Military use of Less-lethal weapons

Posted by Mostly Genius – May 2, 2009

Hell-in-a-handbasket has a post up about the military use of less lethal weapons.

Throughout most of history military weapons development has tried to make them more lethal. Changes to the rules of engagement and media coverage have driven the development of this. Historically, if you attacked the soldiers they would kill you. This has the advantage of eliminating the troublemakers and the disadvantage of creating a lot of animosity among the occupied population. I would say that there is a lot more historical precedent for this plan working than there is for a kinder, gentler, less lethal military.

  • There was a time in the not-so-distant past when riot control doctrine in the military consisted of employing CS gas and using massed formations with fixed bayonets. That is unthinkable in today's political climate.
  • The problem is that anything that's effective enough to stop an attacker reliably is probably effective enough to run a serious risk of killing the person.
  • In the past, the military was used to kill people and break things until the enemy capitulated.

    These days, politicians like to use our military as an expeditionary police force.

    The development of “less lethal” stuff for our military is directly related to that.
blog comments powered by Disqus