University of Bradford.
Department of Peace Studies.
Introduction to NLWs Research Reports Publications Conferences Contact Us LinksThe military community is facing different tasks and missions after the break up of the 'Eastern Bloc' and 'bi-polar' relations in international relations. This requires devising new strategies and weapons systems, and broadening responses to the new challenges of international peacekeeping and peace enforcement. At the same time weapons laboratories will continue to seek new programmes to utilise and retain their research and development teams. A new generation of weapons - non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons - are receiving much attention from both weapons developers and the military.
The concept of 'non-lethal' warfare is attractive to politicians. Civilian law enforcement agencies are also seeking alternative and more humane methods to manage situations of civil disturbance such as terrorist attacks, control of crowds and riots, the arrest of violent criminals, and the release of hostages. There will be continuing pressure from those seeking ways of waging war in a more humane manner, which is less destructive of people and environment.
Rapid technological advantages mean the development of NLWs which, until recently, would have been dismissed as being in the realms of science fiction. Such NLWs are now receiving serious consideration by military forces and some have been deployed by US Forces during the Gulf War, in Somalia and Haiti, and in Former Yugoslavia [1]
Defining NLWs is no easy matter. The term non-lethal has been subject to criticism as both a euphemism and an oxymoron. Others have been suggested that are said to more accurately reflect the true nature of non-lethal weapons including: less-than-lethal, disabling, weapons which do not cross the death barrier, soft-kill, pre-lethal and worse-than lethal. Proponents of non-lethal weapons acknowledge that ambiguity exists since the use of any weapon brings with it the risk of injury and death. But they argue that the term non-lethal accurately reflects the intention neither to kill nor to permanently harm. For this reason they reject the terms disabling, or less-than-lethal because they imply permanent effects (such as loss of limbs). Opponents argue that more accurate descriptions would be either pre-lethal, implying temporary incapacitation to facilitate a follow-on attack with conventional weapons; or worse-than-lethal to highlight the terrible psychological trauma that may affect individuals if the use of these weapons results in severe injuries, for example, blinding by lasers.
Certainly, the term non-lethal has a reassuring connotation. Compared to lethal weapons which kill and maim not only troops but also civilians, the prospect of a new generation of weapons that could minimise injuries must resonate strongly with a popular opinion that has grown increasingly reluctant to countenance deaths and serious casualties through military action - especially in the era of instant media coverage. Perhaps the most comprehensive definition, in this context, was provided by Christopher Lamb, the USA Director of Policy and Planning in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations (OASDSOLIC).
Non-lethal weapons are discriminate weapons that are explicitly designed and employed so as to incapacitate personnel or material, while minimising fatalities and undesired damage to property and environment. Unlike weapons that permanently destroy targets through blast, fragmentation, or penetration, non-lethal weapons have relatively reversible effects on targets and/or are able to discriminate between targets and non-targets in the weapon's area of impact. [2]
Here the focus is on the distinction between traditional, conventional weapons and non-lethal weapons. Of course, conventional weapons can be used in ways intended to temporarily harm rather than kill but Lamb's emphasis on the types of effects caused by conventional weapons, which by their nature are longer-lasting, and the reversible effects of NLWs, remains an important one. It is also worth noting that some advocates of non-lethality suggest that there are qualitative differences between NLWs and conventional weapons that have profound implications for military operations and strategy:
Non-lethal weapons are weapons whose intent is to non-lethally overwhelm an enemy's lethal force by destroying the aggressive capability of his weapons and temporarily neutralising his soldiers. [3]
Even more ambitiously, perhaps, Alexander placed them at the fulcrum of a revolutionary concept of warfare:
Non-lethal defense concepts are comprehensive and far beyond adjuncts to present warfighting capabilities. Non-lethal defense has applicability across the continuum of conflict up to and including strategic paralysis of an adversary. [4]
Therefore, we have two major categories of definition, one that concentrates on the physical properties of weapons not intended to kill or permanently injure and secondly, their operational characteristics, as a potentially radical break with traditional warfighting, although it must be stressed that this remains highly speculative and most analysts consider NLWs as an adjunct to conventional force.
Whilst we acknowledge that controversy exists over the operational utility of NLWs (and even over what constitutes non-lethality) and the whole debate which surrounds 'humanitarian' intervention, we assume that (a) the UN and other regional security organisations will be tasked with a growing number of Peace Support Operations, (b) support for NLWs continues to grow, and (c) that these NLWs will provide an increased qualitative range of options for UN Force commanders in such operations before having to resort to lethal force. Deployment of NLWs in these scenarios raises ethical, legal and humanitarian questions regarding the criteria and guidelines for their use, their impact on international arms control conventions, and concerns regarding the danger of lowering the threshold of intervention by the international community into the affairs of other nation states.
1. For a fuller account see: Nick Lewer and Steven Schofield
Non-Lethal Weapons: A Fatal Attraction? Military Strategies and Technologies
for 21st Century Conflict, Zed Books, London, 1997.
2. Christopher Lamb. Non-Lethal Weapons Policy. Department of Defense Directive,
1 January, 1995, p.1.
3. Chris Morris, Janet Morris, Thomas Baines. 'Weapons of Mass Protection: Nonlethality,
Information Warfare, and Airpower in the Age of Chaos', Airpower Journal, Spring,
1995, p. 24.
4. John Alexander quoted in Steven Aftergood. 'Monitoring Emerging Military
Technologies' and 'A Revolution in Military Affairs', F.A.S. Public Interest
Report, Vol.48, No.1, January/February, 1995, pp.1-14.