Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:00:44.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epistemology of lethality: Bullets, knowledge trajectories, kinetic effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Matthew Ford Open the ORCID record for Matthew Ford [Opens in a new window]
Matthew Ford*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations, University of Sussex
*
*Corresponding author. Email: m.c.ford@sussex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The science of ammunition lethality is a field that seeks to define the point at which military ordnance takes life and produces death. By historicising lethality's epistemology, I reveal the intellectual fissures and scientific uncertainties that have been reified and embedded into contemporary conceptions of military power. This not only tells us something about the processes by which science is subordinated to war, but also offers a new lens from which to consider the way knowledge claims about battle are co-constructed and legitimated through military practices. As a result, this article places science back into a narrative that otherwise frames the ontology of war in terms of fighting.

Keywords

Knowledge RegimesEpistemologySociology of KnowledgeKinetic EffectsCritical War Studies
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 77 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kling, Rob, ‘When gunfire shatters bone: Reducing sociotechnical systems to social relationships’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 17:3 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Dupuy, Trevor, Evolution of Weapons and Warfare (Fairfax, VA: Da Capo Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

3 See, for instance, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, ‘Future Kinetic Effects and Weapons Systems Programme’ (1 January 2018), available at: {https://www.gov.uk/guidance/future-kinetic-effects-and-weapons-systems-programme} accessed 15 November 2018.

4 See the many references to kinetic, non-kinetic, and influencing effects in the British Army's counterinsurgency manual: British Army Field Manual, Volume 1, Part 10: Countering Insurgency Army Code 71876 (October 2009).

5 Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, House Armed Services Committee, written statement for the record. Monday, 12 June 2017, available at: {https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJnp3u15zaAhUrxVQKHfZ3Bu8QFghSMAc&url=http://%3A%2F%2Fdocs.house.gov%2Fmeetings%2FAS%2FAS00%2F20170612%2F106090%2FHHRG-115-AS00-Bio-MattisJ-20170612.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2xLwRu_Ov7nI5qzUQYXGZX} accessed 2 April 2018.

6 Barkawi, Tarak and Brighton, Shane, ‘Powers of war: Fighting, knowledge, and critique’, International Political Sociology, 5:2 (2011)Google Scholar.

7 Grint, Keith and Woolgar, Steve, ‘Computers, guns, and roses: What's social about being shot’, Science Technology & Human Values, 17:3 (1992)Google Scholar.

8 Barkawi and Brighton, ‘Powers of war’.

9 Nordin, Astrid H. M. and Öberg, Dan, ‘Targeting the ontology of war: From Clausewitz to Baudrillard’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43:2 (2015), p. 409Google Scholar.

10 Ibid., pp. 406–07.

11 Bousquet, Antoine, The Eye of War: Military Perception from the Telescope to the Drone (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 2018), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Nordin and Öberg, ‘Targeting the ontology of war’, p. 406.

13 Heuser, Beatrice, Reading Clausewitz (London: Pimlico, 2002)Google Scholar.

14 von Clausewitz, Claude, On War, trans. and ed. Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter (London: Everyman, 1993)Google Scholar, book 2, chapter 3, ‘Usage Still Unsettled’.

15 Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage Publications, 1979), pp. 36–7Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., p. 29.

17 Latour, Bruno, ‘On actor-network theory: a few clarifications’, Soziale Welt, 47:4 (1996), pp. 369–81Google Scholar; Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix, A Thousand Plateaus (London: Bloomsbury, 2013)Google Scholar.

18 Barkawi and Brighton, ‘Powers of war’, p. 139.

19 Grint, Keith and Woolgar, Steve, The Machine at Work: Technology, Work, and Organization (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

20 Kneubuehl, Beat P., Coupland, Robin M., Rothschild, Markus A., and Thali, Michael J., Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications (Berlin: Springer, 2008), p. 165Google Scholar.

21 Foucault, Michel, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France 1975–76 (New York: Picador, 2002)Google Scholar.

22 Bowker, Geoffrey and Star, Susan Leigh, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

23 Trebilcock, Clive, ‘A special relationship: Government, rearmament, and the cordite firms’, Economic History Review, 19 (1966)Google Scholar; Trebilcock, Clive, ‘“Spin-off” in British economic history: Armaments and industry 1760–1914’, Economic History Review, 22:2 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trebilcock, Clive, ‘Legends of the British armaments industry 1890–1914: a revision’, Journal of Contemporary History, 5 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trebilcock, Clive, ‘British armamanets and European industrialisation, 1890–1914’, Economic History Review, 26:2 (1973)Google Scholar. See also Ford, Matthew, ‘Science and technology (Great Britain and Ireland)’, in Daniel, Ute, Gatrell, Peter, Janz, Oliver, Jones, Heather, Keene, Jennifer, Kramer, Alan, and Nasson, Bill (eds), 1914–1918 Online: International Encyclopaedia of the First World War, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin (18 April 2018), available at: {doi: 10.15463/ie1418.11082}Google Scholar.

24 Alder, Ken, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763–1815 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

25 Kneubuehl et al., Wound Ballistics, p. 92.

26 Ford, Matthew, ‘Towards a revolution in firepower? Logistics, lethality, and the Lee-Metford’, War in History, 20:3 (2013), pp. 273–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Kim A. Wagner, ‘Savage warfare: Violence and the colonial rule of difference in British counterinsurgency’, History Workshop Journal (3 January 2018), pp. 1–22.

28 Keefer, Scott, ‘“Explosive missals”: International law, technology, and security in nineteenth-century disarmament conferences’, War in History, 21:4 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Gould, Jay, ‘Observations on the action of the Lee-Metford bullet on bone and soft tissues in the human body’, The British Medical Journal, 2 (1895), pp. 129–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beyer, Henry G., ‘Experiment and experience with the rifle’, Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 144:1 (1901), pp. 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Chivers, C. J., The Gun (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), pp. 233–5Google Scholar.

31 McNeil, William, Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

32 Ezell, Edward, The Great Rifle Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War 2 through Vietnam and Beyond (Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1984)Google Scholar.

33 Gilmore, Richard, ‘“The new courage”: Rifles and soldier individualism, 1876–1918’, Military Affairs, 40:3 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 McNaugher, Thomas L., The M-16 Controversies: Military Organisations and Weapons Acquisition (New York: Praeger, 1984)Google Scholar.

35 Zuckerman Papers, University of East Anglia (hereafter UEA), Ministry of Aircraft Production, Oxford Research Unit, Scientific and Technical Memoranda No. C.3/45, SZ/OEMU/47/19/31, Dr B. Deslisle Burns and Dr P. L. Krohn, ‘A Review of the Criteria of Wounding Power in Common Use’, 11 October 1945, p. 1.

36 Zuckerman, Solly, From Apes to Warlords: An Autobiography (London: Collins, 1988)Google Scholar; Zuckerman, S., Black, A. N., and Burns, D. Delisle, ‘An experimental study of the wounding mechanism of high velocity missiles’, British Medical Journal, 2 (1941)Google Scholar.

37 The National Archives (hereafter TNA) HO 195/13/350, B. Delisle Burns and S. Zuckerman, ‘The Wounding Power of Small Bomb and Shell Fragments’, RC350, October 1942.

38 This calculation was made possible because two values in the equation for kinetic energy were known. Kinetic energy is defined as half mass multiplied by the square of velocity or KE = 1/2mv2. Rearranging the equation to determine the mass gives results in m = 2KE/v2. Based on the assumption that it took 58 ft-lbs to incapacitate and a fragment from a bomb blast struck the target at 2000fps, the mass of a projectile had to be greater than 0.014oz (i.e. 1/70th of an oz or 400 mg). See Zuckerman Papers, UEA, SZ/OEMU/47/19/31, Delisle Burns and Krohn, ‘A Review of the Criteria of Wounding in Common Use’, p. 4.

39 Callwell, Charles E., Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice (HMSO: London, 1896, 1899, 1906)Google Scholar.

40 J. B. Hamilton, ‘The evolution of the dum-dum bullet’, British Medical Journal (14 May 1898), p. 1250.

41 See Zuckerman Papers, UEA, SZ/OEMU/48/5, report by Professor Solly Zuckerman to the Chief of Combined Operations, ‘Survey of Casualties in Combined Operations against Dieppe carried out on the 19th August 1942’.

42 Beyer, J. C. Colonel Jr (ed.), Wound Ballistics (Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, 1962)Google Scholar, preface. Report available at: {http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/thoracicsurgeryvolII/default.htm} accessed 14 March 2018.

43 In conversations with British Army Medical Corps personnel, I have been told that it would remain a practical impossibility to undertake the level of pathology required to evaluate the circumstances of death for all those involved in combat at the level of intensity experienced during the Second World War.

44 Prokosch, Erik, The Technology of Killing: A Military and Political History of Anti-Personnel Weapons (London: Zed Books, 1995), p. 20Google Scholar.

45 Zuckerman Papers, UEA, SZ/OEMU/44/17/79, ‘Memorandum for Dr. J. F. Fulton on the Use of 58 ft lbs as a Criterion of ‘Incapacitation’, 16 March 1945.

46 Prokosch, The Technology of Killing.

47 See, for instance, Bourke, Joanna, An Intimate History of Killing: Face-to-Face Killing in Twentieth-Century Warfare (London: Granta, 1999), p. 239Google Scholar; Grossman, Dave, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1996)Google Scholar.

48 King, Anthony, The Combat Soldier: Infantry Tactics and Cohesion in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Smith, Rupert, The Utility of Force (London: Penguin Books, 2006)Google Scholar.

50 Stahl, Roger, Militainment, Inc.: War, Media, and Popular Culture (New York: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar.

51 Merrin, William, Digital War: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge. 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 A good summary of the RMA and delivering just-in-time military effects can be found in Lonsdale, David J., The Nature of War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Future (London: Frank Cass, 2003)Google Scholar.

53 TNA HO 325/132, paper by CDI(A) on Future Tactical Doctrine and Equipment Requirements for Operations in Support of Civil Power, 31 July 1970 – Use of Troops in Aid of the Civil Power – Setting up of a Working Party on Internal Security Tactical Doctrine.

54 MacKinlay, John, ‘“Shoot to kill”: an assessment’, British Army Review, 48 (1974), pp. 45–9Google Scholar.

55 Salt, James and Smith, M. L. R., ‘Reconciling policing and military objectives: Can Clausewitzian theory assist the police use of force in the United Kingdom?’, Democracy and Security, 4:3 (2008), pp. 221–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Rid, Thomas and Hecker, Marc, War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2009)Google Scholar.

57 Bousquet, Antoine, ‘A revolution in military affairs?: Changing technology and changing practices of warfare’, in McCarthy, Daniel R. (ed.), Technology and World Politics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), pp. 165–81Google Scholar; and Bousquet, The Eye of War.

58 For a discussion of the Effects Based Approach, see Ruby, Tomislav Z., ‘Effects-based operations: More important than ever’, Parameters (autumn 2008), pp. 26–35Google Scholar.

59 Ibid.; for effects, COIN doctrine, and the human domain see also US Special Forces Command, Operating in the Human Domain, version 1.0 (3 August 2015). This version is available at: {https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiqiamdmenhAhW2ZhUIHYsjBPoQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https://%3A%2F%2Fnsiteam.com%2Fsocial%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F01%2FSOF-OHD-Concept-V1.0-3-Aug-15.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0fnEQKjKyzJDRX9_M2qBxz} accessed 24 April 2019.

60 British Army Field Manual. Volume 1: Part 10, Countering Insurgency Army Code 71876, pp. 7–4, pp. 6–7.

61 Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations (17 January 2017) – Incorporating Change 1 (22 October 2018), pp. I–3. Doctrine note available at: {https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9vtCN6d7hAhUDPVAKHUw7B48QFjAAegQIARAC&url=https://%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcs.mil%2FPortals%2F36%2FDocuments%2FDoctrine%2Fpubs%2Fjp3_0ch1.pdf%3Fver%3D2018-11-27-160457-910&usg=AOvVaw04JZDavDBIt1UIInEP4elH} accessed 20 April 2019.

62 Joint Operations, pp. II–11.

63 Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Firearms: Legal Guidance’, available at: {https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms} accessed 28 March 2018.

64 Rappert, Brian, Non-Lethal Weapons as Legitimizing Forces?: Technology, Politics and the Management of Conflict (London: Frank Cass, 2003)Google Scholar.

65 Neocleous, Mark, ‘The police of civilization: the War on Terror as civilizing offensive’, International Political Sociology, 5:2 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Bennett, Huw, ‘The Baha Mousa tragedy: British Army detention and interrogation from Iraq to Afghanistan’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16:2 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klein, Ellen, ‘Immunity in counterinsurgency operations: a proposal for US contractors’, Parameters, 47:1 (2017)Google Scholar.

67 Shah, Nisha, ‘Gunning for war: Infantry rifles and the calibration of lethal force’, Critical Studies on Security, 5:1 (2017), p. 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Shapiro, Michael J., Discourse, Culture, Violence (Oxford: Routledge, 2012), p. 189Google Scholar.

69 Mabee, Brian and Vucetic, Srdjan, ‘Varieties of militarism: Towards a typology’, Security Dialogue, 49:1–2 (2018), pp. 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 MacLeish, Ken, ‘The ethnography of good machines’, Critical Military Studies, 1:1 (2015), pp. 11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Whitmarsh, Ian, ‘The no/name of the institution’, Anthropological Quarterly, 87:3 (2014), p. 881CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Millar, Katharine M. and Tidy, Joanna, ‘Combat as a moving target: Masculinities, the heroic soldier myth, and normative martial violence’, Critical Military Studies, 3:2 (2017), pp. 142–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Boemcken, Marc von, ‘Unknowing the unknowable: From “critical war studies” to a critique of war’, Critical Military Studies, 2:3 (2016), pp. 226–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Brighton, Shane, ‘Three propositions on the phenomenology of war’, International Political Sociology, 5:1 (2011), p. 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Bourke, Joanna, Wounding the World: How Military Violence and War-Play Invade Our Lives (London: Virago, 2014)Google Scholar.