Are Flamethrowers a War Crime? The Complex Reality of Incendiary Warfare
The question of whether flamethrowers constitute a war crime is not a simple one. The short answer is: No, not inherently. Flamethrowers are not universally banned, but their use is heavily regulated by international law, particularly the Geneva Convention’s Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons. The crucial factor determining legality lies in how and against whom these weapons are deployed. It’s a matter of context and compliance with international laws of armed conflict. Understanding the nuances of this issue requires exploring both the legal framework surrounding flamethrowers and their historical context.
The Legal Landscape of Flamethrowers
Protocol III and Incendiary Weapon Restrictions
The most significant legal framework governing the use of flamethrowers is Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), adopted in 1980. This protocol doesn’t explicitly ban flamethrowers altogether, but it imposes strict limitations on their use, specifically prohibiting the use of incendiary weapons against:
- Civilian targets: Any weapon designed to set fire to civilian targets is strictly forbidden. This includes populations and areas where civilians are concentrated.
- Military targets within civilian areas: Incendiary weapons cannot be used against military targets if they are located within a concentration of civilians. This provision aims to minimize collateral damage and protect non-combatants.
These restrictions are a direct result of the widespread and devastating use of incendiary weapons in previous conflicts, including the use of napalm. It’s essential to note that while Protocol III regulates incendiary weapons, its focus is on their effects on civilian populations, not the technology of the weapon itself.
Permissible Use of Flamethrowers
Under the current international laws of armed conflict, the use of flamethrowers against legitimate military targets is permitted if it aligns with the accepted principles of warfare such as proportionality and necessity. This means that flamethrowers may be used against:
- Enemy combatants: In combat situations, flamethrowers can be used against soldiers or other fighters, as long as it complies with other laws of armed conflict.
- Military fortifications: Fortified enemy positions can also be targeted, but only if they are not located in a civilian-concentrated area.
It’s imperative that any military using flamethrowers must take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties. The indiscriminate use of flamethrowers, leading to unnecessary harm to civilians, could lead to the charge of a war crime.
The Ambiguity of “Incendiary Weapon”
It is also critical to understand that the term “incendiary weapon” is not uniform. While it certainly covers traditional flamethrowers that use liquid fuel to spray fire, there is the matter of how to interpret things like modern forms of napalm, which can fall into this category. Some countries may modify their incendiary technology, which leads to legal grey areas, as they may not use “napalm” in the traditional sense. While international law might have tried to establish a definitive boundary for such weapons, these technicalities still pose difficult legal questions.
Historical Context: From WWI Trenches to Modern Regulation
Flamethrowers have a brutal and disturbing history in modern warfare.
- World War I: Flamethrowers first emerged as a terrifying weapon in WWI, primarily used by German shock troops to clear trenches and fortifications. The psychological impact of these weapons was immense and contributed significantly to their early notoriety.
- World War II: The use of flamethrowers continued into WWII, becoming more widespread on both sides of the conflict. They were often deployed against bunkers and fortified positions.
- Post-WWII and the Geneva Convention: The horrors of conflicts, particularly the widespread use of incendiary weapons like napalm in Vietnam, led to growing concern about their impact on civilians. These concerns culminated in the 1980 Geneva Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), specifically Protocol III, aiming to regulate the use of these weapons.
- Modern day: The modern day use of flamethrowers has largely declined for military use, primarily because of their dangerous vulnerability to those operating them. However, their role in shaping our modern concepts of international war law is undeniable.
The Psychological Impact of Flamethrowers
The fear and terror associated with flamethrowers cannot be ignored. Soldiers from throughout history have reported the intense psychological distress caused by the weapon. The prospect of being burned alive created a level of dread that was particularly acute. This emotional component is not explicitly a part of the legal definition of a war crime, but it certainly plays a role in public perception and ethical considerations about these weapons.
Beyond the Battlefield: Civilian Ownership
Interestingly, while internationally regulated in warfare, flamethrowers are mostly legal for civilian ownership in the United States. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) does not classify them as firearms, meaning they are not subject to the same federal restrictions as guns.
- State regulations: However, some states, like Maryland, have banned the civilian ownership of flamethrowers completely. In others like California, a permit is required.
Conclusion: Context is Key
The legality of flamethrowers as a weapon of war is not black and white. Their use is not inherently a war crime, but it is strictly regulated by international law. Their deployment against civilian populations is forbidden. The key takeaway is that the legality rests entirely on the circumstances of their use.
The evolution of the law around flamethrowers reflects an understanding of the necessity to minimize harm in armed conflicts, particularly concerning civilians.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Are flamethrowers legal for civilian use in the United States?
Yes, in most of the United States, flamethrowers are legal for civilian ownership and use. They are not considered a firearm under federal law. However, individual states may have their own restrictions, such as bans (Maryland) or permitting requirements (California).
2. Is it illegal to own a flamethrower in my garage?
It is not illegal to own a flamethrower in your garage if you live in the vast majority of the US where civilian ownership is unregulated.
3. What is Protocol III of the Geneva Convention?
Protocol III is a part of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), specifically addressing incendiary weapons. It prohibits the use of these weapons against civilians and military targets within civilian areas. It was drafted to mitigate the devastating effects of incendiary weapons on civilian populations.
4. When were flamethrowers first used in war?
Flamethrowers were first used in significant numbers during World War I by German forces to clear enemy trenches and fortifications. They were quickly adapted and used more extensively in World War II.
5. Why were soldiers so afraid of flamethrowers?
Flamethrowers were particularly terrifying due to the horrific nature of fire and the prospect of burning to death. The psychological impact was immense, often causing great fear and trauma to enemy combatants.
6. Does the US military still use flamethrowers?
No, the US military has not used flamethrowers since 1978 when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. The last flamethrower the US Military used was the Vietnam-era M9-7.
7. Is napalm a war crime?
The use of napalm is not necessarily a war crime, but its use against civilian targets is a war crime. The usage of napalm is regulated similar to flamethrowers.
8. Is Agent Orange considered napalm?
No, Agent Orange is not napalm. Agent Orange was a defoliant used to destroy vegetation in warfare, while napalm is an anti-personnel incendiary used to set things on fire.
9. What is the difference between incendiary and conventional weapons?
Incendiary weapons are designed to set fire to something or someone. Conventional weapons are weapons such as guns, grenades and missiles. They are designed to have a range of effects such as piercing, fragmentation, and/or concussive damage.
10. Can a flamethrower destroy a tank?
While a flamethrower might not be the most effective tank destroying weapon on the battlefield, a flamethrower can destroy or damage a tank if used properly. If a flamethrower is able to ignite the engine of the tank, the tank is no longer effective.
11. What was the most feared weapon in WWI?
The flamethrower was one of the most feared weapons of WWI, with its devastating capability to inflict gruesome burns on soldiers. Other contenders might be poison gas and heavy artillery.
12. How hot is the flame of a flamethrower?
A flamethrower is usually a few hundred degrees fahrenheit. This is not as hot as lightning, which is significantly hotter.
13. Is it illegal to make napalm in your garage?
No, it is not illegal to make napalm. It is only illegal to use it against civilians under international law. Using it against enemy troops in wartime is considered legal.
14. Are incendiary rounds illegal?
Similar to flamethrowers and napalm, the use of incendiary rounds in civilian areas or indiscriminately is considered a war crime, violating the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I.
15. What was the life expectancy of a flamethrower soldier?
The average life expectancy of a Marine with a flamethrower on the battlefield was about five minutes. This highlights the inherent danger to the operators of the weapons, who were at risk of being easily targeted.