thedrifter
12-09-02, 02:17 PM
By Otto Kreisher
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2002
WASHINGTON – During a search for illegal weapons, U.S. troops on peacekeeping duties in Kosovo encountered a large and hostile crowd. When the mob began throwing rocks that injured some soldiers, the troops were forced to employ their weapons in self-defense.
But instead of a deadly fusillade from their rifles, the troops used nonlethal devices that dispersed the crowd without serious injuries and allowed the mission to proceed.
That episode, Marine Col. David Karcher said, illustrates why there is a growing need for nonlethal weapons in the military's arsenal.
"They provide a commander more choices, something between a bullhorn and a bullet," said Karcher, director of a small multiservice organization that develops nonlethal technology for military use.
With a growing number of humanitarian and peacekeeping missions and the greater prospects for operations in urban areas, where fighters mingle with noncombatants, "the need is becoming clearer and clearer," said Karcher, head of the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate at Quantico, Va., Marine Corps Base.
The equipment the organization tests ranges from low-tech devices such as shotguns firing beanbags to exotic directed-energy gadgets that cause a burning sensation.
While acknowledging that such tools may be preferable to conventional military weapons in many cases, some human rights activists worry that the devices may be more harmful than the "nonlethal" label suggests or may be used by the military in domestic situations.
"Nonlethal is a misnomer," said Kerry Boyd of the Arms Control Association, who noted that the military prefers the term "less-than-lethal."
Even so, "in my view, there are some positives. There are some situations in which it would be nice for the military or the police to have less-than-lethal weapons," Boyd said.
"But I have concerns, particularly when you get to the issues of calmatives," she said, referring to the type of chemical the Russians used to end a hostage situation in a Moscow theater.
More than 100 hostages died of the effects of the supposedly nonlethal gas.
Karcher said his organization is not conducting any research on such agents. But Boyd said there were experiments in the past and noted that the National Research Council mentioned calmatives in a Nov. 4 report that urged accelerated efforts on nonlethal weapons.
Dan Koslofsky, an aide at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, viewed nonlethal weapons "more with optimism than concern. Their focus is for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions," which the arms-control community support, he said.
"The real concern among the civil libertarian community is that they would be used in domestic situations," Koslofsky added.
Although the nonlethal directorate's focus has been on "operations other than war," such as peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, its fact sheet notes the weapons "are useful across the range of military operations."
A U.S. law says the nonlethal weapons are "explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate personnel or material, while minimizing fatalities or permanent injury to intended targets and collateral damage to property and the environment."
The fact sheet, however, says the weapons "are not required to have zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries but are designed and employed in a manner that significantly reduces those probabilities" compared to usual military weapons.
Every device the office explores is evaluated first for its compliance with U.S. law and international treaties, such as the chemical weapons ban or the Geneva conventions on war.
They then are tested rigorously to determine their potential harmful effects, first on animals and later on humans.
"Some nonlethal weapons can have unintended effects. We try to find that and minimize it," said Air Force Lt. Col Mark Wrobl, the chief health effects officer.
The military currently provides its units with a variety of nonlethal devices. Most of it is basic law-enforcement equipment such as face masks, plastic shields and shin guards to protect against projectiles, riot batons, battery-powered bullhorns and high-intensity lights, plastic handcuffs, various dispensers for pepper gas – an improved form of tear gas – and several weapons that fire small beanbags or rubber pellets.
It also has more elaborate tools, including a portable device that deploys a strong net-like barrier that stops a vehicle and wraps around the doors so the occupants cannot get away.
But all of the current devices are effective at relatively short ranges. Much of the research now is focused on equipment that can work at greater distances, Karcher and his deputies said.
One such project is the Active Denial System, a vehicle-mounted directed energy transmitter that creates painful heat on the skin but has no permanent effect.
Other long-range projects involve lasers that could stop a vehicle or a vessel or create a dazzling light without damaging a person's eyes.
Karcher said his office also is monitoring tests by the Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency involving free-electron lasers. Although the Navy sees the device as a potential weapon against missiles and small vessels, Karcher said it might be possible to lower the energy levels to make the free-electron laser a nonlethal tool.
Sempers,
Roger
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2002
WASHINGTON – During a search for illegal weapons, U.S. troops on peacekeeping duties in Kosovo encountered a large and hostile crowd. When the mob began throwing rocks that injured some soldiers, the troops were forced to employ their weapons in self-defense.
But instead of a deadly fusillade from their rifles, the troops used nonlethal devices that dispersed the crowd without serious injuries and allowed the mission to proceed.
That episode, Marine Col. David Karcher said, illustrates why there is a growing need for nonlethal weapons in the military's arsenal.
"They provide a commander more choices, something between a bullhorn and a bullet," said Karcher, director of a small multiservice organization that develops nonlethal technology for military use.
With a growing number of humanitarian and peacekeeping missions and the greater prospects for operations in urban areas, where fighters mingle with noncombatants, "the need is becoming clearer and clearer," said Karcher, head of the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate at Quantico, Va., Marine Corps Base.
The equipment the organization tests ranges from low-tech devices such as shotguns firing beanbags to exotic directed-energy gadgets that cause a burning sensation.
While acknowledging that such tools may be preferable to conventional military weapons in many cases, some human rights activists worry that the devices may be more harmful than the "nonlethal" label suggests or may be used by the military in domestic situations.
"Nonlethal is a misnomer," said Kerry Boyd of the Arms Control Association, who noted that the military prefers the term "less-than-lethal."
Even so, "in my view, there are some positives. There are some situations in which it would be nice for the military or the police to have less-than-lethal weapons," Boyd said.
"But I have concerns, particularly when you get to the issues of calmatives," she said, referring to the type of chemical the Russians used to end a hostage situation in a Moscow theater.
More than 100 hostages died of the effects of the supposedly nonlethal gas.
Karcher said his organization is not conducting any research on such agents. But Boyd said there were experiments in the past and noted that the National Research Council mentioned calmatives in a Nov. 4 report that urged accelerated efforts on nonlethal weapons.
Dan Koslofsky, an aide at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, viewed nonlethal weapons "more with optimism than concern. Their focus is for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions," which the arms-control community support, he said.
"The real concern among the civil libertarian community is that they would be used in domestic situations," Koslofsky added.
Although the nonlethal directorate's focus has been on "operations other than war," such as peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, its fact sheet notes the weapons "are useful across the range of military operations."
A U.S. law says the nonlethal weapons are "explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate personnel or material, while minimizing fatalities or permanent injury to intended targets and collateral damage to property and the environment."
The fact sheet, however, says the weapons "are not required to have zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries but are designed and employed in a manner that significantly reduces those probabilities" compared to usual military weapons.
Every device the office explores is evaluated first for its compliance with U.S. law and international treaties, such as the chemical weapons ban or the Geneva conventions on war.
They then are tested rigorously to determine their potential harmful effects, first on animals and later on humans.
"Some nonlethal weapons can have unintended effects. We try to find that and minimize it," said Air Force Lt. Col Mark Wrobl, the chief health effects officer.
The military currently provides its units with a variety of nonlethal devices. Most of it is basic law-enforcement equipment such as face masks, plastic shields and shin guards to protect against projectiles, riot batons, battery-powered bullhorns and high-intensity lights, plastic handcuffs, various dispensers for pepper gas – an improved form of tear gas – and several weapons that fire small beanbags or rubber pellets.
It also has more elaborate tools, including a portable device that deploys a strong net-like barrier that stops a vehicle and wraps around the doors so the occupants cannot get away.
But all of the current devices are effective at relatively short ranges. Much of the research now is focused on equipment that can work at greater distances, Karcher and his deputies said.
One such project is the Active Denial System, a vehicle-mounted directed energy transmitter that creates painful heat on the skin but has no permanent effect.
Other long-range projects involve lasers that could stop a vehicle or a vessel or create a dazzling light without damaging a person's eyes.
Karcher said his office also is monitoring tests by the Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency involving free-electron lasers. Although the Navy sees the device as a potential weapon against missiles and small vessels, Karcher said it might be possible to lower the energy levels to make the free-electron laser a nonlethal tool.
Sempers,
Roger