Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

CNN.com - Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs - Sep 12, 2006: "Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday. The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

if we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation,' said Wynne. '(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.'

The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved."

The CNN headline is inaccurate. Secretary Wynne never says or implies the weapons should be "tested" on Americans. All he is saying is that we should not deploy any nonlethal weapon unless we're so confident that it's safe that we're willing to use it domestically, and that's sound policy.

I must admit that I'm baffled by the harsh opposition that many have towards nonlethal weapons. Yes, I know that they can be misused to suppress lawful dissent, as can any weapon.

I'm also aware of significant disadvantages when using nonlethal weapons in war. These are (1) unrealistic expectations, i.e. that "nonlethal" weapons can't cause serious harm; (2) allowing the enemy to regroup and fight again; (3) diminished deterrence in that, if the enemy thinks we are reluctant to use lethal force, they may be more likely to take action; (4) by reducing the "cost" of hostility, it might cause the hostility to drag on longer; (5) the fact that such weapons, once introduced into the world, will inevitably be used against us; and finally (6) the option of nonlethal weapons might make us more willing to intervene militarily (although we seem to be pretty willing even without such options).

On the other hand, nonlethal weapons (1) are consistent with American values that life is sacred and unnecessary death and suffering should be avoided even in battle; (2) permit military action at a lower level of violence; (3) provide military options other than "detect" or "kill" - such as "delay", "deny" or "defeat"; (4) are a good choice in an environment in which the line between war and law enforcement is blurred, i.e. "peacekeeping"; (5) minimize "bad PR" from large numbers of civilian casualties; (6) limit collateral damage and post-war rebuilding and aid.

As of August 2003, 19 treaties, three US laws, and six DOD policies and regulations governed acceptable weapons. Some of these might be interpreted as banning the use of some nonlethal weaponry, so there are legal issues which must also be resolved.

There are both advantages and disadvantages with nonlethal weapons, but overall I believe it's better to have the widest range of options to address contingencies. - RR