5cjxburmr

use is required against a target of sufficient military importance to outweigh the incidental harmthat is expected to result. 160As with the superfluous injury rule, in assessing whether weapons necessarily causeexcessive incidental harm, it will be important to consider whether the practice of Statesdemonstrates that they are prohibited as such. 161 For example, the United States regards nuclearweapons not to be inherently disproportionate weapons. 162Weapons that necessarily cause excessive incidental harm include “blind” or essentiallyrandom weapons that are incapable of being controlled, and thus, cannot, with any degree ofcertainty, be directed against a military objective. 163 The expected incidental harm from the useof such weapons outweighs the little, if any, military utility of such weapons. 164Weapons that necessarily cause excessive incidental harm also include weapons whoseuncontrollable nature is such that, even when directed against military objectives, they otherwiseare expected invariably to cause excessive incidental harm. For example, using communicablediseases such as the plague as weapons has been prohibited, in part because such use wouldalmost inevitably cause excessive incidental harm among the civilian population compared to themilitary advantages from their use. 1656.8 POISON, POISONED WEAPONS, POISONOUS GASES, AND OTHER CHEMICAL WEAPONSThe use of poison, poisoned weapons, poison and asphyxiating gases, and other chemicalweapons is prohibited.require compliance with the principle of proportionality with respect to the use of weapons and thus requires anassessment of the risks posed to civilians in the context of the military advantage hoped for.”).160 Refer to § 5.12 (Proportionality in Conducting Attacks).161 Refer to § 6.6.3.3 (Clearly Disproportionate).162 Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America, 23, Jun. 20, 1995, I.C.J., Request by theUnited Nations General Assembly for an Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of NuclearWeapons (“Whether an attack with nuclear weapons would be disproportionate depends entirely on thecircumstances, including the nature of the enemy threat, the importance of destroying the objective, the character,size and likely effects of the device, and the magnitude of the risk to civilians. Nuclear weapons are not inherentlydisproportionate.”).163 1976 AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 110-31 6-3c (“Indiscriminate weapons are those incapable of being controlled,through design or function, and thus they can not, with any degree of certainty be directed against militaryobjectives.”); BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 305 (AP I art. 51, 2.5.2.2) (“The provision of subpara. 4.b. tomethods which cannot be directed at a specific military objective prohibits ‘blind’ weapons which cannot, with anyreasonable assurance, be directed against a military objective. Attaching incendiary or antipersonnel bombs to freefloating balloons, or using long range missiles with only a rudimentary guidance system are examples of this type ofweapon.”).164 1976 AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 110-31 6-3c (“Use of such essentially unguided weapons could be expected tocause unlawful excessive injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”).165 Refer to § 6.9.1 (Biological Weapons – Prohibition on Use as a Method of Warfare).343