War and Weapons

War Portal

For other uses of War, see War (disambiguation).

An act of war - the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945, effectively ending World War II. The bombs over Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki immediately killed over 120,000 people.

War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of lethal violence between combatants or upon civilians. Other terms for war, which often serve as euphemisms, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action (note). War is contrasted with peace, which is usually defined as the absence of war.

A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues. A war to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterised as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of the same state may constitute a civil war.

History of war

Main article: History of warfare

"Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survival or extinction. It must be thouroughly pondered and analyzed." The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

War seems as old as human society, and certainly features prominently in the recorded histories of state-cultures. But it is a complex issue. Some hunter-gatherer societies engaged in skirmishes over territory and resources, although many did not. The earliest city states and empires in Mesopotamia became the first to employ standing armies. Organization and structure has since been central to warfare, as illustrated by the success of highly disciplined troops of the Roman Empire.

As well as organizational change, technology has played a central role in the evolution of warfare. Inventions created for warfare have also played an important role in other fields. The continued advance of technology has led to an increase in the destructiveness and cost of warfare throughout human history.

The study of warfare is known as military history.

Morality of war

Plaque at the center of Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance

Throughout history, war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some more modern ones viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today war is generally seen as undesirable and morally problematic, although this view is contested in places. This minority do not agree with the majorities belief that wars should only be fought as a last resort. Some, known as pacifists, believe that war is inherently immoral and no war should ever be fought. This position was passionately defended by the Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi (called "Mahatma" or "Great Soul").

The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Many thinkers, such as Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. At the outbreak of World War I the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude was embraced by many societies from Sparta in Ancient Greece and the Ancient Romans to the fascist states of the 1930s. The defeat and repudiation of the fascist states and their militarism in the Second World War, combined with the huge psychological and physical damage of nuclear war have contributed to the current view of war.

Today, some see only Just Wars as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression.

Limitations on war

At times throughout history, societies have attempted to limit the cost of war by formalizing it in some way. Limitations on the targeting of civilians, what type of weapons can be used, and when combat is allowed have all fallen under these rules in different conflicts. Total war is the modern term for the targeting of civilians and the mobilization of an entire society; when every member of the society has to contribute to the war effort.

While culture, law, and religion have all been factors in causing wars, they have also acted as restraints at times. In some cultures, for example, conflicts have been highly ritualized to limit actual loss of life. In modern times, increasing international attention has been paid to peacefully resolving conflicts which lead to war. The United Nations is the latest and most comprehensive attempt to, as stated in the preamble of the U.N. Charter, "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

A number of treaties regulate warfare, collectively referred to as the laws of war. The most pervasive of those are the Geneva Conventions, the earliest of which began to take effect in the mid 1800s.

Treaty signing has since been a part of international diplomacy, and too many treaties to mention in this scant article have been signed. A couple of examples are: Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference, Geneva, 26 October-29 October 1863 and Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force 21 October 1950. It must be noted that in war such treaties are generally thrown to one side if they interfere with the vital interests of either side; some have criticised such conventions as simply providing a fig leaf for the inhuman practice of war. By only illegalising "war against the rules", it is alleged, such treaties and conventions, in effect, sanction certain types of war.

Redefining "war" for legal reasons

Sometimes the term "war" is restricted by legal definition to those conflicts where one or both belligerents have formally declared war. This has resulted in wars (in the sense defined in the introduction to this article) without formal declaration and combatants who officially choose terms other than "war," such as:

• "armed conflict";
• "state aggression by armed force";
• "police action";
• "crime against international peace".

For example, the United States Government referred to the Korean War as a "police action", and the British Government was very careful to use the term "armed conflict" instead of "war" during the Falklands War in 1982 to comply with the letter of international law. Sometimes the term "war" will not be used in order to circumvent national constitutions which restrict the power of the executive to wage war without the agreement of other branches of government.

Causes of war

There is great debate over why wars happen, even when most people do not want them to. Representatives of many different academic disciplines have attempted to explain war.

Historical theories

Historians tend to be reluctant to look for sweeping explanations for all wars. A. J. P. Taylor famously described wars as being like traffic accidents. There are some conditions and situations that make them more likely but there can be no system for predicting where and when each one will occur. Social scientists criticize this approach arguing that at the beginning of every war some leader makes a conscious decision and that they cannot be seen as purely accidental.

Psychological theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While these theories can explain why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adopted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica.

If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi.

Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal.

A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals.

In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about war being used as one of many ways to distract people. War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a totalitarian state controls its people and prevents revolution.

Anthropological theories

Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live.

Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.

Sociological theories

Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Some use detailed formulas taking into account hundreds of demographic and economic values to predict when and where wars will break out. The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research. So far none of these formulas have successfully predicted the outbreak of future conflicts. A detailed study by Michael Haas found that no single variable has a strong correlation to the occurrence of wars. One correlation that has found much support is that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea known as the democratic peace theory.

Many sociologists have attempted to divide wars into types to get better correlations, but this has also produced mixed results. Data looked at by R.J. Rummel has found that civil wars and foreign wars are very different in origin, but Jonathan Wilkenfield using different data found just the opposite.

Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved.

This differs from the traditional approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argue it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to war.

Information theories

A popular new approach is to look at the role of information in the outbreak of wars. This theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, argues that all wars are based on a lack of information. If both sides at the outset knew the result neither would fight, the loser would merely surrender and avoid the cost in lives and infrastructure that a war would cause.

This is based on the notion that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. This notion is generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Clausewitz. This notion is made harder to accept because it is far more common to study the cause of wars rather than events that failed to cause wars, and wars are far more memorable. However, throughout history there are as many invasions and annexations that did not lead to a war, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1940. On the other hand, Finland's decision to resist a similar Soviet aggression in 1939 led to the Winter War.

The leaders of these nations chose not to resist as they saw the potential benefits being not worth the loss of life and destruction such resistance would cause. Lack of information may not only be to who wins in the immediate future. The Norwegian decision to resist the Nazi invasion was taken with the certain knowledge that Norway would fall. The Norwegians did not know whether the German domination would be permanent and also felt that noble resistance would win them favour with the Allies and a position at the peace settlement in the event of an Allied victory. If in 1940 it had been known with certainty the Germans would dominate central Europe for many decades, it is unlikely the Norwegians would have resisted. If it had been known for certainty that the Third Reich would collapse after only a few years of war, the Nazis would not have launched the invasion at all.

This theory is predicated on the notion that the outcome of wars is not randomly determined, but fully determined on factors such as doctrine, economies, and power. While purely random events, such as storms or the right person dying at the right time, might have had some effect on history, these only influence a single battle or slightly alter the outcome of a war, but would not mean the difference between victory and defeat.

There are two main objectives in the gathering of intelligence. The first is to find out the ability of an enemy, the second their intent. In theory to have enough information to prevent all wars both need to be fully known. The Argentinean dictatorship knew that the United Kingdom had the ability to defeat them, but their intelligence failed them on the question of whether the British would use their power to resist the annexation of the Falklands. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces.

One major difficulty is that in a conflict of interests, some deception or at least not telling everything, is a standard tactical component on both sides. If you think that you can convince the opponent that you will fight, the opponent might desist. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority, and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw Elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.

Economic theories

Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as an outgrowth of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system. That wars begin as a pursuit of new markets, of natural resources, and of wealth. Unquestionably a cause of some wars, from the empire building of Britain to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in pursuit of oil this theory has been applied to many other conflicts including the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is most often advocated by those to the left of the political spectrum who argue that such wars serve only the interests of the wealthy but are fought by the poor.

Marxist theories

The economic theories also form a part of the Marxist theory of war, which argues that all war grows out of the class war. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion. Wars are a natural outgrowth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs.

Types of war and warfare

Smaller armed conflicts are often called riots, rebellions, coups, etc.

When one country sends armed forces to another, allegedly to restore order or prevent genocide or other crimes against humanity, or to support a legally recognized government against insurgency, that country sometimes refers to it as a police action. This usage is not always recognized as valid, however, particularly by those who do not accept the connotations of the term.

"Conventional warfare" descibes either:

• A war between nation-states
• War where nuclear or biological weapons are not used.

(Compare with unconventional warfare and nuclear warfare.)

A war where the forces in conflict belong to the same country or empire or other political entity is known as a civil war. Asymmetrical warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military mechanization. This type of war often results in guerrilla tactics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common example of asymmetrical warfare.

Geographic warfare

The terrain over which a war is fought has a big impact on the type of combat which takes place. This in turn means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific type of terrain. These include:

• Arctic warfare
• Ski warfare
• Desert warfare
• Jungle warfare
• Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare
• Sub-aquatic warfare
• Mountain warfare (sometimes called alpine warfare)
• Urban warfare
• Air warfare
• Space warfare

See also

General

• Undeclared war
• War cycles

Lists

• Ongoing wars
• List of wars
• List of battles
• List of orders of battle
• List of invasions
• List of military commanders

Military knowlegebase

• Military science
• Military technology and equipment
• Military strategy
• Military tactics
• Philosophy of war
• Weapons

Other

• Civil war
• Cold war
• Military-industrial complex
• Nonviolent resistance ("Nonviolence in peace and war" - Mahatma Gandhi)
• Private military contractors
• War profiteer

References

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

War

• Small, Melvin & Singer, David J. (1982). Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816- 1980, Sage Publications. ISBN 0803917775.
• Van Creveld, M. (2000). The Art of War: War and Military Thought, Cassell, Wellington House. ISBN 0304362115.

External links

• Documents and Resources on War, War Crimes and Genocide
• Correlates of War Project
• Correlates of War 2
• Article by Peter Brecke
• The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation
• Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research
• 1986 Seville Statement on Violence
• The Seville Statement on Violence: A Progress Report
• The Myth That War Is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People
• Rough estimates of the number of deaths in various wars and conflicts
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

The following article refers to the instrument of fighting or hunting. For other uses, see Weapon (disambiguation). See military technology and equipment for a comprehensive list of weapons and doctrines.

The bayonet, still used in war as both knife and spearpoint.

A weapon is a tool which can be used during combat to kill or incapacitate, to destroy property, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable. It may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten. The use of weapons has been recorded since the advent of cave painting, and the process has been formulated resulting in both martial arts and strategic doctrines.

Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

History

The weapon is any tool or object that is used to increase the range and power of a human hand. From the earliest traces of mankind up to our modern civilization, weapons have been a facet of human development. Weapons development has accelerated along with other areas of technology in more modern times. In ancient times, from the dawn of humanity through the Classical civilizations of Greece and Rome, weapons were primarily extensions of an individual's strength, essentially making up for the human body's lack of natural weapons such as claws. These weapons allowed the bearer to be substantially more lethal than a similar human without such a weapon.

The Medieval period, including the Middle Ages, marked a period of distinct advancement in weaponry. Due to some of the unique influences of the period, weapons revolved around two major areas. First was that of knights. These horsemen required new weapons, as well as promoting development of weapons to defeat them. Second was that of castles. The building of castles on a large scale necessitated new weapons to help defend and attack them.

The Renaissance marked the beginning of the implementation of combustion based devices in warfare. The most long-lasting effect of this was the introduction of cannon and firearms to the battlefield, where they are still at the core of modern weaponry. However, many other machines of war were experimented with.

From the American Revolution through the beginning of the 20th Century, human-powered weapons were finally excluded from the battlefield for the most part. Sometimes referred to as the Age of Rifles, this period was characterized by the development of firearms for infantry and cannons for support, as well as the beginnings of mechanized weapons such as the machine gun.

World War I marked the entry of fully industrialized warfare, and weapons as well were developed quickly to meet wartime needs. Many new technologies were developed, particularly in the development of military aircraft and vehicles. World War II however, perhaps marked the most frantic period of weapons development in the history of humanity. Massive numbers of new designs and concepts were fielded, and all existing technologies were improved between 1939 and 1945. Ultimately, the most powerful of all invented weapons was the nuclear bomb.

After World War II, with the onset of the Cold War, the constant technological development of new weapons was institutionalized, as participants engaged in a constant race to develop weapons and counter-weapons. This constant state of weapons development continues into the modern era, and remains a constant draw on the resources of most nations.

Ancient Weapons

The basic tasks a weapon must perform have not changed since ancient times. All weapons do one or more of the following:

1. Concentrate pressure: the sharp end of a broken stone or pointed stick will apply more pressure, and do more harm, than the blunt end. A material's hardness determines its ability to apply or resist pressure.
2. Store energy: an object accumulates kinetic energy as a person accelerates it, and releases this energy in a much shorter time frame upon impact, thus magnifying a person's power.
3. Project force: a thrown rock or long stick allow a person to affect an adversary from a distance.

As shown by the preceding examples, even simple items such as rocks and sticks can often serve these functions better than the human body. The usefulness of such tools made their development of paramount importance for a humanity consisting of small, thinly spread, hunter-gatherer communities. The first known traces of weapons are from the stone age with flint knives, handaxes and heads for large darts. There is no evidence for handaxes being thrown, but very good evidence for them having been used to butcher animals. Instead, darts seem to have been a powerful projectile weapon: anthropologists have thrown reconstructed darts through several inches of oak using atlatls. The broad, leaf-shaped heads penetrate deeply, and easily cut arteries.

Bronze age weaponery

Some weapons are probably much older than the dart, although little early evidence for them exists. These include the sling and the spear. Even though these weapons are quite simple, they were a major military weapon at least until Roman times; a unit of fast-moving skirmishers could be equipped with them at very little cost. Lack of early evidence is understandable, as slings are prone to decay, and it would be difficult to prove that a particular stone has been used as ammunition. Similarly, there is less incentive to put a stone point onto a spear than a dart. A weighted spear point is a liability rather than an asset, and the greater momentum imparted by stabbing makes sharpness less critical than toughness, so that points of bone, antler, or even fire-hardened wood can make more effective spear points. Once metal became available, its toughness made spears and pikes the core of most infantry forces.

Some of the earliest evidence for arrows are from ca. 20,000 BC in the Levant (the so-called 'Geometric Kebaran' period), made with several very small sharp pieces of stone embedded in an arrowshaft. Here again, far earlier examples may have been subject to decay: for instance, some cultures make weighted arrow points by cutting a hollow reed diagonally and filling the end segment with clay.

Archery and swords have been crucial for warfare. Archery, because of the large amount of energy that can be easily stored and released using a bow, and short swords because of their lethality in close combat. Far greater energy can be stored in a composite bow than a wooden bow of the same weight due to clever mechanical design and choice of materials, but militarily such weapons were mostly limited to use in dry climates. Traditional designs are held together by animal glue (chemically similar to gelatin); moisture would weaken the glue and damage bows of this design. The long bow makes up for less exotic materials with its larger size. In another tradeoff, short swords can be optimized for either stabbing or chopping; the former focuses on pressure, the latter on energy. The gladius hispaniensis could slip through openings in armor, and Roman doctrine held that a stab wound as shallow as one inch could be lethal. The hatchet-like Greek kopis, by contrast, seems built to dismember, but its point-heavy balance might make it clumsy against comprehensive armor.

The most effective defense to traditional weapons was a fortress. The doctrines to support fortresses in the age of edged weapons may have greatly influenced medieval and noble history. Medieval siege weapons were used in countervailing doctrines, but the stave-sling and even the bow often had superior range, making them unsafe to use.

Combustion-powered weapons

Firearms are qualitatively different from earlier weapons because they store energy in a combustible propellant such as gunpowder, rather than in a weight or spring. This energy is released quite rapidly, and can be restored without much effort by the user, so that even early firearms were much more powerful than human-powered weapons. They became increasingly important and effective during the 16th century to 19th century, with progressive improvements in ignition mechanisms followed by revolutionary changes in ammunition handling and propellant. During the U.S. Civil War various technologies including the machine gun and ironclad warship emerged that would be recognizable and useful military weapons today, particularly in lower-technology conflicts. In the 19th century warship propulsion changed from sail power to fossil fuel-powered steam engines.

The Maxim gun and its derivative the Vickers (shown here) remained in British military service for 79 consecutive years.

The age of edged weapons ended abruptly just before World War I with rifled artillery, such as howitzers which are able to destroy any masonry fortress. This single invention caused a revolution in military affairs and doctrines that continues to this day. See Technology during World War I for a detailed discussion.

An important feature of industrial age warfare was technological escalation - an innovation could, and would, be rapidly matched by copying it, and often with yet another innovation to counter it. The technological escalation during World War I was profound, producing armed aircraft and tanks.

This continued in the period between the end of that war and the next, with continuous improvements of all weapons by all major powers. Many modern military weapons, particularly ground-based ones, are relatively minor improvements on those of World War II. See military technology during World War II for a detailed discussion.

Nuclear Weapons

The most notable development in weaponry since World War II has been the combination and further development of two weapons first used in it—nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile, leading to its ultimate configuration: the ICBM. The mutual possession of these by the United States and the Soviet Union ensured that either nation could inflict terrible damage on the other; so terrible, in fact, that neither nation was willing to instigate direct, all-out war with the other. The indiscriminate nature of the destruction has made nuclear-tipped missiles essentially useless for the smaller wars fought since. However computer-guided weaponry of all kinds, from smart bombs to computer-aimed tank rounds, has greatly increased weaponry's accuracy.

Information Warfare

In modern warfare, since all redoubts are traps, maneuver and coordination of forces is decisive, overshadowing particular weapons. The goal of every modern commander is therefore to "operate within the observation-decision-action cycle of the enemy." In this way, the modern commander can bring overwhelming force to bear on isolated groups of the enemy, and "tactically" overwhelm an enemy.

Traditional military maneuvers tried to achieve this coordination with "fronts" made of lines of military assets. These were formerly the only way to prevent harm to friendly forces. Close-order marching and drill (a traditional military skill) was an early method to get relative superiority of coordination. Derivative methods (such as "leapfrogging units to advance a line") survived into combined arms warfare to coordinate aircraft, artillery, armor and infantry.

Computers are changing this. The most extreme example so far (2003) is the use of "swarm" tactics by the U.S. military in Iraq. The U.S. had instantaneous, reliably encrypted communications, perfect navigation using GPS and computer-mediated communications to aim precision weapons.

In swarm tactics, small units pass through possible enemy territory. When attacked they attempt to survive by calling down immediate overwhelming showers of precision-guided air-dropped munitions for armor, and cluster bombs for enemy troops. To consolidate such a region, nearby artillery begin bombardment, and ground units rush in on safe vectors through the bombardments, avoiding them by computer-mediated navigation aids.

Thus in modern warfare, satellite navigation systems, digital radios and computers give decisive advantages to ordinary military personnel armed with weapons that are otherwise unremarkable.

Types of weapons

There are essentially three facets to classifying weapon types: who uses it, how it works, and what it targets.

Who uses it essentially determines how it can be employed:

• Personal weapons are designed to be used by an individual person.
• Crew served weapons are larger than personal weapons, requiring more than one crew member to operate correctly.
• Fortification weapons are designed to be mounted in a permanent installation, or used primarily within a fortification.
• Mountain weapons are designed for use by mountain forces or those operating in difficult terrain and harsh climates.
• Vehicle weapons are designed to be mounted on any type of military vehicle.
• Railway weapons are designed to be mounted on railway cars, including armored trains.
• Aircraft weapons are designed to be carried on and used by some type of aircraft, helicopter, or other aerial vehicle.
• Naval weapons are designed to be mounted on ships and submarines.
• Space weapons are designed to be used in or launched from space.

How it works refers to the construction of the weapon and how it operates:

• Archery related weapons operate by using a tensioned string to launch a projectile at some target.
• Artillery are large firearms capable of launching heavy projectiles (normally explosive) over long distances.
• Biological weapons spread biological agents, attacking humans (or livestock) by causing disease and infection.
• Chemical weapons spread chemical agents, attacking humans by poisoning and causing reactions.
• Energy weapons rely on concentrating forms of energy to attack, such as lasers, electrical shocks, and thermal or sonic attack.
• Explosive weapons use a physical explosion to create blast concussion or spread shrapnel.
• Firearms use a chemical charge to launch one or more projectiles down a rifled or smoothbore barrel.
• Incendiary weapons rely on combustible materials and an ignition mechanism to cause damage by fire.
• Non-lethal weapons are used to attack and subdue humans, but are designed to minimize the risk of killing the target.
• Magnetic weapon is one that uses magnetic fields to accelerate and propel projectiles, or to focus charged particle beams.
• Mêlée weapons operate as physical extensions of the user's body and directly impact their target.
• Missiles are rockets which are guided to their target after launch. This is also a general term for projectile weapons.
• Nuclear weapons use radioactive materials to create nuclear-fission explosions above a target ("air-burst") or at ground-level.
• Primitive weapons make no use of technological or industrial elements, instead being purely constructed of easily obtainable natural materials.
• Ranged weapons cause a projectile to leave the user and (ideally) strike a target afterwards.
• Rockets use chemical propellent to accelerate a projectile (usually with an explosive warhead) towards a target and are typically unguided once fired.
• Suicide weapons are typically explosive in nature and exploit the willingness of their operator to not survive the attack to reach their target.

What it targets refers to what type of target the weapon is designed to attack:

• Anti-aircraft weapons target enemy aircraft, helicopters, missiles and any other aerial vehicles in flight.
• Anti-fortification weapons are designed to target enemy installations, including bunkers and fortifications.
• Anti-personnel weapons are designed to attack people, either individually or in numbers.