Guess we should just have a lovely little war next time and stop every day to have high tea and exchange pleasantries with the poor fellows. This would be most civilized....and don't forget the crumpets or scones!

Steve, Memphis,

This weapon is NOT humane at all, contrary to the article it does not kill everyone in the blast radius. People standing near the edge of the radius receive horrendous internal injuries that are impossible to operate on. Imagine having your eyes pop out but being still alive, that's not humane.

Steve, Brisbane, Australia

This is not a conventional war we can't win by just killing people, the way to succeed is to make the population like us more than the insurgency. By using horrible weapons like this and cluster/incendiary bombs we're just doing the insurgency a favor by making the population see our army as evil.

Steve, Brisbane, Australia

For civilians to be in any greater danger there would have to be a change in the rules of engagement (ROE). Deployment of all weapons systems has to be within these, and the application of ROE is directly linked to the weapon used. No Apache pilot wants collateral damage and act accordingly.

Will, Ilkley, UK

I'm training to join the army and i'm glad we have this weapon! the amount of allied troops being killed is staggering. yes it' may not be a very humane way of doing it but neither is walking into a public place with explosives and killing 70 civilians! fight fire with fire!

Jack Topping, Nottingham, England

Talking about Russian vacuum bombs against civilians in Chechnya is dishonest propaganda. Probably the information was created at the same place as Saddam Hussein’s secret weapon, or Kremlin’s trace in poisoning of Litvinenko.

Alexey, Moscow,

It's very clear - WE are the enemy.

There is no depths to which we will not go. I am ashamed to be human, much less British.

God will deal with us as He did with Sodom.

Lorrie Dryver, Grantham, United Kingdom

It's just another way for man to kill man, that's what we do, we're nothing but savage angry apes anyway, we enjoy killing each other, and we’ve refined the art so well we're running out of ideas!

All weapons are brutal, because man is a brutal creature, we not civilized at all.

Sweet dreams.

Alex, Kenilworth,

Sorry, I thought the whole point of a weapon was to create maximum carnage and destruction; am I missing something?

Rob, Brum, UK

Lets have a war where we throw marshmellows at each other. I trust the other side will play fair and not use hard objects like snowballs.

And the tree huggers moan because no-one wants to play.

Richard, London,

Homo sapiens is a peculiar species. It seems to have no moral abhorrence of war itself when it suits it, yet it will agonise over the manner of death that war causes. The argument must be that if the use of these weapons saves the life of only one of our soldiers, then the use is justified.

Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK

If you think these weapons are so bad, maybe you'd like to propose a more humane way of killing our enemies?

Dave T, Los Angeles, USA

If it's used on a cave or building populated by the Taliban it'll be no worse than any other weapon. Sounds a gruesome way to go, but it's instant. Weapons are designed to kill, thats the point. This leaves no unexploded bombs lying around that innocent people are likely to step on a decade later.

John, London, England

So much for an moral high ground which the notorious Bush/Brown duo try to hide behind. The Iraq/Afghanistan invasions and military occupations make me thoroughly ashamed of, and disgusted with, my country. I would add that I spent 11 years in the military myself.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

to the gentleman who referenced Hiroshima... Are you serious?? Honestly, are you serious? 1. Firebombing of Tokyo killed more and was more devestating 2. at least 1,000,000 US servicemen would have died invading Japan, not to mention millions more Japanese. Keep it in perspective buddy

Ryan, Cincinnati, US

Ah! The Military industrial Complex wins again and is the only one winning!

War is profitable and that is the only reason for it!

Things like oil and drugs are just part of the war profiteering!

It's the defence budgets that go to private weapons companys that make the real money!

Andrew Towell, Hartlepool, England, UK

I think this discussion can be summed up by one of history’s greatest thinkers. As Baldrick so eloquently states in Blackadder Goes Forth … Hear the words I sing, war is a terrible thing, so I sing, sing, sing... ding a ling a ling

Andy, Accra, Ghana

Knowing of a soldier who took a bullet to the gut in the Falklands and took 2 days to die in agony laying in a cold wet trench; which way to die is most brutal?

Snuffed out in a second or 2 without knowing too much about it or in agony for days, months or years begging to die to end it all.

Richad, Jersey,

This weapon “makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter”. Thing is, if it's going to be used to clear Taleban strongholds that are nigh-on impenetrable, how many civilians do they expect to be wandering about in the blast radius?

Jamie B, Reigate, UK

Silly, silly people. We are told that a human rights group has shown the IQ of the people comprising it with the comment that this weapon “makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter”...I'm confused - surely any weapon fired at civilians causes problems?

Tom, Dubai, UAE

"Bombing Dresden was absolutely pointless and burned thousands alive, to no effect whatsoever"

You are quite wrong.

The RAF bombing of Dresden was so lastingly effective that ever since, the Luftwaffe has not dared drop so much as a feather against neighbouring countries or civilian centres.

Chris P, Manama, Bahrain

"The redefinition has allowed British forces to use the weapons legally..." okay so they re-wrote the rules, basically.
"Parliament has never assented to their use." So we have an admission that organisations and not the government are what UNDEMOCRATICALLY do everything. Read into the CFR and RIIA.

Shiranami, London,

I'm laughing my head off...2human rights groups term the thermobaric missile as "brutal" hahaha!! can anyone point out to me me a " non brutal" weapon....what..a feather bomb ??
These people need a dose of reality..this is war !! we are trying to kill people who are trying to kill us.

Phil, Weston super Mare, england

"It's like WWII, we had to level cities to start to win the war..." Graeme in Edinburg, you're out to lunch. The Nazis leveled London while the British attacked strategic points, and started to win. Bombing Dresden was absolutely pointless and burned thousands alive, to no effect whatsoever...

JoninLA, Los Angeles, USA

"Why can't we all just get along?". I used to believe that. Go to Wikipedia.org and look up the Taliban. It is a radical oppressive mentality imploding on itself. 9/11 seems inevitable after reading it.
They will not change, and prefer death to diversity. Death for me and you...

JoninLA, Los Angeles, USA

Amazing how we let some incompetent decide to spend millions in their fancy weapons but they neglect to spend some thousands to built a decent prison in Kandahar, where nearly a thousand Taliban escaped the adobe prison. With that you have lost all the money and time spend capturing these terrorist

Jose, Valencia,

The primary human right is the right to life - suicide bombers and other terrrorists killing civilians wholesale choose to forgo that right, without which any other rights are meaningless.
They give us no choice but to kill them before they kill us, and the quickest means is the most humane.

David, Bristol, UK

The MoD use this weapon "sparingly and under strict circumstances". Can the same be said for the guys who bombed the tube, and the twin towers? Hit them where it hurts. And Richard, if you want to fire one at the next Zanu PF congress in Zimbabwe it's fine with me.

David Ashton, NSW, Australia

Articles like this show any moral authority by the UK government or concern for life in Zimbabwe is laughable. We have become even more depraved than any enemy we have identified.

Richard, Leicester, UK

Thanks Marvin from Baton Rouge - spoken like a true American. And you wonder why the rest of the world despite our country?

Renne Latham, Marble Falls, TX,

I think if there was a better way of taking out the so-called "threat" to us in the western hemisphere, many more people would back that, but as it stands, there are none as yet.

Plus,it's not like the have exactly equal technology to ours to retaliate is it? or am i one of the uneducated masses?

Simon, Rotherham, England

All weapons should be on the table in a war including nukes. War is hell; it's not some game like nintendo. These bleeding heart liberals do not know what they are talking about. War is kill or be killed and regretably civilian casualities are part of it,

Marvin, baton rouge,

The atomic bomb against the Japanese in WWII was met with similar outrage. It killed 150,000 people in one blast. Had the US not done that, the war could have dragged-on a lot longer with far higher casualties. I find it abhorent that one bomb can clear a city, but, it SAVED lives in the end.

IPD, Leeds, UK

The reason that cluster munitions are banned is because the bomblets don't always detonate, leaving the area akin to a minefield, not because they are "brutal".

And of course people in the target area won't be able to take shelter - destroying shelters is the whole *point* of an anti-bunker weapon.

Alex, Perth, Australia

Hiroshima & Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. Read "The Last Mission" by Jim B. Smith with Malcolm McConnell.

Do you believe the invasion of the home isalnds would have been any less bloody than Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tarawa or Pelielu?

Rosetta Stone, New York, USA

Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction to me.

Alex, London, England

The victors get to write the history and hold war crime trials after a conflict; it would appear that the bleeding hearts get to write the prosecution statements before we have won! Wonder what they will write after the first dirty bomb or mini-nuke is let off in the middle of London? Too late then!

Jack, Glasgow, Scotland

“makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter”. What are civilians doing in terrorist bunkers?

Jamie, Maidstone, England

The comment that their blast “makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter” does appear a bit idiotic - the point of armaments is that you don't want the enemy to be able to take shelter from them, thermobaric or not. Both are deadly, both regrettable but unfortunately used.

John, Knutsford, UK

"The cloud of burning aluminium powder means victims often die from asphyxiation before the pressure shreds their organs". The blast wave is going to kill everyone in range in under a second. They are not going to have minutes to suffocate in. Its a bomb, it kills by blowing things up.

Roger, London, UK

Van Bel, Ottawa: In 1999 Ahmed Ressam built a bomb in Vancouver, to destroy the LA airport. He plotted to explode gasoline trucks in Montreal & Ottawa. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to train him. Canada’s soldiers now fight the Taliban to prevent terrorist attacks here. Your obtuseness is staggering.

G. Peterson, British Columbia, Canada

It's a war people, and war is unpleasant! Bullets are pretty nasty too - should we also stop using those? I can guarantee that our foes are having no such ethical debate. They already employ mines, and they'd happily use Hellfire against us, given the chance.

johnny, london,

Many people here seem to believe that the insurgents are solely Afghani people reacting to being 'invaded', they aren't, the majority are from a neighbouring country beginning with P!
Yes if my land were invaded I'd be among the resistance but I'd expect retaliation, not tea and bikkies!

Carol Asacret, Cambridge, England

"Have they considered living under the taliban" -- Andy, Riyadh, Saudi

There is no hard evidence to prove that the Taleban's treated their women any worse than Saudi gov. You won't expect the US/UK to "hellfire" the Saudi's. The wars an excuse for US hegemony in that region (oil pipe line)

jayil, london, uk

"weapons are designed to protect the people who do not want war"...well hardly been a success have they? The arms industry allows for and relies upon the creation of conflict. It is a multi trillion dollar industry which arms rogue states and then arms their neighbours.Conflict ensures perpetuation.

Patrick, Hague, Netherlands

"Have we learned nothing from Hiroshima?" Yes: Don't target civilians with weapons that poison the population and environment for decades. Weapons like this, which can be accurately delivered to specific targets, are the result of that lesson. It doesn't appear to be more barbaric than a JDAM.

Steven, San Francisco, USA

Maybe Human Rights Watch should also be concerned with suicide bombers in crowded markets or snipers hiding in mosques..

Joao Moreno, Oporto, Portugal

Finally are troops get the weapons they need. If olny we had these at Tora Bora we could have gone home a long time ago.

Dean, Southampton, England

How quick we forget that we in the USA had the trade towers blown up that not barbaric or inhumane is it? Ask the families of those who's heads were cut off and put on tv for the world to see if this was barbaric or inhumane? Get off your moral high horse and open up your eyes!

j. Alexander, goldsboro nc, USA

While US undoubtedly responsible for killing some civ., I'd like to believe that the military does what it can to avoid it. However, the taliban and more notably terrorist groups target civ. with the intention of brutality. I don't see how this weapon increases civ. casualties. Thats my only concern

D.M, Boston, MA

100 years ago,most battles were either on horse back or hand to hand,the injuries were horrific,I fail to see the differance
between blowing someone up or cutting them to pieces,either
way they die or remain terribly maimed for the rest of their lives.

David Nigel Braham, Milan, Italy

Sounds like just the thing we need to win the war! That is, after all, why we are fighting, isn't it? Or is it to lose whilst showing off our superior morality...?

Paul, Columbia, USA

"Interestingly most of the comments here come from the US ; the country that bought us the atomic bomb....................

tony eden, Ollon , Switzerland"

Interesting that your comment comes from Switzerland, the country that mollified the Nazis in exchange for stolen Jewish riches.

James, Minneapolis, MN

People commenting on how awful these weapons are seem to have lost touch with the fact that this is War. Yes people die in brutal, horrific circumstances, how else do you liberals suggest that we kill the enemy? The hellfire missle seems much more humane than being run through with a bayonet!

Stuart, London,

If you fight a war, you win by killing enemy soldiers. So, either don't fight wars or kill enemy soldiers in the most effective way possible.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

maybe we should issue the troops with paint ball guns and ask the taliban to play dead? or maybe we should issue our troops with caldrons filled with burning oil and crossbows? weapons are designed to protect the people who do not want war. If you want to kill innocent people be prepared to die

Andy, Riyadh, Saudi

while we have people farthers sons mothers daughters prepared to die for our freedom their will be those cowards who can critise from the homes & comfort of a pc. Have they considered living under the taliban and then voicing their opinion? have they considered their wives living as those women did

Andy, Riyadh, Saudi

The must have weapon for our UK forces. I guess asking taliban to come out and talk is asking to much.

M Holmes, London, United Kingdom

Dreadful! Our troops, like the UN, should be restricted to using harsh language.

Nick, Rotherham, UK

If it works, use it. Unlike the Russians, I doubt NATO forces would use it against civilian targets deliberately. If they use it against our enemies (read: the enemies of reason, the kind of people who would destroy elements of their own ancient culture, i.e. The Buddhas of Bamyan), then too bad.

Dr Robert Laundon, London, UK

I hate to point out the obvious but how long do people think it will be before the Taliban and general terrorists get hold of these weapons and use them to attack us. We with the good old U.S of A have created a monster. Pandora's box has been opened again. The judgement of our leaders is flawed.

J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom

This is barbaric. It is also stupid - just a matter of time before those nations get hold of these awful things and use it on us.

Haven't we learnt ANYTHING from wars?

Why can't we as the population of a country not have a say over these decisions?

Inhumane.

Leo, Stellenbosch, South Africa

How you can you fight terrorism when you yourself is terrorizing people through using terrible weapons?

i dont see the difference between a terrorist organisation and theU.S Military department.. Because it is Synonymous

Hoodwink, auckland, New Zealand

Perhaps we're supposed to kill them 'nicely'. Maybe we could tickle them into submission?

Nate, Melbourne, Australia

At last, we have the right weapons!Pushing a bayonet into someones rib cage is brutal not firing an effective and pin point antipersonnel weapon from two miles away and thus saving coalition lives! War is horrendous and brutal and all human rights go out of the window a point liberals should take.

John, Salford,

Tom Ritchford, New York, NY

I was not commenting on the size of the forces, nor their credit ratings... I was commenting on tactics employed and their effectiveness.

Graeme, Edinburgh,

Interestingly most of the comments here come from the US ; the country that bought us the atomic bomb....................

tony eden, Ollon , Switzerland

Any type of war is not desirable however you're an absolute idiot if you engage in one with your hand tied behind your back. The Taliban fighters employ many forms of attack many of which are immoral so I see nothing wrong against using all means at ones disposal to attack hardened strongholds.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

Sad comment of the day

"Save the sympathy and understanding for the thousands of American and Iraqi families who've lost loved ones to the Taliban maniacs."

Well done Bill, you've summed up this crazy era and American incuriosity. The Taliban have never been in Iraq. Nice you care tho.

Matt, Birmingham, UK

Just search google and you'll find that the "Taleban" are not "terrorists"

"US does not consider Taliban terrorists"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.html

Well, I've just debunked many post's below.

jayil, london, uk

"Save the sympathy and understanding for the thousands of American and Iraqi families who've lost loved ones to the Taliban maniacs" - Bills Catz, Boston, USA

An ignorant statement from an American who does not know what he's saying. The "Taleban" are not in Iraq. Please get informed bf you speak

jayil, london, uk

Andre of Oregon - would you be prepared to win at *any* cost? Do the lives of innocents not count? Many of the messages here are very worrying - where should the line be drawn? It seems we are inured to the horror of war.

Nullius, London, UK

I feel about as disgusted by this weapon as I do about :on-line decapitations,suicide bombers who discriminately target women & children,kidnappers, evil religious bigots & heroin trafficking. So if the people who designed this weapon were thinking about my familys safety, I can live with it .

M.Burkinshaw , Vilagarcia de Arousa, Galicia/Spain

Hmmm...maybe we should just invite the Taliban to a game of cricket to decide the future of Afghanistan. That would be very fair, we could even get the some do-gooders to prepare some lovely cucumber sandwiches and everyone would have a wonderful time........

robin, london, uk

"There are going to be some awfully surprised US soldiers when the terrorists get hold of them." To paraphrase Bush.
Well said Victor Cedar, Scottsdale, USA, nice to see someone from the US talking some sense for a chance.
Those weapons are low tech in principle, it's a technolgical and
moral loser.

Alex, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

DO you think if the Taleban had these weapons, they'd hesitate to use them?

James, Tring, Slovenia

Well how do you want us to kill them?

Steve, kent, UK

I am concerned by the number of UK posts that are anti-US.

Comparing us to the enemy is wrong-minded. We spend thousands trying to minimize the # dead while they pack bombs with nails to kill & maim as many as possible.

And, don't blame the US for Iraqi dead; blame the bombers in the markets.

DRS, Nebraska, USA

bring on the most effective way to destroy the enemy at minimum risk to ourselves. vacuum, gene, nerve gas and all others that destroy. "brutal" what are you talking about "brutal"? war is brutal, full stop. nannies

peter jones, moscow,

"If a nation goes to war, it should be prepared to win. These new weapons are just another tool for achieving that aim".
So, the terrorists blowing up busses and hijacking aircraft is to be applauded as okey-dokey.

Ken.Wyatt, Todmorden, UK

I'm amazed by the callous attitude of so many folks.These weapons are terrible, and no argument out of 'self-defence' will change that.

We cannot fight a war against inhumanity with equally inhumane tactics. We are no better than those we label 'evil' when we forget that lesson.

Rene, Los Angeles, USA

It is worrying that this bomb is being used for no doubt the exact same reasons that the Soviets developed it for - an increasingly protracted guerilla campaign of an enemy whose sole tactic is to go into battle, lose and just continue to pick off coalition soldiers in bits and bobs.

Bob, Tenterden, UK

So lets get rid of landmines, cluster bombs, thermobaric........
.......got to get rid of spears because if they miss they may get trodden on.

War is terrible ask any combat soldier, but if your sons serve do you want them to win?

Ken, Kenilworth,

Kill or be killed. If we listen to liberals, like we did about Hitler, we will be in trouble. This bomb is definitely more humane. Yes being in the wrong place at the wrong time will mean inocents will die, unfortunate but the reality is if we dont fight fire with fire we all will end up guilty

Graham Whittingham, Manchester, UK

The purpose of war is to obliterate & defeat the enemy. The Army is a tool of civilian will to defeat the Talibs who have no compuction with torturing women & children. Liberals, quite crying about the reality of the world, good men must use the means they have to defeat evil.

ricksalazar, Los Angeles , USA!

If a nation goes to war, it should be prepared to win. These new weapons are just another tool for achieving that aim. We should do everything reasonable to avoid war but, if a war has to be fought if would be stupid to fight with a restricted set of weapons because of our laws!

Andre, Portland, USA

I can't believe Nick Harvey compared cluster bombs to thermobaric bombs. Cluster bombs leave bomblets unexploded for years/decade just waiting for innocents to get their leg blown off (if not killed) while this bomb only explodes once. True, innocents might be caught in its explosion but that's during war time, not years after...

Sylvain, Ottawa, Canada

I think it's all rather nice. A picnic in the hills and then a firework show for the children after they have rammed a few twinkies down their gullets. The American dream lives on. Better deaf than ref or somesuch???!!!

Belinda, Woodbridge, Suffolk

It disturbs me the number of Americans who appear to say "yeah, but they're as bad as we are". I can't speak for them,but I honestly believe Britain to be better than Napoleonic France, the third Reich, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia etc. That was the point of the conflicts. Is there a point now?

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

The Taleban are fighting an ideological struggle, just as the Mujahadeen did against the Soviets & just as the Pathans did against Queen Victoria's invasions ... if a foreign power invaded your country wouldn't you resist ? ... meanwhile the US-led invasion of Afghanistan continues to horrify

R Rogers, Bedford, UK

Note to self:-

When defending your right to life against an adversary, take the time ask him/her of their preferred method of warfare.

Remain alert to the fact that they may kill, rape or torture you and your loved ones while you are waiting for a reply.

Marc, Antrim,

It's a weapon that creates a bit of a bigger bang. That is all.

No radioactive fall out, no large area of slow deaths caused by lungs shredded by chemicals, no viruses or bacteria spreading through a population and no huge numbers of scattered munitions that kill and maim decades later.

Ken MacLauchlan, Haslemere, UK

Go for it,. This is the same group of people that killed 2300 innocent Americans on 9/11 -- if they keep doing what they do, they'll get what they get. Save the sympathy and understanding for the thousands of American and Iraqi families who've lost loved ones to the Taliban maniacs.

Bills Catz, Boston, USA

We in the west and the governments that represent us, are the 21st century Nazis. The use of these weapons and the terrorization of the civilian population is criminal. The Taliban did not attack us, lets face it if they had allowed the pipe line in the country we would not be at war.

van Bel, Ottawa , Canada

So when they gain hold of a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb to use on a western city, UK/US won't have a moral leg to stand on.

Not that we do any more anyway. Now that we've dispensed with the presumption of innocence, any tinpot dictator can point to our own practices to justify his own.

Bilal Patel, London, UK

Nigel:

The insurgents have human shields, guerilla tactics, children with bombs attached not to mention our own planes with which they chose to kill several thousand people.

I would say that tactical and strategic use of this bomb is acceptable - a dead enemy is more humane than half dead.

Paul Sullivan, chester,

With this weapon the Brits should be able to kill the guy they are after and every civilian within 50 yeards.

If it is so good at killing the enemy why didn't the Russians win when they were using it in Afghanistan?

Pete Loud, Milton Keynes, UK

fair fight?? this is war, not a neighborhood debating match ... the idea of war is to "have the other guy die for his side" ... to paraphrase Patton

I personally am against the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have much preferred a nuclear retaliation. War would have been over ASAP.

James Stoney, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

What if this makes the enemy even more angry at the use of our barbaric techniques, forcing them to do the same. What if they the terrorists decide to make deadly bio-logical weapons and secretly release them in our cities? Cruelty is a two way game. We should keep humane/focused at what we do...

jayil, london, uk

I'm 100 % behind the uk and usa armys moving into the unstable regions absolutely 100%. But I do believe like all men a fair fight is a fair fight, it first began in modern day cheating with knuckle dusters (cheating). Just what weapons and technology do the teleban have backing them...... ?

Nigel, UK, UK

Nick Jackson, Jonesville "even if this means huge civilian casualties...we will prevail if we are willing to pay the price".
300,000+ Iraqi civilians dead already. Isn't that huge enough for you, or do you really need the same numbers in Afghanistan to pay your price?

Jago, Soton,

Well said, Gregory, I echo your words.

Stuart, Plymouth, England

A hideout that would have been hit with a conventional missile will now be hit with a more effective version. Have I missed something? No one likes the idea of killing but we are not talking about indiscriminate land mines, we are talking about precision guided missiles against legitimate targets.

James, Madrid, Spain

There is a mountain of condemnation for those that use these weapons, yet i see very little condemnation for the Taliban who use the civilian populate as a shield to hide behind. Perhaps they should be held just as accountable for the damage on the international stage?

Kevin, Topeka, USA

Does this weapon actually result in increased civilian casualties? If its harder for civilians to take cover, perhaps don't target buildings with civilians. To those saying "Don't think the other side wouldn't use this": Yeah, but I'm not going to fly a plane in to a building killing 3000 innocents.

Keman, Portland,

Cut through the spurious moral objections, and what you have is this - this weapon is effective against our vicious, pitiless enemies. Therefore, it shouldn't be used. Such rank nonsense. Read the remarkably even-handed Retribution by Max Hastings about the final battles against Japan.

Craig, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

i understood that we went to afghanistan to free their people, and catch terrorist, why arent we doing the same in Zimbabwe, and for that matter, why after 50,000+ dead where is Osama!!

wesley, suffolk,

"To abjure violence is a luxury which a delicate few enjoy only because others stand ready to do violence in their behalf." -Orwell

Words spoken about peace over your morning latte are usless untill you do something to affect change. I am an American Soldier. Enjoy your free speach.

Gregory, Fort Lewis, WA, USA

'They hate our way of life....' - for whoever said that, the taliban may not hate your democracy and hate your freedom, but definitely hates your way of waging proxy wars on lesser developed countries just to keep your standard of life high. Most people who take up arms fight for money.

Dino Ag, london, UK

I'm less concerned over humanly killing those in the Taliban, than, say, accidentally hitting a school with this thing. No person deserves to die this way, but no person deserves a violent, brutal death as is, it's just the way the world is. Use it only to preserve the lives of our troops, if needed

bryan, sea isle city, US

A Liberal's POV:

Reduced shrapnel to harm secondary targets.
No spent uranium contamination.
No environmental contamination.
Unexploded rounds easier to deal with.
Collapsing a building and injuring outsiders is prevented except by miscalculation.

What's the big problem?

Gunnar, Orange, CA, USA

Sitting at home thinking up ways to be "green" while trying to mentally will an entire planet to become Utopian hasn't been very affective as of yet. The only place peace without cost exists is on your collegiate reading list. Things that go bump only stop when something makes a bigger bump

Gregory, Fort Lewis, WA, USA

The key point as highlighted by the human rights groups is collateral damage. How we value civilian life in our own society but care so little for it when it affects another nations innocent people.

Farrukh, Woking,

Hmm. There are numerous ways to kill someone and in battle the most effective should be used. How is this weapon any more horrible than being burnt to death, shot, fragmented or stabbed? The end result is the same I would imagine and perhaps a little quicker than most. And that may be more humane.

Mark Chisholm, Dereham, UK

OK choice #1, send in ground troops and end up with more dead filling transport planes.

Choice #2 use any weapon to rid the world of the Taliban with less casualties on our side.

Liberals always choose from a distance, Liberals, always on the side of the enemy, hell they would ban all weapons.

shane, blackburn, England

Unfortunately, war is a brutal, messy business.

ian Elsom, okotoks, canada

"It's like during World War 2..."

Absolutely wrong. WWII was a war against the largest military power ever before 1950, against the largest economy in Europe. At the start of the Iraq war, there were several US companies richer than all Iraq; at least one US state alone had more military power.

Tom Ritchford, New York, NY

If anyone thinks the enemy 'wouldn't' use them if they had them, you're a fool.
@t j, oslo, norway: Thanks for the link. VERY GOOD POINT.

James Schovanec, Walnut, USA

I agree with the comment from Graeme. Wars are terrible, brutal, awful........ whatever phrase comes to mind. Does anyone think for a moment that these twisted maniacal fundamentalists would hesitate for a second to use this on us? They hate us and our way of life. I say, BOMBS AWAY!!!!

Phil, Pennsylvania, USA

I'm not too sure what the Human rights groups are complaining about.

It seems that they believe an explosion, ripping limbs off people is better than a quick asphyxiation, which due to the pressure would quick

These weapons were also designed to keep structures intact while killing the enemy insid

Edward Smith, London, England

Brutal???

What.. A bomb is to kill people.

Why not do it the most efficient way possible.

I agree with Christian.. Send them over and see if they can solve it. NOT!!!

Use the dam bomb. It works..

Us it I say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank, Jackson, USA

The objections to this weapon appear to be based upon the sole aspect that the weapon is so effective. I think the objections to this weapon are confused and misguided.

There are people who really want Britain to lose its engagements who are quick to criticize.

jason, east meadow, USA

It is funny how Soviets in Afganistan used this only against civilians.I guess they were afraid to use it against talib... freedom fighters. Or are they all civilians as long as its the Soviets (or Russians) that do the killing?

Eugene, Toronto, Canada

It's quite barbaric if people believe we should use any weapon possible, despite civilian casualties. I simply find the premise that this weapon creates any more, or less, civilian casualties, to be unconvincing. Are civilians more likely to hide to avoid a bomb blast, as opposed to a 'terrorist'?

Jason, Salt Lake City,

It's like during World War 2, we did tactical bombings while the Nazi's leveled cities, we then began leveling cities and started winning the war. Unfortunately you need to be brutal to win wars, human rights is out of place on the battle field... if you want to win, that is.

Graeme, Edinburgh,

I think people are quick to forget that death is death. Lots of ways of getting there but that's the way it is.
If you can invent weapons that can kill the enemy and lots of them before they kill you then that's what it's all about.
I disagree in Afghanistan but then War is War and all is fair....

Mark, London, England

Awful lot of bloodthirsty civilised people here.

martyn, calvia, spain

Yet another example of Western hyprocrisy. It was human rights violations when Russians used these weapons in Chechnya. Now, its "operational necessity" in Afghanistan. Why not admit that the polticians and their armed forces are a bunch of cowards who would rather fight the war via video screens

John Taylor, London,

All weapons are barbaric - how long might you take to die on a medeival battlefield with an arrow in the eye or glancing wound from a sword? Well done to the Times telling us what is done in our name. As for effectiveness - the Soviets used them in Afganistan and the US in Vietnam - and lost!

Clive, Chichester, UK

We must deploy every weapon necesesarry in order to win, even if this means huge civilian casualties. We cannot allow ourselves a defeat in front of the Afghan terrorists. We will prevail if we are willing to pay the price.

Nick Jackson, Jonesville, USA

We should get all these Human Rights people togeather and form a "peace core", send them over to Afghanistan to talk some sense into the Taliban.

I wonder how many would come back?

Christian, London, England

Any amateur student of warfare (yes, unfortunately it does exist however many hands are wrung) knows that, generally speaking, the side with the better weapons wins. It is thus vital that the western democracies develop ever more advanced weaponry, otherwise they won't be democracies for much longer

Alan Gooch, Honiton,

Once you engage an enemy, killing them in the most efficient way is the objective. There' s no pleasant way to die in battle. This has the advantage of being quick and not leaving a hazard for futuure generations. Gandhi's suggestion for fighting Nazis was passive resistance. Alas it would not work.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth,

Wicked or not, let's be clear about who used them first. They were used by the Americans against the Communist Vietnamese during the retreat of South Vietnamese army in 1974. The article seems to be implying "we only do this because the wicked communists started it".

Andrew Weir, london,

All's fair in love and war and i thought we were waging war?

John Lewis, London, UK

What do people think War is about? The Taliban run and hide in caves, if this flushes them out then so be it, rather them then our people. Sorry Neil from Bath, but you need to get a grip on reality..

John, London,

M.J., Iowa, U.S.A.
The US has become a bad country.
If you disagree with the US they bomb you. Your country has "come calling" on many an innocent.
As for the bomb? Not a good idea.

Patel, Chipping, UK

"As long as we get the bad guy, who cares how we get them."
Andrew, London,

That's a nice sentiment, but intelligence is (as the entire Iraq war proves) often wrong and the Taliban tend to take to hiding amongst civilians and fighting in amongst civilian buildings. Making this weapon a PR disaster waiting to happen. If you just wanted to 'kill people' you might as well tactical nuke 'em.

Neil, Bath, England

It’s truly scary on how easy it has become to murder human beings

Carlos Garcia, Harrison, usa

BRUTAL \m/

Bob, Newcastle, Australia

War is hell, because in war all is fair.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

As long as we get the bad guy, who cares how we get them.

As long as your intelligence is accurate and the delivery of the missle goes well then whats the problems

Andrew, London,

Your moral equivalence is disgusting. No one is talking about attacking civilians with these weapons. Here is one example of what these Taliban do: "Disembowelled, then torn apart: The price of daring to teach girls"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2023831.ece

t j, oslo, norway

Deadly and controversial? Oh, be cause the Soviets used them against civilians. So according to the Human Rights Watch the missle supposed to knock on the door, politely ask them to come out and lightly kill them?

Jeff, Houston, TX, USA

I have seen, first hand, the results of these insurgents after there sucide blasts. They do not care of the civilian death toll, and are extremely brutal. If the commanders on the ground need these hellfires to help turn the tide, very well.

Rob, Halifax, Canada

Is it just me, or is the purpose of all weapons used by our forces in a war to kill the enemy?

We are in a war, whether it is right or wrong, and people die in wars. No one should be shocked that when our soldiers fire at the enemy, the goal is to kill them.

TC, London, UK

I cannot believe people commenting here actually see a moral equivalence between terror attacks and this weapon. A "disastrous escalation"? How on earth is this an escalation? How is this worse then blowing up women and children in a marketplace in Iraq? Worse then suicide bombing? Good grief.

Alex, Calgary, Canada

An evil chemical weapon & evil intent for what are the aims of a defensive war but to defend & save lives which entails the capture of enemy forces & their humane treatment under the Geneva convention.As I've said the West once supported these fighters v. the communist invasion so a just war now?

Joan Moira Peters, Whangarei (UK Citizen, temp o/seas in New Zealand)

Lara Archer of England.....I gather you were not alive when the Nazis came calling on your country, other wise you would not care how evil is killed, only that it is.

M.J., Iowa, U.S.A.

North Americans tend to be blood-thirstier than others because war has rarely visited them. The last time a semblance of real war occurred there was in the 'Napoleonic era' and they did it to themselves. It is so romanticized that renacting it is a 'hobby'.

Popsiq, Toronto, Canada

I reckon a video of slicing someone's head off is "barbaric", but then I'm not a sophist, or an apologist for the enemy.

Harry Bergeron, Exeminster, UK

War IS horrendous and abhorrent. It must be avoided at all costs. However, if all else fails one must defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and with the minimun amount of allied casualties.

Pedro Tam, london, UK

Unlike a full metal jacket bullet in the gut, which takes a long agonizing time to kill, this bomb is brutally merciful. Terrorists detonate bombs that have killed and injured thousands of inocent civilians, mostly muslims, and I've not seen any protest and condemnation from the "concerned" .

Raul Diaz, Pleasantville,

In war it is kill them how you can and when you can.

Yet there are those that want the killing sanitized. Dead is dead
no matter how it is done and that is the point of battle.

Jerry Scroggin, Phoenix, Arizona/USA

We should remember later, when such terror weapons and tactics are used against us, that our side set the precedent.

Also, the oxygen circulating in victim's blood will keep them conscious for the second between the fluorinated aluminum flash fire and the rendering apart of internal organs

Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada

Instead of using the brutal vacuum missile to kill the Taliban, we should use the more humane feather duster missile to do the job.

Tom, Washington, DC, USA

Weapons that actually kill. The horror!

David, Boerne, USA

When will the loony left realise that the only reason they are free to be loonies is because of the wars we have fought and won. You cannot win wars by being "politically correct". You win wars by killing the enemy before they kill you.

Nick, Clayton, USA

Most human rights groups would consider a pea-shooter to be a "brutal" weapon. The object of an army is to kill people and break things. The better they do it, the sooner the other side will scream "uncle". Thats how war works. Now sit down and shut up.

dmc, WI, USA

If we had these bombs at Iwo Jima we could have saved thousands of American lives that were lost rooting the Japanese soldiers from caves.
War must be unpleasant so that people won't go into it so quickly.
Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers come to mind.

David Adams, Philadelphia, USA

Damn good weapon...the Brits should have been using these a long time ago against the Taliban terrorists. I wonder how many Brit and American soldiers died while the MoD was debating the issue of whether or not its forces should be using a kindler and gentler means of killing the bad guys.

Jim, Hurley, USA

Seems right to me. Moslem terrorist strap bombs to their women and children to carry into a market place or pizza parlor to explode killing civilians. Terrorists fly planes loaded with civilians in the World Trade Center killing 3000 people in 10 minutes

Jack Oscoda, Detroit , USA

We have become no better than those who we describe as the "enemy".

Peter Donson, Southwell,Notts, UK

The 'liberals' are always offended by the manner in which freedom's enemies are killed and never by the manner in which they inflict far more casualities in far worse ways than when we fight back. It is a luxury of a coward to do so, since think they can say they were against it if the enemy wins.

Andrew, Spokane, USA

The Taliban are killing British & US troops.Big deal - do not like it, they stop laying road mines & go back to Pakistan.Let the human rights lawyers go to Afghanistan & tell the Taliban to stop! Why should we continue fighting with inferior weapons?
Hiroshima - it saved many thousands of US lives.

Victor Cedar, Scottsdale, USA

The problem with proliferating these weapons is that they will eventually find their way into use against our own urban populations by the very terrorists we seek to combat.

The weapons are most effective in heavily built up areas.

This is a disastorous escalation, in my opinion

K Jones, sydney, australia

More humane than the terror of live beheading.

Gordon, sarnia, Canada

Yes, we learned (from Hiroshima) that weapons like this achieve the desired result - the surrender of the enemy, the ending of hostilities, and the saving of lots of lives of people who are NOT trying to kill everyone else.

Ed Calhoun, new canaan, US

Lord Christ, what have we become? Have we learned nothing from Hiroshima? I thought suicide bombing was evil; When did we become worse than that? God help us.

lara archer, alnwick, england

It would be interesting to hear what the Nuremberg lawyers and Judges say about The blatant hypocrisies shown by all members of the 'coalition of the willing'. Communism and Democracy have both recently died and gone to theory heaven. Greed killed both ideaologies.

Udo, Melbourne, Australia