• LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    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.

  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 day ago

    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!

  • qyron
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Hope you never see an idiot throw flour or powdered milk at an open flame.

  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Next step: Fighter Jets with flamethrowers.

    I am heavily disappointed at humanity for not coming up with it until now.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    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!

    • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        22 hours ago

        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).

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          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.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            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.

            • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              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?

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    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