Login
iscover
A People’s Liberation Army soldier setting man-shaped targets ablaze with a man-portable flamethrower during an attacking drill should resonate strongly with Australian policymakers, the defence industry, military, and general public.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The crisp and bright image published by the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China is a key reminder that a scarce few, if any wars, are fought fairly and our country needs to be pragmatic about the defence technology we develop and adopt.
Flamethrowers were once issued to armies across the globe; Germany, England, Japan, Italy, Poland, the Soviet Union all fielded them. They were utilised extensively by the United States of America to conquer the fortified islands of the Pacific in World War II.
After the allied victory in that global conflict, they began to fall out of favour. America stopped using them, ending the program with the Vietnam-era M9-7 infantry flamethrower and removing them from the US arsenal in 1978.
Though not wholly banned, legislation was introduced by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to restrict weapons “considered excessively injurious or whose effects are indiscriminate” and “any weapon or munitions which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target” such as flamethrowers.
Later research outlined in reports, such as Beyond the burn: Studies on the physiological effects of flamethrowers during World War II by David W Van Wyck, counted them as one of warfare’s most controversial weapons, capable of inflicting gruesome physical injuries and intense psychological trauma.
I’m not suggesting for a second that Australia should develop and field a portable flamethrower for the Australian Defence Force, only that this re-emergence of admittedly brutal military technology is a symptom of a much larger issue.
The larger issue being that it shows that not everyone is thinking about travelling the level playing field of military ethics. In fact, some nations are intentionally turning a blind eye to it in favour of perceived competitive advantage, and Australia must be wise to that fact.
Footage from the recent conflicts in Ukraine has confirmed Russia’s continued intentions to pursue and utilise TOS-1A “Scorching sunlight” thermobaric systems, incineration missiles containing fuel and air, without any conscience.
“It (Russia) continues to build non-strategic nuclear weapons and develop new and novel delivery systems,” said Pentagon head of integrated deterrence John Plumb during last month’s release of the US Department of Defense’s 2023 Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction.
“We also know they maintained an offensive biological war program. Russia has also engaged in irresponsible and troubling nuclear sabre-rattling throughout its unprovoked and indefensible invasion of Ukraine.”
Russia has violated its biological and its chemical weapons convention obligations and retains an undeclared chemical weapons program, he said.
Russia isn’t alone in the development of less-than-friendly defence technology, according to Plumb.
“China is aggressively pursuing a rapid expansion and modernisation of its nuclear forces. The speed and scale has been nothing short of breathtaking. This effort includes the expansion of fissile material production, such as their fast breeder reactors ... and the development of more and more diverse nuclear weapons systems,” he said.
“China regularly conducts research and activities with potential dual-use applications for bio threats, such as its military’s (research and development) for toxins.
China could, at its current pace, field an arsenal of about 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035; and it’s compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention is a concern, he said.
In stark comparison, Australia must work within the accepted confines of international law on a level playing field that isn’t quite even.
We must skirt the grey line of recognised methods and develop military technology that is innovative and objective but also competitively viable.
