3 ms·

What's wrong with using non-lethal weapons when one side has an overwhelming advantage?

koepked 17y ago
I think it's possible that the widespread use of non-lethal weapons could result in greater attrocities than the use of lethal weapons on the macro-level. It may not always be aparent, but in general, there is human restraint against killing other humans. A group of people would have to do, or at least be pegged with doing, something fairly high on the "bad scale" to justify use of lethal force. I suspect the threshold for beating them into submission with shotgun fired beanbags, high-pressured water, etc. would be much lower. At the level of an individual life, non-lethal would obviously be better. But at the level of one group of people trying to exert their will over another, I think non-lethal weapons would lead to more of that exertion, because it would be less difficult to justify.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  Tasers.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
When an insurgent points a RPG at my Humvee I should fire [far less lethal] rubber bullets back because I have better air support?
- amichail 17y ago
  Generally speaking, it is better to disable weapons rather than kill people in war. If there is a way to disable RPGs from a distance, then it should be used if there is time.
  - nick-dap 17y ago
    I don't think you can SSH into a soviet era weapon. This idea that war can be carried out "safely" is detached from reality. We say that our technology gives us a moral advantage in warfare. "We can hit just the right targets, and minimize collateral damage." It will never be. WikiLeaks presentation of the first video was disingenuous, but I don't care as long as the video enters the public domain. I want to be able to pull up videos that show how worthless human life is on the battlefield. I have friends in the military and they need an emotional shell to do their job. The public, however, needs to start thinking about war not as a pissing match with browner countries, but as a serious issue.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
I can't find a reference now, but I've read in the past that the 5.56mm round -- the ammunition used in M-16s, for example -- is designed with a goal of (among other things) seriously wounding the target rather than killing. This isn't for humane purposes, but because putting a soldier into the infirmary with medical staff necessary to support him poses a greater cost to the enemy than simply killing him.
epochwolf 17y ago
Most "non-lethal" weapons are short ranged. You can't fire a nonlethal bullet from the air.
- amichail 17y ago
  Put more money into developing such weapons then.

I think it's possible that the widespread use of non-lethal weapons could result in greater attrocities than the use of lethal weapons on the macro-level. It may not always be aparent, but in general, there is human restraint against killing other humans. A group of people would have to do, or at least be pegged with doing, something fairly high on the "bad scale" to justify use of lethal force. I suspect the threshold for beating them into submission with shotgun fired beanbags, high-pressured water, etc. would be much lower. At the level of an individual life, non-lethal would obviously be better. But at the level of one group of people trying to exert their will over another, I think non-lethal weapons would lead to more of that exertion, because it would be less difficult to justify.

nfnaaron 17y ago
Tasers.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

When an insurgent points a RPG at my Humvee I should fire [far less lethal] rubber bullets back because I have better air support?

amichail 17y ago
Generally speaking, it is better to disable weapons rather than kill people in war. If there is a way to disable RPGs from a distance, then it should be used if there is time.
- nick-dap 17y ago
  I don't think you can SSH into a soviet era weapon. This idea that war can be carried out "safely" is detached from reality. We say that our technology gives us a moral advantage in warfare. "We can hit just the right targets, and minimize collateral damage." It will never be. WikiLeaks presentation of the first video was disingenuous, but I don't care as long as the video enters the public domain. I want to be able to pull up videos that show how worthless human life is on the battlefield. I have friends in the military and they need an emotional shell to do their job. The public, however, needs to start thinking about war not as a pissing match with browner countries, but as a serious issue.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

I can't find a reference now, but I've read in the past that the 5.56mm round -- the ammunition used in M-16s, for example -- is designed with a goal of (among other things) seriously wounding the target rather than killing. This isn't for humane purposes, but because putting a soldier into the infirmary with medical staff necessary to support him poses a greater cost to the enemy than simply killing him.

epochwolf 17y ago

Most "non-lethal" weapons are short ranged. You can't fire a nonlethal bullet from the air.

amichail 17y ago
Put more money into developing such weapons then.