The Ethics of Incediary Weapons on the Urban Battle Field

The Pentagon has admitted using White Phosphorous (WP) on ‘enemy combatants’ (a term which apparently embraces anyone in Fallujah at the time of the U.S. assault on that city). WP eats flesh down the bone, leaving clothing and structures intact. It has been widely reported that U.S. forces are also using MK-77, a form of napalm in Iraq. Additionally, the Marines have recently introduced a new shoulder mounted assault weapon that uses a fuel-air thermobaric mixture, which has been compared to a micro-nuke, intended to flatten buildings and incinerate any inhabitants.

There may be sound military reasons to use these weapons – force protection, maneuver cover, even their very lethality – but what remains problematic is whether incendiaries such as these raise the same ethical concerns as other banned chemical weapons, such as nerve or blistering agents. So far, the Administration is defending the use of such weapons as a military neccesity, when used with due care to avoid civilian deaths.

There is no sign of the Bush Administration soon repudiating the use of any of these munitions.

One
of the most attractive properties of these weapons is they are area
effect and don’t require line of sight by American forces. They wreak
terrible damage on multiple enemies, even if you don’t know exactly
where they are. This is a force multiplier as well as a compensator for
poor ‘on the ground’ intelligence; both features are vitally important
for current American operations in Iraq. This feature is also why they
are ethically analogous to other chemical weapons. Their effect is more
localized and is less subject to unintentional drift into non-combat
areas than are ‘chemical’ weapons, but they are weapons that may be,
and often are, used essentially blind. Thus they tend to subject
civilians to accidental exposure at a much greater rate than targeted
munitions.

If one is killed by an ‘conventional’ explosive, or by its pressure
wave or shrapnel, one is just as dead as if one is cooked by napalm or
WP or a fuel-air explosive. Both types of demise are, more or less, the
result of a chemical’s reaction with the human body, and they both
leave your dead: so where’s the ethical distinction?

One distinction is hidden by a common, but ethically problematic use of
a ‘conventional’ munitions – aerial bombing. The ‘collateral damage’
caused by aerial bombardment has come to be accepted as a normal and
unavoidable feature of warfare, but there is still a school of thought
that considers aerial bombardment of areas inhabited by civilians to be
a war crime in and of itself. Aerial bombardment, because it is an
indirect and thus inherently indiscriminant use of force presents the
same ethical issue I touched on in the previous paragraph. The ethical
distinction between death by ‘conventional’ and ‘chemical’ weapons ought
to be the likelihood of unintended civilian casualties, but the
distinction is buried under the mountain of civilian deaths caused by
aerial bombardment. But just because the distinction is concealed by
‘collateral damage’ doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Another distinction is that there is something viscerally horrifying
about death by immolation. It shocks the conscience, as I’m sure the
picture I led this post with shocks many readers. Is that reason enough
to ban the use of a class of weapon? It’s the best reason. Our ethics
are the product of our evolutionary adaptation to social existence.
Such a ‘gut check’ is a good way to know that we are doing something
terribly inimical to social order and our long-term survival by using
such weapons, even if it is beneficial from a purely utilitarian
viewpoint, i.e. serves military mission goals admirably.

Despite the fact that military and political leaders may claim that
using these weapons aid us in ‘winning’ the ‘war on terror’ – and even
if they are right about that – using such weapons is impermissable
because of their indiscriminate and inhumane effects. We might win
battles by use of these awful weapons, but we will lose the war.

0 responses to “The Ethics of Incediary Weapons on the Urban Battle Field

  1. Hughes-Raytheon Air Force Plant Number 44 is staffed with incompetent engineers and Management, and this problem has gotten worse since the employment of Candidates from Raytheon running for Congress and engineers in The DFA movement in Tucson.

    For many years the amount of scrapped parts has been more than the amount of good workable parts coming out of Hughes. Yet all I hear is how great these people are. Bull Shit! I have known of productuion lines at Hughes for opver 50 years and its contracts,and have never seen a bunch of more self serving incompetents than are now running that plant!

    I call for accountability of the tax dollars waisted at that plant and hold accountable those Camdidates whom are running for Congress that intimidate others saying “THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES ABLE TO NEGOTIATE A PENTAGON DEFENSE CONTRACT.’

    TODAY BOEING CANCELLED A CONTRACT WITH RAYTHEON BECAUSE OF INCOMPETANT MANAGEMENT AND BEING UNABLE TO HOLD TOLERANCES NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE MISSILE SYSTEM ,RESULTING IN A 12 BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT LOSS FOR RAYTHEON!

    I again call for Defense Cuts across the board and firing of Management at HUGHES-RAYTHEON to begin immediatly!

  2. I pose this question to the Candidates who work at Raytheon-Hughes and are Air Force retires with a pension from the Air Force; will they vote to cut spending to Raytheon and cut the F-22 Fighter programs that have as a regular mix of weapons , the very ones you describe?

  3. Good point. And made in a very zen koan style.

  4. War on Terror is a truly ironic term. War is comprised of Terror. It is analagous to saying, “My bathtub is overflowing, so I will wash the water away with a garden hose.”