Citation

Alexander JB. Med. Conflict. Surviv. 2001; 17(3): 180-193.

Affiliation

The Apollinaire Group, Las Vegas, NV 89117 USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

11578037

Abstract

During the past decade, vast changes have occurred in the geopolitical landscape and the nature of the types of conflicts in which technologically developed countries have been involved. While the threat of conventional war remains, forces have been more frequently deployed in situations that require great restraint. Adversaries are often likely to be elusive and commingled with noncombatants. There has been some shift in public opinion away from tolerance of collateral casualties. Therefore there is a need to be able to apply force while limiting casualties. Non-lethal weapons provide part of the solution. Among the changes that will influence the future have been studies by the US and NATO concerning the use of non-lethal weapons, coincidental with increased funding for their development and testing. New concepts and policies have recently been formalized. Surprisingly, the most strident objections to the implementation of non-lethal weapons have come from organizations that are ostensibly designed to protect non-combatants. These arguments are specious and, while technically and academically challenging, actually serve to foster an environment that will result in the deaths of many more innocent civilians. They misconstrue technology with human intent. The reasons for use of force will not abate. Alternatives to bombs, missiles, tanks and artillery must therefore be found. Non-lethal weapons are not a panacea but do offer the best hope of minimizing casualties while allowing nations or alliances the means to use force in protection of national or regional interests.

Language: en