MOAB and the Laws Of Armed Conflict LOAC

[The Straight Story]

MOAB and the Laws Of Armed Conflict LOAC

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force ensures that all weapons being acquired or modified by the Air Force are reviewed for legality under international law prior to their use in a conflict. AFI 51-402 defines “weapons” as devices designed to kill, injure, or disable people, or to damage or destroy property. Based upon this definition, the MOAB is a weapon and requires a legal review. This review’s conclusions are based on the facts contained herein. Any weapon that varies from the technical descriptions included in this review must be the subject of a separate legal review.

There is no agreed definition of unnecessary suffering. Whether a weapon causes unnecessary suffering turns on whether the injury, including death, to combatants is disproportionate to the military advantage gained by use of the weapon. The effect of a weapon must be weighed in light of levels of injury to enemy combatants by comparable, lawful weapons in use on the modern battlefield. The critical factor is whether the suffering is needless or disproportionate to the military advantage secured by the weapon, not the degree of suffering itself.

The MOAB weapon kills by way of blast or fragmentation. Blast and fragmentation are historic and common anti-personnel effects in lawful military weapons. There are no components that would cause unnecessary suffering. The explosive ingredient H6 is a widely-used explosive that is typical for weapons of this type. The components RDX and TNT do have some potential toxic effects from long-term exposure, but these are limited and within US government tolerance levels. The potential psychological effect of the weapon does not constitute suffering. The intent is to demoralize or frighten the enemy by impressing them with the large footprint, resulting cloud, and tremendous noise of the explosion.

A fundamental principle of the LOAC is that combatants must be distinguished from noncombatants and civilians. Only combatants, other persons posing a threat to the force, and military objectives can be legitimately targeted. Indiscriminate, or “blind,” weapons are prohibited. Indiscriminate weapons are those that are as likely to hit civilians and non-combatants as well as combatants. If noncombatants are in the area or intermingled with combatants, normal LOAC analysis will be followed to ensure that collateral damage and injuries are limited. Although the MOAB weapon leaves a large footprint, it is discriminate and requires a deliberate launching towards the target. The MOAB weapon does have grid fins that allow for a maximum of a one mile radius of correction control in the event of delivery errors. Grid fins were chosen over solid fins because they require less torque to maneuver the weapon. The grid fins deflect as directed by the guidance algorithms in the weapon to keep it on course to the target coordinates. The guidance system ensures that the weapon will hit (within acceptable variables) the target that it is intended to hit. In the weapon test conducted at Eglin, the guidance system test was successful.

LOAC issues related to lawful targeting should be addressed at the time of employment, as determined by the on scene commander under the facts and circumstances reasonably known at the time, including special collateral damage considerations when attacking chemical or biological targets. Such issues are not determinative of the lawfulness of the weapon for the purpose of this analysis. The commander authorizing the weapon’s use must consider its characteristics in order to ensure consistency with mission rules of engagement and law of war proscriptions on directing attacks at civilians not taking an active part in hostilities, or who otherwise do not pose a threat to US forces. Targeting with the MOAB will be done in accordance with these issues to ensure ROE and law of war compliance.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

I just get all warm and fuzzy thinking about how much nice thought they put into killing folks.

Now if they could put as much effort and time into our #1 enemy and killer, lack of health care and resources for our citizens.

[knowbody0]

1. It really creeps me out

to ponder those who choose a career in efficient effective killing mechanisms.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Well, that's the thing, isn't it.

This is just a bigger, more ineffecient version of the already ineffecient daisy cutter.

It ain't about making war "cleaner" or quicker or safer for our troops.

It's about being macho.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. To the contrary, its a penetrator, not an air burst weapon

[The Straight Story]

6. I got a penetrator, but sometimes I like to airburst myself :)

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry. Just could not pass it up. I might be 40, but my mind is still a teenager!

[Solo_in_MD]

9. At forty, I can assure you that you are no longer a teenager in terms of..

And it gets worse at 50

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Did they change the design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb

Because it started off as a big daisycutter. Not that I'd be surprised if the military, in their infinite wisdom, put a penetration warhead on a fuel-air bomb.

[Redstone]

2. Blah, blah, blah, blah. You did a great job of pointing out how much

time and money gets wasted on oblah di, oblah da, obla bullshit stuff...while there are hungry kids in this country.

Redstone

[The Straight Story]

3. Although I would mention, we could do both :)

Guns or butter? How about more guns and butter?

I would suppose my biggest problem is - how many countries have actually attacked us (versus those we have attacked)? We have enough nuclear weapons already to insure anyone who launches a wholesale attack gets toasted with the quickness. And since the goal is the safety and security of the citizens, then we must look at which is more likely to cause death over the next ten years (ah - BUT there is a catch. Military planners would say, we all die someday, but this protects and saves lives far longer than healthcare would. ROE on health care, you might hit 80, ROE on more and better bombs, when you're dead and gone your grandkids will still be able to be free).

It is tough to wrap the mind around the logic of it all sometimes. But in the end, it does seem simple. We spend more on war and weapons than we do helping our citizens with their biggest needs. We tell them to try harder themselves to make it, and work two jobs if you have, and when they want more money, they just take more from you. If we don't need a living wage, well then they don't either :)

[Redstone]

7. It's a lousy situation. Lousier than it has been, probably for about 200

years of our 220 years as a country.

I'm damn tired and must go. But I do want to tell you that you've posted will tonight. Well, indeed.

Redstone

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Every weapon and the ROE for its employment go through this review

which is quite thorough. Its also means that when people whine about this or that being against the Geneva Conventions, like Willie Pete as a illegal WMD, there is ample reason the are talking out their ass.

[razors edge]

11. for all the money we spent

on the Manhattan project, I hope we hired a lawyer to review and vet those damn things too.:sarcasm: