The Military's Non-Lethal Weapon Wishlist.

[El Mahdi]

Sometimes the military would prefer its enemies writhing in pain as opposed to dead on the ground. For times like that, it enlists the Joint Non-Lethal Directorate, which produces a reference book of in-use and next-generation fantasy weapons for the military. Oftentimes, many of these weapons remain secret but as Danger Room's cunning Katie Drummond writes today, the reference book was leaked last week, exposing an inventory of weapons straight out of a Marvel comics series. Here are some of the ones that caught our eye, some conceptual, others already in existence.

The Military's Wish LIst for Non-Lethal Weapons - Yahoo! News

 

[Jack7]

I wish though they do far more work with sonics and sub-sonics, especially sonic beams enwrapped in carrier waves.

One thing I've always wondered though, is why so little emphasis compartively speaking concerning radio and television waves and ECM against ship board communications from coordinated sub-platforms.

I really like the new Naval micro-drones however.

You know the first line is interesting because my father always used to say to me, "strategically speaking, in a big fight you want more enemy wounded than dead."

When I asked him why one day he said, "because a lot of resources go into recovering and treating injured men. Injured men cost heavy in a protracted war. It'd be really nice to have weapons that beat the hell out of and badly wound and cripple large numbers of enemies, but stop short of killing them. It wouldn't take long of that kinda fighting and most nations wouldn't have the stomach for it. Dead men you bury, large numbers of badly wounded men you can't hide for long. Societies have to just keep eating that, or call it quits. In a big fight wound badly and wound often. Then let em come and get whatever is left."

That statement, ironically and humorously enough, was one of my first introductions to the concept of non-lethal and less than lethal weapons. Heavy on the less than lethal.

 

[frankthedm]

The most insidious aspect of less lethal weapons is they can bypass the psychological reluctance to kill. An enforcer called to fire in a situation in a situation of questionable justness will have less reluctance to fire with a weapon that won't likely kill the target. While a less lethal weapon won't change a unlawful order to a lawful order, by taking away the LETHALITY of pulling that trigger, it makes the order more palatable.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I just don't know, with all the pros and cons of non-lethal weapons, you still have the issues with POWs and non-combatants.

(careful here as it could break rules)

see these more as a police weapon rather than military weapons.

 

[jonesy]

That statement, ironically and humorously...

see these more as a police weapon rather than military weapons.

That's the other insidious part. Because people keep thinking them as 'non-lethal' they'll end up with the police and security. Tasers kill. Just wait until someone gets to wash civilians with the heat weapon.

 

[Jack7]

The most insidious aspect of less lethal weapons is they can bypass the psychological reluctance to kill. An enforcer called to fire in a situation in a situation of questionable justness will have less reluctance to fire with a weapon that won't likely kill the target. While a less lethal weapon won't change a unlawful order to a lawful order, by taking away the LETHALITY of pulling that trigger, it makes the order more palatable.

That's an interesting statement I could read in 3 different ways, though I think I know what you're shooting at.

Just wait until someone gets to wash civilians with the heat weapon.

There are no good riot or crowd control non-lethals or less than lethals. Because in large groups of peoples the military, police, or any peace-keepers cannot possibly know the physical disposition or positional disposition of everyone in a crowd (especially a fluid one) and so the peacekeepers can only weigh the situation as they perceive it.

If a crowd is causing mayhem, committing arson, or endangering the local population or peace then peacekeepers have to decide if the use of NLs and LTLs will suppress the general violence, or possibly increase it by causing a stampede or some other panic reaction.

All the peacekeepers can do is assess and decide each circumstance based on the best available information. It will, in my opinion, be a very long time (if ever) before there is anything like a generally and consistently effective NL or LTL Weapon's system for Crowd Control.

One things weapon developers could do is try to tie their systems to good information gathering and communications systems that would give them better analytical and assessment data on any given situation, or that might let them divide riot areas into grids of high violence, moderate violence, and low violence.

Then act quickly against areas of high violence, encircle and suppress areas of moderate violence (with a more moderate response), and ignore or merely monitor areas of low violence. In most riots and unruly crowds there is a relatively small number of actively violent individuals and small groups involved in physical and criminal incidents.

Target those effectively and you will quickly suppress the overall violence levels of the unruly mob. Good Intel gathering undercover teams and equipment and communications will allow you to discriminate quickly and effectively. Also a really good (and I know this is some time off as well) Non-lethal Sniping system would be ideal for such situations.

But again anything used against a crowd is potentially far more likely to cause unintended harm than a system deployed against a single individual, or small group of individuals, that you can observe beforehand.

I know a lot of people think the NL and LTL systems true effectiveness will depend on exactly what it does, but in my opinion exactly what it does will be far more effective, and far less dangerous overall, if it is employed as part of a good information warfare system as well.

 

[Jack7]

AP Newswire | Stars and Stripes

This is sorta tangentially related, but a buddy of mine, retried now though he had a lot of experience at Bragg, put up this article, and personally I think this is very, very long overdue.

I've long said that Special Operators should be part Warrior, part Intel agent, part Espionage agent, part Detective, and part Saboteur, among other things, and not just Special Combat Warfare Operatives (though in truth, operationally, they haven't been for a long time).

So I'm very glad to see this school, and this approach.

 

[Bullgrit]

Those weapons will do jack all against the zombies.

Bullgrit

 

[Jack7]

Those weapons will do jack all against the zombies.

And Trolls. Most of those weapons would probably do little against Trolls. Though a good microwave hotfoot might send em packing.

 

[Jack7]

I just don't know, with all the pros and cons of non-lethal weapons, you still have the issues with POWs

That's what my dad was saying. You don't try and take large numbers of POWs unless you really can't help it. You injure the enemy troops badly enough, but don't kill them, and instead of then over-running the area immediately you let the enemy recover their own injured so that they have to devote resources to their recovery. It's a different way of looking at non-lethal weapons, not just as a non-lethal platform, but as a "crippling tool." Though in truth what my dad meant was really less than letahl wepaons, though that was well before the modern terms and ideas had developed. Less than lethal in a Big War (say a World War) would replace lethal or even non-lethal as the standard and no attempt would be made to take POWs, instead the injured enemy would be left for the injured enemy to deal with.

That kinda thing is a big drain on enemy resources. Physically and psychologically.

It was a theory he was positing on exhausting enemy resources over the long run. But of course it would require weapons that injured severely enough that injured combatants wouldn't usually be rotated back in again to the fight, but didn't always kill.

However, and just to be pragmatic about it, if you were fighting the Communists in a big slog (and that's who my dad was expecting to fight, the Russians - and me too until my thirties), or Nazis, or even terrorists, they might very well abandon their injured for the US to recover and treat.

Then you're right back to square one on the resource drain, except for the valuable Intel you might recover from injured and convalescing combatants.