The reported July 13, 2025 drone attack along the Indo-Myanmar border, allegedly targeting camps of the ULFA (I) and PLA using thermobaric munitions, raises grave concerns about the legality and ethics of deploying such weapons under international humanitarian law (IHL). While the Indian Army has denied any involvement, the Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF) claims that Poland-made WARMATE drones carrying thermobaric (vacuum) bombs were used in the strike, leading to the deaths of key insurgent leaders and the destruction of camps through intense heat and pressure.
Thermobaric weapons are not conventional explosives. Unlike traditional bombs that use shrapnel and blast waves for destruction, thermobaric weapons disperse an aerosol of fuel which is then ignited to create a devastating explosion that consumes oxygen in the vicinity. This results in an intense pressure wave and searing heat that can destroy structures and incapacitate or kill individuals in fortified shelters, caves, and enclosed spaces. The humanitarian implication is dire—causing long-lasting suffering, burning, suffocation, and internal injuries.
In his scholarly work “Detonating the Air: The Legality of the Use of Thermobaric Weapons under International Humanitarian Law,” Arthur van Coller, Associate Professor at the University of Fort Hare, delves deeply into the legal and ethical questions surrounding these weapons. He points out that while thermobaric weapons are not explicitly banned under IHL, their use must still comply with the core principles of distinction, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering.
The Principle of Distinction, as defined under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, requires parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. When thermobaric weapons are deployed, especially via drones in contested or civilian-adjacent zones such as the Indo-Myanmar border, the risk of civilian harm increases exponentially due to their indiscriminate nature.
The Principle of Proportionality prohibits attacks if the expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. In asymmetric conflicts—where insurgent groups operate within or near civilian populations—this principle becomes difficult to honor with thermobaric bombs. Their radius of destruction and potential for long-term environmental and human damage challenge proportionality calculations.
The Principle of Unnecessary Suffering—prohibiting weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering—comes into sharper focus in the case of thermobaric weapons. Van Coller argues that the nature of vacuum bombs, which can incinerate human tissue, destroy lungs, and leave survivors with severe trauma, may amount to causing such suffering, especially if less harmful alternatives exist to achieve military objectives.
The RPF’s detailed claim that drone wreckage—identified as Type 3 WARMATEs from 2022, the same batch reportedly used during Operation Sindoor against Pakistan—was recovered from the strike site, adds a layer of forensic plausibility. Given that India is a known operator of the WARMATE system, and that other countries listed as operators have no strategic interest in targeting ULFA (I) or PLA, suspicions naturally tilt toward India. Nonetheless, official denial persists.
If such allegations are true, this presents a deeply troubling scenario. The use of thermobaric drones in low-intensity conflict zones or cross-border insurgency operations is not just a tactical matter—it is a question of international law, state accountability, and the moral boundaries of modern warfare. The denial from the Indian government, if juxtaposed against physical evidence and credible testimonies, might undermine public trust and embolden claims of suppression and manipulation by central authorities in the northeast.
Moreover, the political fallout is not limited to battlefield tactics. Allegations that India is manipulating ethnic and regional divisions in the North East Region (often referred to as WESEA—West East South East Asia) to maintain central control only deepen the mistrust between the people and the state. The repeated accusations of India sowing discord, co-opting corrupt local leaders, and undermining genuine leadership speak to a larger crisis of governance and federal cohesion.
Weaponizing high-tech drone warfare and controversial munitions in the absence of transparency and accountability sets a dangerous precedent. It risks turning disputed border zones and rebel-held territories into unregulated laboratories for testing the limits of warfare—a scenario that endangers civilian lives, destabilizes regions, and erodes the rule of law.
Thermobaric weapons, due to their potential for disproportionate harm and indiscriminate effects, should be subject to greater international scrutiny and regulation. Their use in counter-insurgency, especially within or near civilian zones, must be approached with extreme caution. As van Coller’s analysis reminds us, legality cannot be assessed solely by a weapon’s technical classification. It must be evaluated in light of how it is used, against whom, and at what cost to humanity.
If India or any other state has employed thermobaric drones in active operations, it owes not only a legal explanation to the international community, but a moral one to its own citizens—especially those caught in the crosshairs of geopolitical conflict.