Nonlethal Weapons Use

DefenseTech.org has a very interesting post discussing the possible mis-use of non-lethal weapons (NLW) by military police guarding "enemy combatants" in Iraq and Gitmo. Now, the whole issue of NLW is fascinating and, in my opinion, underreported as to its pros and cons. The Marine Corps recongized the need for alternatives to the use of deadly force long before the rest of the military, no doubt because of their frequent deployment to areas where low-intensity conflict was the norm and combatants mingled freely with the civilians. They pushed for and established a Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate in 1997 to research and develop tools for that purpose. Since then, there have been a smattering of articles about items in development, to include sticky foam, lasers and sonic devices to cause discomfort, and other innovations.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion of the pros and cons of NLW - I think they clearly have a role in low-intensity operations where the military has a mission that will include significant interaction with noncombatants. As the DefenseTech.org article points out, while there is a legitimate reason for military police to use NLWs, there's also the very real danger of the mis-use of NLW to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to "uncooperative" prisoners. This absolutely has to be controlled and stopped, and not doing so is a failure of leadership - not of a few bad apples.

What I'm more interested in reviewing is the report by the UK's Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project. Now my more right-leaning colleagues may instantly dismiss any report that came from the "Centre for Conflict Resolution's Department of Peace Studies" - please, give me a break - but get past that point. There's some very interesting discussions in the report on differing technologies and the pros and cons of employing them. This is a very real defense policy issue that is tied closely with legal concerns as well as succeeding in stability operations. There are also real implications on law enforcement, security, and civil support, such as enforcing quarrentines around terrorist CBRN incident sites (quote in report by ASD(HD) official).

I want to quickly note the discussion on developing chemical and biological NLWs. This has (and continues to be) a very lively debate on what the U.S. government is allowed to develop, in line with existing arms control treaties. The Chemical Weapons Convention does not differentiate between lethal chemical weapons and temporarily incapacitating chemical weapons, although the U.S. Senate insisted on a clause that permitted the use of riot control agents by military personnel for law enforcement and peacekeeping operations. Pages 25-28 of the Bradford report discuss this issue, noting that it is one thing to develop incapacitating or sensory irritants, and another to develop potentially toxic chemicals that use malodorants or calmatives. While military labs have studied the technical feasibility of developing such devices, the legal issues have always prevented any advanced development or employment of specific devices. And of course, there's always the Russian event to cause defense policy makers to pause in considering chemical NLW options.

Read the report - it's very interesting. And let me leave you with this rant from OSD (pp. 21-22):

Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. She encouraged those present to keep repeating a positive message particularly when there was a negative story published, and not to shy away from commenting. If there was negative coverage about an important programme that could be derailed by the general public or congress then they would ‘really go after them’, she said. She indicated that officials would give increased information access to ‘bread and butter military journalists’ as opposed to the ‘60 minutes type journalists’ in return for more positive coverage. She also advocated a strategy of targeting military analysts working for various news media and getting them on message. She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’.

Those damn bloggers. They need to learn their place...

UPDATE: Thanks CKR for adding the link to the report. I should have caught that.

Comments

[CKR]

Link to Bradford Report (pdf).

One problem with antipersonnel NLWs is that they have to have some physiological effect, like mental confusion or pain from rapid heating or blinding by light flash. Those effects can damage some people permanently, or even kill them. For targets of young strong healthy soldiers, this is less likely than for random civilian targets.

The other Russian example, the hostage-taking in the Moscow theater, illustrates another problem. Dose is important, even for the healthy and strong, and NLW are used in situations where it may not be possible to control dose (or power level or equivalent) closely.

Either or both of these effects may be misused in interrogation situations. Of course, the basic problem there is in the rules of interrogation.

Yet another problem is that the military find it hard to take a weapon seriously that isn't intended to take people out of action permanently. For these purposes, the old faithful bullets and bombs do quite nicely, without the high-tech delicacies of some of the NLWs. Or at least this was the situation a few years back. Perhaps this is changing as the nature of military engagements changes, although John Alexander's frustrations suggest perhaps not.

Antimaterial NLWs have fewer of these downsides, but the report looks like they are not being researched to the extent that antipersonnel NLWs are. And their status under the CWC and BWC is not clear.

Finally, the Bradford report notes that the bad guys can get hold of these weapons and use them. Mace was reported to have been used on one of the 9/11 planes. Duh.

[gandhi]

Is there such a thing as a non lethal weapon?

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

Yes there is. A stun gun is a non-lethal weapon, at least if it is used correctly, because it incapacitates a person without killing them. Pepper-spray is another example.

[J.]

There are lots of nonlethal weapons. Read the report. Nets, stun guns, sprays, foam, rubber bullets, etc etc. Anything that will temporarily incapacitate and is not intended to permanently injure/incapacitate. And don't start with that "well rubber bullets can kill." A water ballon can kill if it's misused.

CKR, I think maybe you miss some of the point, the military DOES want NLW because (at least the Marines) they see that the future warfare (fourth generation warfare) which involves combatants mixing with the civilians requires it. Like any weapon system, if you use it the way it's intended, you get predictable results and usually the ones you want. The CWC/BWC part is only addressing the desire for calmatives and RCA-type NLWs, there are lots of others. I just wanted to point people in the direction of the report because I thought it added a good discussion to the table.

[Doran]

I do think there's an important place for NLW, but my concern is that enforcement authorities seem more likely to use these weapons when they are not needed. I'm reminded of the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles a few years which resulted in 7 reporters filing a lawsuit (Crespo v. Los Angeles) after being shot at with rubber bullets and hit with batons while they were covering the convention. Several of these reporters required medical attention to treat their injuries. If this is what happens to reporters in one of our major U.S. cities, one can imagine the possibilities for abuse in a military situation.

Finally, as the report indicates, it's important to note that Non-Lethal is not the same as Non-Injuring. Thus, while there is indeed a place for NLW, they also raise their own set of issues regarding possible abuse.