5cjxburmr

eview should be considered before concluding that a weapon is prohibited as inherentlyindiscriminate.6.7.3 Weapons Designed to Conduct Attacks Against the Civilian Population. Inherentlyindiscriminate weapons include those that are specifically designed to be used to conduct attacksagainst the civilian population, including attacks to terrorize the civilian population. Forexample, Japanese bombs attached to free-floating, long-range balloons used during World WarII were unlawful for this reason. 156 Also, German long-range rockets without guidance systemsused during World War II were similarly illegal. 1576.7.4 Weapons That Necessarily Cause Excessive Incidental Harm. Indiscriminateweapons also include weapons whose anticipated incidental effects are necessarily excessivecompared to the military advantages expected to be gained from using the weapon. 158 To beclear, the principle of proportionality does not prohibit the use of weapons whose destructiveforce cannot be limited to a specific military objective. 159 Such weapons may be used when their156 For example, ROBERT C. MIKESH, JAPAN’S WORLD WAR II BALLOON BOMB ATTACKS ON NORTH AMERICA 1(1973) (“In a desperate attempt to find a means of reprisal [for the Doolittle raid], the Japanese conceived a methodto strike directly at the American continent. Their plan was simple; launch balloons with incendiary andantipersonnel bombs attached, let them travel across the Pacific with the prevailing winds, and drop on Americancities, forests, and farmlands. It took over two years to design the balloons, bombs, and automatic droppingmechanism. … Finally, on 3 November 1944, the first of more than nine thousand bomb-bearing balloons wasreleased. It is estimated that nearly one thousand of the death-dealing balloons must have reached the NorthAmerican continent.”).157 For example, SPAIGHT, AIR POWER AND WAR RIGHTS 214-15 (“As used by the Germans in 1944-45, [the V-2long-range rocket] was simply a crude instrument of random bombardment, utterly lacking in precision, and itsmilitary value was nil. While such a weapon is not banned in terms by any international convention, the use of itcould not be regarded as compatible with the observance of certain rules which are the subject of definiteinternational agreement, such as those forbidding the bombardment ‘by any means’ of undefended towns andvillages, and those enjoining the sparing, as far as possible, of ‘buildings dedicated to religious, art, science orcharitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected.’ … Theflying [V-1] bomb is another abominable projectile which might well be prohibited at the same time. It is, again, aweapon which cannot really be aimed at all.”).158 1976 AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 110-31 6-3c (“In addition, some weapons, though capable of being directed only atmilitary objectives, may have otherwise uncontrollable effects so as to cause disproportionate civilian injuries ordamage. Biological warfare is a universally agreed illustration of such an indiscriminate weapon. Uncontrollableeffects, in this context, may include injury to the civilian population of other states as well as injury to an enemy’scivilian population. Uncontrollable refers to effects which escape in time or space from the control of the user as tonecessarily create risk to civilian persons or objects excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated.International law does not require that a weapon’s effects be strictly confined to the military objectives againstwhich it is directed, but it does restrict weapons whose foreseeable effects result in unlawful disproportionate injuryto civilians or damage to civilian objects.”).159 J. Fred Buzhardt, DoD General Counsel, Letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, Sept. 22, 1972, reprinted in 67 AJIL122, 124 (1973) (“The existing laws of armed conflict do not prohibit the use of weapons whose destructive forcecannot be limited to a specific military objective. The use of such weapons is not proscribed when their use isnecessarily required against a military target of sufficient importance to outweigh inevitable, but regrettable,incidental casualties to civilians and destruction of civilian objects.”). See also Edward Cummings, Head of theU.S. Delegation to CCW Group of Government Experts, Statement, Jul. 17, 2002 (“On proportionality. As thepaper noted, the law of armed conflict does not require the effects of weapons to be limited such that they cause nocivilian casualties. This would, unfortunately, be impossible. It does however, as Professor Greenwood points out,342