5cjxburmr

• the destruction or neutralization of military materiel;• the restriction of military movement;• the interdiction of military lines of communication;• the effects on the morale, command and control, stamina, and cohesion of opposingforces;• the weakening of the enemy’s war-making resources and capabilities;• the enhancement of the security of forces employing the weapon or other friendly forces;• the effectiveness of the weapon against particular types of targets;• the availability of alternative weapons and their effects;• the logistics of providing the weapon and its ammunition where and when it is needed;• the amount of ammunition required;• the cost of using the weapon in terms of time, money, and other resources;• the efficacy of the weapon compared to the adversary’s defenses;• the efficacy of the weapon in light of the weapons and tactics of the adversary; or• the risk to the civilian population when the weapon is used for its intended purposes. 135These other factors can justify weapons that inflict injuries on enemy combatants that are muchgreater than the minimum needed to render them hors de combat. For example, an artillery shelldesigned to destroy field fortifications or heavy material causes injuries to enemy personnel thatare much greater than those necessary to make enemy combatants hors de combat. However, theartillery shell is not prohibited because these military advantages are not clearly disproportionateto the injuries it inflicts. 136135 Christopher Greenwood, Legal Aspects of current Regulations, KEYNOTE SPEECHES, THIRD INTERNATIONALWORKSHOP ON WOUND BALLISTICS (Thun, Switzerland, Mar. 28-29, 2001) (“Moreover, there are circumstances,particularly in street warfare and in counter terrorist operations where it may be necessary to make a trade, in effect,between the principle of the protection of civilian life and the principle of ‘unnecessary suffering’ to combatants.What I would like to suggest is that where that trade has to be made – and I accept that it is not one which has to bemade in all, or even most types of combat – one cannot regard suffering as unnecessary if it is inflicted for thepurpose of protecting the civilian population. In other words, if the civilian population’s protection is enhanced bythe use of a particular weapon, then the adverse effects of that weapon on combatants cannot properly be regarded asunnecessary.”).136 BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 196-97 (AP I art. 35, 2.3.3) (“[A]n artillery projectile or missiledesigned to destroy field fortifications or heavy material may be expected to cause injuries to personnel in thevicinity of the target which would be more severe than necessary to render these combatants hors de combat, but no337