More evidence we are all becoming less civilized by the day: (1 Viewer)

[Alisa]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4187835.ece

Army 'vacuum' missile hits Taliban
Michael Smith

British forces in Afghanistan have used one of the world’s most deadly and controversial missiles to fight the Taliban.

Apache attack helicopters have fired the thermobaric weapons against fighters in buildings and caves, to create a pressure wave which sucks the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted to the use of the weapons, condemned by human rights groups as “brutal”, on several occasions, including against a cave complex.

The use of the Hellfire AGM-114N weapons has been deemed so successful they will now be fired from RAF Reaper unmanned drones controlled by “pilots” at Creech air force base in Nevada, an MoD spokesman added.

Thermobaric weapons, or vacuum bombs, were first combat-tested by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and their use by Russia against civilians in Chechnya in the 1990s was condemned worldwide.

The secret decision to buy the Hellfire AGM-114N missiles was made earlier this year following problems attacking Taliban fortified positions.

British Apache pilots complained that standard Hellfire antitank missiles were going straight through buildings and out of the other side. Even when they did explode, there were limited casualties among the Taliban inside, particularly when a building contained a number of rooms.

American Apache pilots overcame the problem in Iraq with the thermobaric Hellfire.

The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law.

Eventually, they decided to get round the ethical problems by redefining the weapons.

“We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition,” said an MoD spokesman. “We call it an enhanced blast weapon.”

The redefinition has allowed British forces to use the weapons legally, but is undermined by the publicity of their manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, which markets them as thermobaric.

When the American military bought them in 2005, President George W Bush said: “There are going to be some awfully surprised terrorists when the thermobaric Hellfire comes knocking.”

Despite the Bush rhetoric, it is unlikely anyone targeted by the missile would know much about it. The laser-guided missile has a warhead packed with fluorinated aluminium powder surrounding a small charge.

When it hits the target, the charge disperses the aluminium powder throughout the target building. The cloud then ignites, causing a massive secondary blast that tears throughout any enclosed space.

The blast creates a vacuum which draws air and debris back in, creating pressure of up to 430lb per sq in. The more heavily the building is protected, the more concentrated the blast.

The cloud of burning aluminium powder means victims often die from asphyxiation before the pressure shreds their organs.

Jim Gribschaw, Lockheed Martin’s programme director for air-to-ground missiles systems, said the thermobaric Hellfire was “capable of reaching around corners to strike enemy forces hiding in cases, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes.”

Human Rights Watch argues they are “particularly brutal” and that their blast “makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter”.

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: “It is staggering the MoD has added these weapons to Britain’s arsenal in cloak-and-dagger secrecy. Parliament has never assented to their use.”

He added: “Gordon Brown claimed the moral high ground when Britain supported a ban on cluster munitions but leaving a loophole for these weapons casts a different picture on the true position.”

The MoD said: “We are conscious of the controversial aspects [of this weapon] but it is being used sparingly and under strict circumstances where it is deemed appropriate by the commander on the ground.”

A spokesman added that it could “achieve objectives with the minimum coalition casualties and reduced collateral damage”.

 

[redneckgeek]

Human Rights Watch argues they are “particularly brutal” and that their blast “makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter”.

Which type of bomb telegraphs it's arrival, thus allowing civilians to take shelter?

The blast wave for this type of weapon travels at about 3/km sec. It's reaching it's 43 psi in a matter of milliseconds. That's the organ shredding part. As the article states, most victims are dead from asphyxation before the pressure wave reaches them. So, even though it causes horrific injury to the body, the victim is (usually) dead before the injury happens. Kind of like throwing a dead body off a cliff - doesn't make the body any deader, but it does a lot of damage. As far as suffering goes - unless you take a direct hit to the head, a bullet kills slower than this.

This weapon was developed for fighting people that hide in caves, where oxygen deficiencies make conventional explosives less effective.

 

[Alisa]

Which type of bomb telegraphs it's arrival, thus allowing civilians to take shelter?

The blast wave for this type of weapon travels at about 3/km sec. It's reaching it's 43 psi in a matter of milliseconds. That's the organ shredding part. As the article states, most victims are dead from asphyxation before the pressure wave reaches them. So, even though it causes horrific injury to the body, the victim is (usually) dead before the injury happens. Kind of like throwing a dead body off a cliff - doesn't make the body any deader, but it does a lot of damage. As far as suffering goes - unless you take a direct hit to the head, a bullet kills slower than this.

This weapon was developed for fighting people that hide in caves, where oxygen deficiencies make conventional explosives less effective.

You are right, the more horrific the effect of the weapon the better. Who cares about the Geneva conventions, they are so old and out of date.

All I can say is I am glad the British weren't using these back during the revolutionary war - otherwise we might still be a colony.

 

[redneckgeek]

Just to clarify...
The Geneva Conventions relate to the treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants. The Hague Conventions deal more specifically with how war is to be conducted. (Funny that we should have rules on the conduct of war.)

I would venture a guess that a conventional explosive weapon going off in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere has the potential to actually leave more people alive than a thermobaric weapon. However, they would probably survive with horrific burns.

 

[dan-cat]

How is this less civilised than mustard gas?

 

[Alisa]

How is this less civilised than mustard gas?

I guess it depends on your definition of civilized. Mustard gas was "benign" enough to be tested on our troops, I doubt they have been testing vacuum bombs on our troops, although, if they have been, that would explain the reenlistment shortages.

 

[Rabbie]

How is this less civilised than mustard gas?

Mustard gas (and other poisonous gases) are illegal under the Hague conventions. So there is a case for saying that it also should be banned.

 

[redneckgeek]

... Mustard gas was "benign" enough to be tested on our troops, I doubt they have been testing vacuum bombs on our troops, ...

Are you saying that we should only use weapons that we have tested on our own troops?!?!? We don't "test" weapons that are intended to kill on our own troops.

The point I'm making is that thermobaric bombs are no less humane than any other "legal" weapon of war. They just do damage to the body in a different manner. Any manner of dying in war has the possibility of being painful.

I suppose one could argue that an IED will shred your internal organs, too,
after it works it's way through your external organ.

 

[dan-cat]

I guess it depends on your definition of civilized. Mustard gas was "benign" enough to be tested on our troops, I doubt they have been testing vacuum bombs on our troops, although, if they have been, that would explain the reenlistment shortages.

The use of mustard gas in WWI was in no way "benign" and in no way more civilised than this type of weaponry. Your title is somewhat sensationalised, IMO.

 

[dan-cat]

Mustard gas (and other poisonous gases) are illegal under the Hague conventions. So there is a case for saying that it also should be banned.

Exactly my point. I am disagreeing with the sentiment that we are becoming more uncivilised by the day.

 

[Rich]

The use of mustard gas in WWI was in no way "benign" and in no way more civilised than this type of weaponry. Your title is somewhat sensationalised, IMO.

Mustard gas was first used by the Germans, who you're probably not aware of but we were at war with at the time. What's your point?

 

[dan-cat]

Mustard gas was first used by the Germans, who you're probably not aware of but we were at war with at the time. What's your point?

Whoever used it is irrelevant to my point. My point, again, is that the use of mustard gas is no way more civilised than the type of weaponry being discussed here. Thus the sentiment that we are getting more uncivilised everyday is sensationalist nonsense.

I also think that the 'they used it first' approach, is irrelevant to its 'civilised' quantification.

EDIT: There's no need to be condescending Rich, I studied all about WWI at college.

 

[Rich]

Thus the sentiment that we are getting more uncivilised everyday is sensationalist nonsense.

No it isn't , the poster used the term "we" to refer to British forces, who spent 50 years building a reputation for fair play and justice until that twat Bliar joined that other twat Bush in wars of terror. The original statement is justified!

 

[Rich]

EDIT: There's no need to be condescending Rich, I studied all about WWI at college.

Then you should have known we now live in the 21st century, not the early 20th

 

[dan-cat]

No it isn't , the poster used the term "we" to refer to British forces, who spent 50 years building a reputation for fair play and justice until that twat Bliar joined that other twat Bush in wars of terror. The original statement is justified!

So Alisa is referring to herself as British? How did you deduce that one?

 

[dan-cat]

Then you should have known we now live in the 21st century, not the early 20th

More condescension. You're being quite rude today aren't you?

 

[Rich]

More condescension. You're being quite rude today aren't you?

You brought comparisons with the 20th and 21st centuries into play, we certainly here, don't live by those standards anymore, did you seriously not expect to get challenged?

 

[Alisa]

Are you saying that we should only use weapons that we have tested on our own troops?!?!? We don't "test" weapons that are intended to kill on our own troops.

No, I think the sarcastic tone of my comment may have been lost in translation. I was saying that since mustard gas was tested on our own troops, then you could conceivably argue that it is a more civilized weapon (the whole do unto others thing) . . .

The point I'm making is that thermobaric bombs are no less humane than any other "legal" weapon of war. They just do damage to the body in a different manner. Any manner of dying in war has the possibility of being painful. I suppose one could argue that an IED will shred your internal organs, too, after it works it's way through your external organ.

Well, the point I am making is not that these bombs provide a more or less humane way of killing people, but that coming up with more ways to kill people is not a civilized activity.

 

[dan-cat]

You brought comparisons with the 20th and 21st centuries into play, we certainly here, don't live by those standards anymore, did you seriously not expect to get challenged?

I expected you to challenge without making personal remarks which I feel was uncalled for.

You snip the line of history to suit your argument. Far more brutal weapons have been used in the past and bans have been placed on them by the developed world as time has passed. To imply that weapons are getting increasingly more uncivilised as time passes is to ignore this fact, IMO.

 

[Alisa]

The use of mustard gas in WWI was in no way "benign" and in no way more civilised than this type of weaponry.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I should have added an eye roll or something to it. Obviously I don't think the use mustard gas is benign or civil.