text: Conduct of Hostilities
  For discussion of these weapons, refer to Chapter VI of the DOD Law of War Manual.
  Certain types of weapons are subject to specific rules that apply to their use by the U.S. armed forces.
  These rules may reflect U.S. obligations under international law or national policy. These weapons include:
  * mines, booby-traps, and other devices (except certain specific classes of prohibited mines, booby-
  traps, and other devices);
  * cluster munitions;
  * incendiary weapons;
  * laser weapons (except blinding lasers);
  * riot control agents;
  * herbicides;
  * nuclear weapons;
  * explosive ordnance.
  For more information, consult the DOD Law of War Manual and specific policies and guidance applicable
  to particular types of weapons. It may be appropriate in the review of such weapons to advise on these types
  of restrictions or obligations.
  If there is no specific prohibition, the following questions are considered:
  * Whether the weapon is calculated to cause superfluous injury, in violation of the Hague
  Regulations Article 23(e); and
  * Whether the weapon is inherently indiscriminate.
  Unnecessary Suffering/Superfluous Injury
  A weapon review addresses whether the weapon is calculated to cause unnecessary suffering or
  superfluous injury in violation of the standard stated in Hague Regulations Article 23(e). The terms
  “unnecessary suffering” and “superfluous injury” are synonymous in the context of this analysis. Superfluous
  injury generally is determined in light of the practice of nations and in evaluation of a specific weapon.
  Superfluous injury is assessed in the sense of the design of a particular weapon or its employment, and not
  in terms of how a person affected by the weapon would be subjectively affected by it. Use of “calculated to
  cause” in the Hague Regulations Article 23(e) helps convey that the legal standard is focused on assessing
  the intended purpose or purposes of the weapon’s developer in developing the weapon.
  The prohibition of weapons calculated to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering
  constitutes acknowledgement that the use of weapons in war causes suffering, including injury and loss of
  life. A weapon cannot be declared unlawful merely because it may cause severe injury or suffering. Nor is a
  lawyer reviewing the legality of a weapon required to foresee or anticipate all possible uses or misuses of a
  weapon, for almost any weapon can be misused in ways that might be prohibited.
  LOAC has no internationally agreed upon definition for superfluous injury. The determination is
  whether a weapon’s employment for its normal or expected use would be prohibited under some or all
  circumstances. A weapon would be deemed to cause superfluous injury only if it inevitably, or in its normal
  use, has a particular effect—and the injury caused as a result of this use is considered by governments as
  manifestly disproportionate to the military necessity for it, that is, to the military advantage to be gained from
  its employment. This determination cannot be made in isolation from other weapons. A weapon’s effects
  must be weighed in light of comparable, lawful weapons in use on the modern battlefield.
  Importantly, the effect of the use of a weapon in combat is not the sole criterion for determining
  whether a weapon is calculated to cause superfluous injury; effects will differ widely as a result of the
  constantly shifting nature of the battlefield. For example, a weapon that can incapacitate or wound lethally
  at 300 meters or longer ranges may result in a greater degree of incapacitation or greater lethality when used
  against targets at lesser ranges. Similarly, the necessity for the use of a weapon of sufficient power to destroy
  materiel or, for example, a reinforced object such as a tank, a bunker, or an aircraft hanger may have a
  devastating effect on enemy military personnel in, on, or adjacent to it at the time of its attack, or on enemy
  military personnel struck directly by a weapon intended for a vehicle or entrenched defensive position. In
  both cases, the use of these weapons would not be unlawful.