Ethics, Scientists, Engineers and the Military - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 333

Armoured fi ghting vehicles (Anon 2014h ) are armed, mobile and protected by
strong armour and may be tracked or wheeled. They are classifi ed according to their
intended battlefi eld role and characteristics, though the same vehicle may be used in
different roles in different countries at different times. Modern classifi cations
include (1) armoured cars, (2) tanks, (3) troop carriers, (4) amphibious vehicles
(which can be used both on land and in water), (5) armoured engineering vehicles
(which carry out obstacle breaching, earth moving and engineering work on the
battlefi eld), (6) air defence vehicles (which have self-propelled anti-aircraft weap-
ons or defence systems), (7) self-propelled artillery (including self-propelled guns
or howitzers and rocket artillery) and (8) armoured trains.
Tanks are all terrain vehicles which fi re directly on 'enemy' forces in a frontal
assault and are therefore offensive weapons. Modern tanks have a main artillery
gun mounted on a rotating turret on top of a tracked automotive hull and various
additional machine guns. Modern main battle tanks are the most expensive to mass
produce and have very high levels of precision-guided weapons able to attack
ground and air targets, mobility and armour protection. They can cross rough terrain
at speed, are versatile and valued for their shock value, high fi repower and high
survivability, though they are vulnerable to anti-tank warfare and have high fuel,
ammunition and maintenance requirements. Self-propelled artillery may super-
fi cially resemble tanks, but is too lightly armoured to survive direct fi re.

4.5 Arms Control Agreements

There are a number of different agreements on the control of conventional, nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons, to which varying numbers of countries have
signed up. However, a number of factors impede arms control agreements. In the
case of conventional weapons, the dominant military position of the USA makes
agreements based on balance impossible. Continuing technological developments,
such as cyberweapons and missile defences, makes it more diffi cult to evaluate the
impact of arms control and the capabilities associated with different weapons. In the
case of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, some states have found it diffi cult
to balance humanitarian concerns and their perceived security needs (Anthony 2012 ).
Chemical and biological weapons have been totally outlawed. The Chemical
Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention forbid the
development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use, respectively, of
chemical weapons, and biological agents and toxins of types and in quantities not
required for peaceful purposes, as well as weapons and delivery systems. The
majority of states have signed and ratifi ed both the chemical and biological weapons
conventions. Chemical weapon stockpiles are supposed to have been destroyed
by April 2012. However, only three of the seven parties who had declared stocks
of chemical weapons met this deadline. Iraq, Libya, Russia and the USA are con-
tinuing to destroy chemical weapons (Bodell 2013 ). Although the budget of the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Weapons is being reduced as it winds down its
activities, it was still nearly