I’ve been wondering for the last few days…since there are plenty of people out there advocating non-lethal solutions…why on earth isn’t anyone who is AGAINST what we’ve been doing, advocating non-lethal warfare?
Tear gas. Sub-sonics. I’m not an expert (I’m just a housewife who watches the Discovery Channel too much, actually), but I’ve seen demonstrations of a lot of different non-lethal forms of attack. Why isn’t anyone who wants peace (and nothing but peace) advocating this?
I also don’t particularly care for the tone of revenge that seems to be sweeping over an awful lot of folks in the “we should be fighting back” camp. I don’t want revenge. I want to retain my civil liberties (including the right to say “I disagree with this war,” which I don’t, but you see what I’m saying), and the only way I can see to do that is to fight back. I just don’t understand why it’s always assumed that we have to fight back with lethal force.
Think about it…wouldn’t that take the wind entirely out of the sails of a terrorist? “See the big evil Americans kill off our…I mean, uh, viciously wound…errr, you know, make our civilians really uncomfortable for a few hours.”
This isn’t a game and we aren’t trying to dispurse an unruly mob. The simple reason we aren’t using non leathal or less than lethal weapons is that other than tear gas, stun guns, and rubber bullets, none have been invented yet. The weapons I mentioned are only effective at close range. While effective against protestors throwing rocks and Molotov coctails, they have no place on the modern battlefield where enemy tanks and artillery can fire their LETHAL rounds several thousand meters.
Also, non lethal weapons are not effective unless we actually go in to pick up the terrorists. Otherwise they just wake up and go back to what they were doing.
Historically, on the battlefield, non lethal weapons have been used. Generally they are used to complement the lethal weapons (ie using tear gas to drive an enemy into the open or using concertina (barbed) wire to entangle them so you can use your machineguns).
Personally, I feel these terrorists can’t be dead enough for my tastes. They killed our civillians, attacked our greatest city and our way of life. Remember that they, and their Taliban supporters are the ones who brought this down on Afghanistan.
First, I never said this WAS a game, nor did I liken any network of terrorists anywhere to an “unruly mob.”
Second, you’re entirely wrong about the limited number of non-lethal armaments available. There are plenty of others including infra/ultrasound, anti-traction substances, optical munitions, aqueous foams… Check here for several others and explanations of their applications. Books have been written about non-lethal warfare: “Author John Alexander describes all the justifications for non-lethal weapons: they come in handy during peacekeeping operations, help combat terrorism, and head off revenge before it is sought.” (bolding mine.)
If you want to kvetch about people NOT offering alternatives to lethal war, perhaps you shouldn’t dismiss valid suggestions so offhandedly.
Look, I saw the same show on The Discovery Channel as you. Things like pain beams, ultrasound rays and whatever are at best in a developmental stage and wouldn’t be combat ready for years. All the various foams and nets and stunguns are only effective at short ranges of several dozen yards. Compare that to several hundred yards for a typical assault rifle and six miles for a round fired from an M1 Abrahms tanks main gun. You don’t have to be Patton to realize that an army armed only with non-leathal weapons engaging an enemy armed with even the most rudimentary machineguns and rifles would get killed.
Also, my sugestion is that if you want to debate the viabilities of non-leathal weapons, you begin a new thread. This thread is starting to get a little long but I feel the topic is worth debating.