War without death? How non-lethal weapons could change warfare

The effectiveness of nonlethal weapons reducing noncombatant deaths and collateral damage and bridging the gap between lethality and a show of force depends on intention, not capability.

Now, more than ever, soldiers understand the types of wars being fought and the enemy they are facing. Ground forces are expected to demonstrate maturity and discipline and feel confident handling their weapon systems, but confidence can only be attained as a result of training.

Only through familiarization, qualification, testing, simulations, and exercises will forces confidently and responsibly employ NLWs.

Senior military planners need to consider the ramifications of sending soldiers into a hostile environment armed only with lethal weapons. The resulting destruction means dealing with political, economic, social, infrastructural, and information challenges. NLWs allow for intangibles that lethal weapons do not.

Some still assert that a nonlethal approach to warfare is foolish. But this is an age when stories and images are transmitted in real time all over the world by way of cellular telephones, satellite communications, Internet access, and 24-hour news outlets. Having so many casualties caused by the US is what seems foolish.

When combined with well-trained and well-placed ground troops, using more nonlethal weapons could have a profound effect on how wars are fought.

Miscommunications and misunderstandings might not yield more than a bruised or hurt ego, and mistakes will not result in death. Reestablishing structures and services would require minimal resources, communities would remain intact, and coalition efforts could be directed toward investments and improvements, rather than rebuilding and damage control.

If the US integrates NLWs into its doctrine and operations, it is likely that our allies and other nations will follow. And that would be a good thing. If the US casts doubt on the efficacy of NLWs in irregular warfare, it is likely to significantly impede further NLW development.

Neither the president nor the National Security Council has weighed in on the debate and issued a formal policy on NLWs. The Department of Defense issued the Directive Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons in 1996, and although it is a well-intentioned effort, support from the president or National Security Council would provide a significant boost for NLW proponents and support US efforts to demonstrate restraint, and would reduce the catastrophic effects associated with war.

Richard L. Scott is the fire support officer for the 21st Calvary Brigade (Air Combat) at Fort Hood, Texas.

--

Want to join the conversation? Follow The Christian Science Monitor on Facebook. We're on Twitter, too.

Previous

1 | 2