Mikhail Kalashnikov and moral responsibility

Two days ago, on December 23rd, Mikhail Kalashnikov, creator of the AK-47 died in his hometown of Izhevsk. His rifle was sold more than 100 million times, one out of six small arms worldwide is a Kalashnikov rifle. It is arguably responsible for the deaths of more people in battle than weapons of mass destruction of the chemical, biological and nuclear variety. The Kalashnikov rifle is a symbol for rebellion, civil war and terror. Confronted with this, Mikhail Kalashnikov replied: “I created a weapon to defend the fatherland’s borders. It’s not my fault that it was sometimes used where it shouldn’t have been. This is the fault of politicians”.

His statement appears to be quite cynical, but is it really? From a pacifistic perspective it most certainly is, for any weapon is a tool of war. But given that his fatherland was under attack and had to be defended against ruthless invaders, pacifism was off the table. As a soldier in the Great Patriotic War (as the Soviet propaganda called the Eastern Front of World War II) who personally experienced the superiority of the first assault rifles - especially the Nazi-German Sturmgewehr 44 - over carabiners (unfortunately on the wrong end of the muzzle), his ambition to create a small arm that would be able to counter the enemy's firepower is quite understandable. 

Is it morally wrong to create a weapon? That might depend on several factors:

• The weapon's purpose 
• The weapon's extend of destruction 
• The type of wounds the weapon causes 
• The likelihood of abuses from its intended purpose
• etc.

Mikhail Kalashnikov, the passionate communist and patriot, wanted to use his technical skills to enable his homeland to defend itself against current and future threats and aggressions. Unfortunately, his weapon was not only the answer to the lack of assault rifles in the Soviet stockpiles, but it became a means of politics for the communist regime he invented it for. The USSR equipped not only itself and its Warsaw Pact allies, but also other friendly regimes, self-proclaimed communist autocrats, rebel groups and independence fighters all over the globe. The purpose he intended for the AK-47 was a different one than what the UDSSR regime had in mind with his invention. But not even they could foresee the extend of destruction that the Kalashnikov rifle would create.

It is difficult to imagine that Mikhail Kalashnikov intended his invention to become the single most deadly WMD in the world. It was supposed to become the answer to a great threat on the battlefield and to defend his fatherland in the future. In my opinion, Mikhail Kalashnikov, the 17th child of peasants in eastern Russia, can hardly be hold responsible for not foreseeing the widespread misuse of his AK-47 that we witness today. 

On a visit to Germany in 2002, Mikhail Kalashnikov said: "I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists, I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower."

----------------------------------

I am currently reading a very comprehensive book about the background and social history of the Kalashnikov rifle, C.J. Chivers' The Gun. It covers a variety of topics, spanning from the invention of the first  rapid-fire weapons to the impact of AK-47 proliferation on modern battlefields. The author also has a frequently updated blog.