others - burning is the only effective way to stop some invasive plant species).
The ecology of California in general, and in particular the Sierra Nevada, has evolved to expect a wildfire every 10 years or so. Going 100 years (in some places) without a fire was completely beyond anything that ecology had evolved for, and it's no wonder that those areas that hadn't burned in a century got slate-wiped. The native Americans, and later the herdsmen who took over their lands, benefitted from these small vegetation burns and would frequently start and manage them. In the early 1900s, though, the feds (with good intentions, mind) came along and said you can't do that anymore because fire is always bad.
Planting a ton of Eucalyptus trees in the 1890s-1910s, that self ignite when they get too dry didn't help matters either. Worst part is those trees were planted for the railroad. Once the tree is smoldering they explode with sticky burning sap.
Holy crow, I had no idea that they secrete a sticky sap when they burn, nor that they were planted for the railroad. I always heard it was because John Steinbeck liked them / made them popular. Do you have a source so I can learn more?
We're strangers on a bullshitting forum on a bullshitting site and I know you don't owe me shit, so thank you very much for sharing that with me!
muh firecopter!
The right for Californians to have airborne incendiary delivering capabilities for home defense shall not be impeached! What's the matter with you? Don't you support the 2nd amendment? /s
Watch your ass, is why.