Problems of using non-lethal weapons.
Jane's Defence Weekly.- 1996 .- 25, №10.-P. 6; № 13 .- P. 6.
Jane's Defence Contracts.- 1996 .- November.- P. 4,5.
Problems of using «non-lethal weapons»
As noted in Jane's Defence Weekly, there has been a debate for over two years about which name for the new weapon best captures the concept of «non-lethal weapons». The debate concerns two names: «non-lethal weapons» (NLW) and «less than lethal weapons» (LLW). The differences between these names are that each refers to technological or operational aspects of the new weapon. The most commonly used term is «non-lethal weapons», i.e. NLW, and in particular, a recent NATO seminar was called: «Non-lethal weapons».
Specific types of «non-lethal weapons» have been identified that are already finding various applications or are considered promising for future use.
The following are considered «non-lethal weapons».
1. Sleep aerosols — these are soporific aerosols that are absorbed by the lungs and skin of a person.
2. Tear gases CN/CS and similar substances (crystals of tear gas mixed with water). Israel supplies a hand-held gas dispenser weighing 7.7 kg and having a range of 18 m, as well as a small, vehicle-mounted, pulse water cannon. These devices can spray tear gases or aqueous solutions of similar substances in areas where rioters are concentrated.
3. Plastic bullets are used for shooting from distances of up to 100 m.
Weapons that temporarily disable people have been used by US police for several years. They also use mechanical networks that are switched on under voltage, the use of which can be accompanied by spraying aerosols from water cannons.
Weapons aimed at countering enemy operations are also being developed. These include the following types.
1. Superlubricants — friction-killing substances that can be dropped from airplanes onto roads and sidewalks, making them completely unsuitable for vehicles and pedestrians. However, their use can have serious environmental consequences.
2. Metallic reflective dipoles are used to interfere with enemy radar.
The following are considered to be means of influencing human vision.
1. flashes of light that cause disorientation and nausea in humans. There are already battery-powered flashlights that are inserted into the barrel of a gun and can temporarily disable people with powerful flashes;
2. An optical weapon containing a laser or isotropic emitter of electromagnetic waves that can temporarily blind people (but can also cause more serious damage). The source of isotropic radiation is an omnidirectional broadband light source. Experiments with optical weapons that also contain directional radiation sources are ongoing to study their effect on enemy light-sensitive devices. But such experimental weapons can damage the eyesight of operators;
3. Low-energy lasers that can also temporarily blind people. There are already examples of such lasers powered by portable batteries that can be inserted into the barrel of a gun. At least one such laser is already in the possession of one Western country. The U.S. Department of Defense has banned its armed forces from using such a laser or other similar devices that can blind people.
The following are considered as means of physical damage to the enemy's material part.
1. Liquid substances that cause embrittlement of metals LEM (Liquid metall Embrittlement Materials), which can be applied to various metal structures (bridges, ships, aircraft) to weaken their strength.
2. Superalkalis and superacids that can destroy vehicle tires, asphalt pavement, optical instruments and glass, and shoe soles. Jelly bullets can destroy optical systems or visual surveillance systems of armored vehicles.
3. Pulsed chemical lasers used to form compressed plasma in front of a target. The resulting elastic waves can affect both the enemy's materiel and manpower. Testing of such lasers continues in the United States.
4. Polymers in the form of adhesive substances or foams that can block air intake openings and channels, hinder the movement of people and vehicles. These substances can be sprayed over airfields, ship decks. They can also be sprayed from containers in which they are under pressure, and filled with them in rooms for detaining violators.
5. Substances that change the properties of fuel. These include means of disrupting the normal functioning of technical systems and equipment of the enemy.
6. Coal dust, applied to communication lines, power plants and power lines in enemy territory, can be used to transmit electric currents through its layers, causing short circuits in electrical equipment and electronic devices.
7. Electromagnetic pulses, capable of disrupting the normal functioning of many computer systems, navigation and communication systems. Beam weapons of this type, which are under development, can detonate ammunition with electronic fuses.
8. Powerful ultra-high-frequency radiation that can be used for the same purposes as electromagnetic pulses. Transmitted by directional antennas, such radiation can disrupt the operation of enemy underground communications.
9. Directed energy weapons, which are: concentrated beams of elementary particles generated by various physical reactions of interaction; energy focused on the attacked targets with high precision, capable of covering the target area with spherically spreading radiation.
Manufacturers of military weapons know that their weapons are designed to kill. So do the governments that purchase them. But if a government buys weapons that temporarily incapacitate people, or super lubricants that can cause vehicle accidents, then the question arises as to who is responsible for the tragic consequences that may result from their use.
When a soldier is sent into combat, he knows that he may be killed and that he himself will have to kill. But if he is sent to carry out peacekeeping operations, the situation is not so clear. If a soldier's «non-lethal weapon» on a peacekeeping mission kills someone, or if a net thrown over a crowd of rioters causes someone to go into a lethal hysteria, what consequences might this have? Gas sprayed over a crowd covered with netting could also kill people with weak hearts. Rubber bullets have been shown to kill and are excluded from the list of means used for pacification.
The question arises whether the manufacturer of a «non-lethal weapon» should in such cases, bear legal responsibility for the fact that his weapon is not, in fact, «non-lethal.»
In the United States, it is common for victims to sue for damages caused to them. Germany also has a strong civil rights lawyering industry, and other Western countries are familiar with this option. Police in the UK recently gained the right to sue their superiors for personal injuries suffered during riot control operations.
Will peacekeeping soldiers in the future be able to claim compensation for emotional distress if they unintentionally kill someone using a «less-lethal weapon»?
There are many questions that must be answered before the international community can accept that «non-lethal weapons» live up to their name. A report prepared by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) makes various political, strategic, operational, and moral judgments about «non-lethal weapons.» The report warns against «unrealistic expectations» that could hinder the development, acquisition, and use of these weapons. The latter are designed to minimize the risk to human life, but there can be no guarantee that in practice «non-lethal weapons» will always be completely non-lethal.
The U.S. Department of Defense will soon approve an official policy on the use of «non-lethal weapons.» It was developed taking into account the recommendations of the US Congress on the need for a more organized approach to developing requirements for such weapons and unifying the actions of the branches of the armed forces to acquire them.
This policy defines «non-lethal weapons» as weapons specifically designed and used to incapacitate enemy personnel and equipment while minimizing the risk of death or permanent damage. DoD policy addresses key issues, including under what circumstances such weapons should be used and what types of weapons may be acquired by the U.S. military.
More critical issues addressed by the policy include whether enemy soldiers should be killed or left alive but maimed, and whether the use of hallucinogenic or psychotropic substances with sedative effects violates the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The Army and Marine Corps have clarified the requirements for «non-lethal weapons» intended for use against enemy personnel and materiel.
The US Department of Defense's Committee on «non-lethal weapons» is finalizing a strategy for their acquisition for the armed forces. This strategy envisages annual expenditures of $10-15 million over the next three years for the purchase of such weapons. In the 1996 fiscal year, $6 million was allocated for this purpose. It is assumed that these funds will be used to finance new and existing programs. Programs to be implemented after 1996 include:
- the use of ultrasound to influence people. Ultrasound is not perceived by human hearing, but causes vibration of its internal organs. As a result, changes in the rhythm of the pulse and breathing and the appearance of a feeling of nausea are possible;
- the use of rubber non-penetrating bullets, the device of stopping vehicles, nets and barriers that stop the movement of people and transport.
The new programs include the development of radio frequency devices and instruments for use against people and material objects; the creation of non-blinding lasers, optoelectronic devices not intended for observation, the use of holography as a means of psychological warfare, and the use of sedatives.
Plans are currently being considered for the broader use of «non-lethal weapons», including the seizure of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons sites.
One concept involves using a sprayable foam that hardens quickly and prevents movement of people and vehicles.
NATO's Defense Research Group hopes to complete an initial analysis of possible joint research into «non-lethal weapons» soon.
Under new DoD plans, the Marine Corps could be given responsibility for coordinating the development and acquisition of «non-lethal weapons» for all branches of the U.S. military.
The Commissioner, appointed from the Marine Corps, will coordinate the activities of all branches of the service and the Special Operations Command in the area of »non-lethal weapons». The Commissioner's primary task is to develop a program for the research, development, testing, evaluation, and acquisition of «non-lethal weapons» for 1997 and beyond. He will also recommend new advanced concepts for the use of «non-lethal weapons» in military operations in urban environments.
In place of the current DOD Committee on «non-lethal weapons», a Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Integral Problem Group is being created. This group will be chaired by a Marine Corps representative, and his deputy will be an Army representative. This group will also coordinate with other government agencies and departments interested in the development of «non-lethal weapons», such as the Ministry of Justice and others.