Developing Nonlethal Weapons

I would prefer that they be so frightened of me that they never dare start something in the first place. Of course, this is much more a matter of attitude than of arms. The United States already possesses the most powerful military machine in the world, but terrorists attack us on a regular basis. Why is this, do you suppose? The answer is really quite simple.

For two centuries, the American attitude might have been correctly stated as "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Mess with us and we will destroy you." Or perhaps "Give me a live American, or the body of the man who killed him."

But now? We have allowed people and nations to overrun our embassies, take our people hostage, and commit other acts of war against us without response, and we prosecute our own soldiers. Small wonder these two-bit countries feel no fear of us. And no new weapons or capabilities are going to change that.

I have said this before and I will say it again. International politics is like the school yard, and bullies only pick on those who refuse to fight back, no matter how big they are. But let us also remember what happens when that peace-loving big guy gets fed up with the bullying, seizes the bully by the throat and slams him up against a wall. Suddenly the bully is revealed as the coward that he truly is.

Understand something. The true professional military man hates fighting. But, if we have to fight, we want, above all other things, to win. Those of you who send those like me to fight owe us the best weapons you can possibly provide us with, and rules of engagement that don't hamstring us before a shot is fired. And especially, don't saddle us with useless "non-lethal" weapons.

Point us at the enemy and then get the hell out of the way, and we'll win the damned war for you as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we can get back to the more important business of eating, sleeping and chasing girls.

Lethal weapons are the preferred choice for winning a war. I can see a real use for non-lethal weapons for winning a peace.

What I mean is after the war comes the occupation period before the withdrawal. During the occupation the war for the hearts and minds of those that have been conquered goes on in earnest. This is where I think a non-lethal weapon may be useful. It doesn't get the people in the house next door to the terrorist offside when you take them out.

Collateral damage is hard to explain to a mother and father who's kids have just been killed. Now consider the effect when you hand their kids back to them alive but somewhat shaken after a non-lethal attack that achieves the desired result. Your credibility level skyrockets.

Australia has recently been a destination of choice for refugees from Afghanistan. (Why would you want to leave?) The Australian Navy has been intercepting these boats and escorting them to internment camps for processing. Occasionally one of these boats will try to damage the boat to the point that it sinks and they have to be taken onto the Navel vessel. This has something to do with a navel vessel being the sovereign territory of the flag that it carries and therefore you have landed on that country once you have boarded. A non-lethal weapon could be useful in this instance to temporarily disable/disorient the crew and passengers to allow boarding unopposed. This would go along way to prevent fires and explosions that put everyone at risk.

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."~ Abraham Maslow (Sorry this is not in latin)

A non lethal weapon just gives you another tool in the toolbox.

BAB.

these things are primarily used against civilians.. so NO, there should not be any more focus on development... unless you can think up non-lethal weapons for use on politicians, bankers, insurance moguls, and various other select groups.

Chris

Non-Lethal Weapons make a lot of sense for non-deadly (long term) enemies. Idiots locked up in their house taunting the police and SWAT teams for instance. If someone is shooting at you there does not seem to be any point in pulling punches... Political and Religious enemies are deep-seated differences and you will never convert them (especially religious - does this sound familiar?).

One place where it might make sense is in creating a periphery where it would be plain uncomfortable or possibly deadly with long-term exposure to occupy the space. It would have a great effect on the ability of snipers and special forces to attack your (personal) position. However, who would get these tools, and how long until we would want to infiltrate their (personal) position?

Don't ever supply anyone with a weapon - they will only use it against you eventually...

If you could blanket the last 3 miles before anyone could reach your headquarters with complete and total discomfort, it would be pretty hard for anyone or anything to get in or out, but how do you make those within the periphery comfortable, and how do you get supplies in and out? If you can defeat it, then it is only a matter of time before someone else can defeat it.

Most importantly as the war dog suggested, the point of war is complete and total shock and awe eliminating all further threats altogether. Something less than deadly is only an inconvenience, and would have no effect on subjecting an enemy. It would only temporarily make them less of a foe. Again, in a situation of needing to arrest a perpetrator and put them in jail (forever?), then it might have great merit that would make the police look better. A dead man had no right to a trial, but an innocent man can be acquitted. If there is question (sanity, temporary flashback or drug issues), then this may make sense (civilian!).

But warfare is not about being friendly and the sooner we learn this as a nation the sooner we can actually win the war we are currently fighting. There will be collateral and civilian damage any time you are fighting a holy war (we may not feel that way, but our godless enemies most surely do). You have to accept that, try to minimize it if practical, then awesomely, devastatingly, and completely take on your enemy and don't let up until they waive the white flag and submit to arrest or surrender. Then you watch them for a very long time with a very close eye. If there is any sign of reviving the threat, you annihilate the perpetrators.

My biggest fear with non-lethal weapons is whose government gets them, and what is the chance they will use them on the people of their own country? Someone said "use them on the politicians", but remember, they will likely get them first, and be more able to use them on us if we make comments like that... An armed citizenry is a safe citizenry. If 'Bamma decides he wants to disarm us, his only hope is to put us all asleep so he can walk into our houses and take all our arms all at one time. If he tries to do it one house at a time while we are all conscious, I hope to God someone will get wise and start resisting. This is the point our forefathers were making when they wrote our Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights and our Second Amendment.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Surely there is a requirement for both lethal and non lethal.

In police work, non lethal should have a big place, but there are still occasions when the lethal option needs to be available.

For the military, the initial phase of any war will require lethal force, otherwise you will simply allow the enemy to conserve their forces and increase your casualties later.

When it comes to street fighting, house to house, a mix will be needed, together with robot surveillance around corners and in rooms.

If someone is armed to the teeth ready to die himself as long as he takes his opponent with him, lethal force is usually indicated.

When civilians are huddled in a room with perhaps one fighter keeping them there, the non lethal option would be attractive.

After the war, during the stabilization of the country, the use of non lethal weapons will be increasingly indicated as conditions calm down and resistance becomes sporadic.

The risk is that the attraction of the non lethal option will lead to politicians equipping troops with more non lethal stuff when lethal is needed to complete a viable mix.

The 2 types have complementary rather than exclusive roles.

Unfortunately, the attraction to the power hungry types of using non lethal to control their own citizens and maintain their power means that non lethal will almost certainly be used against us.

Only as power remains in the hands of the people can this threat be minimized.

Vested interests, from big business, big politics, bureaucracy, (even academia these days) etc will always do their best to undermine the power of the people. This can only be counteracted by vigilance on the part of ordinary citizens.