Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are nonlethal military systems good or bad?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are nonlethal military systems good or bad?

    Hello,

    Well, here is an article on the newly US nonlethal military system about to be deployed to Iraq.

    What do you think of such nonlethal systems?

    I think it's a step in the wrong direction. Have we truly turned US armed forces into a "overly senstive" force that is far too concerned with human rights, lethality, and "collateral" damage rather than accomplishing the true purpose of its function? That is to kill people in the name of America defending or projecting her strategic interests.

    In fact, I believe the USA should develop far more lethal systems and start truly going after people, to put them out of their misery. If we start to be too sensitive, then when a real crisis appears, will we be too afraid to actually kill people? In the other words, the armed forces' purpose is not to save lives, but to end them, that's simple as it can gets.

    Have we gone crazy on nonlethal systems?

    Dan
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

  • #2
    Much more effective in this specific cultural milieu would be the employment of air-pressurized, multi-tubed, sneaker launching cannons which would barrage the hapless Iraqi protesters under an avalanche of worn shoe soles, instantly dispersing (or irretrievably inflaming) the loitering demostrators.

    Besides...shipping all those used "tennies" off to Iraq would have the effect of reducing the landfill requirements in the average American city by 0.00438 percent making this an environmentally sound method for crowd dispersal.

    Now...where did I leave that address for applying for a DoD Research Grant?
    I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

    Comment


    • #3
      There are times when lethal force is just not a viable option. An unruly crowd that has not worked itself up to a killing frenzy is one example.

      I believe if lethal force is used, or expected to be used, against any unit, then they have the right unload everything they own, or can borrow, on the perps.


      Goblin
      Mega Campaign Screaming Eagles and Das Reich Design Team Member
      DAS REICH CAMPAIGN, and THE SPWaW ICON GUIDE AVAILABLE AT: The SP:WaW Depot
      In difficult ground, press on. In encircled ground, devise strategems. In death ground, fight.

      Comment


      • #4
        Soldiers should be provided the instruments necessary to fulfill the directives of the National Command Authority (NCA). The conditions required to achieve victory differ from operation to operation. In fact, it is probably more complicated than ever. Soldiers must switch between combat and peace-keeping with little or no warning. One minute, they are shooting at the enemy. The next, they are trying to resolve a local argument. Worse, the enemy doesn't always carry a gun or bomb. He might choose to incite a riot to create disorder and chaos, which can effect the outcome of the operation.

        OOTW often requires soldiers to apply force in somekind of continuum. They must be able to dial-up or dial-down the amount of force required to achieve their objectives. As Goblin suggested, an unruly crowd might justify the employment of less-than-lethal force. Soldiers could use billy clubs. However, that requires closing the distance with the crowd and can complicate the use of deadly force should the situation deteriorate. LTL rounds or other non-lethal weaponry could be employed to drive back the crowd, without having to close the distance. And, if the appropriate system is procured, should allow soldiers to retain the ability to quickly escalate/de-escalate the amount of force applied should the situation demand.

        I believe less than lethal technology can enhance the capability of the modern soldier in the new and more complexed evironment we often send them to. Of course, we must be concerned about tilting the scale to a degree they can no longer operate in a combat-intensive environment. Finding a balance that allows troops to fight in the force continuum is in our nations best interest IMHO.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          I believe that the belief in military circles, is that a wounded soldier ties up far more resources than a dead soldier. You need to evacuate the soldier from the battlefield, send him to a field hospital where doctors and surgeons work on him for perhaps hours, then send him to a rehabilitation clinic where nurses and other specialists help the soldier back to health, etc. A dead soldier is often simply left on the field of battle, or if lucky evacuated to be sent to a military cemetery. Therefore, it is often more productive to simply maim, than to kill. If you blow a guy's leg off, he won't be fighting back anytime soon, but he'll need lots of medical care, tying down the enemy's resources.

          Somewhat perverted logic. I don't know if any military persues this as an offensive strategy, but it is acknowledged in a defensive sense.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
            I believe that the belief in military circles, is that a wounded soldier ties up far more resources than a dead soldier. You need to evacuate the soldier from the battlefield, send him to a field hospital where doctors and surgeons work on him for perhaps hours, then send him to a rehabilitation clinic where nurses and other specialists help the soldier back to health, etc. A dead soldier is often simply left on the field of battle, or if lucky evacuated to be sent to a military cemetery. Therefore, it is often more productive to simply maim, than to kill. If you blow a guy's leg off, he won't be fighting back anytime soon, but he'll need lots of medical care, tying down the enemy's resources.

            Somewhat perverted logic. I don't know if any military persues this as an offensive strategy, but it is acknowledged in a defensive sense.
            You're definately right here but if the OPFOR soldier is "rendered unoperational" in front of the US soldier and is not evacuated you have to take all the actions too keep him alive and you have to spend the resources.
            I mean, if a soldier in a platoon is wounded he is carried away by his fellow comrades, but if the whole company is made unconscious and has a destroyed inner ear it is most unlikely that anyone will be evacuated by own forces as they are all out.
            "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
            which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
            The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
            returned to its home base."

            Comment


            • #7
              Perhaps the National Guard deployed at Kent University in 1970 could have used some of those non-lethal weapons?

              Comment


              • #8
                remember that POA-2 was first commissioned as a SBAP by the USAF as a means of simualting how effective High Frequency Microwave Pulses were as a crowd dispersion weapon (makes you feel like you're on fire).

                as for LTL weapons, we have webguns/glueguns as prototypes for taking down hostiles, CS gas for crowd dispersion, beanbag rounds, high pressure water cannon, tasers, etc etc that have all been used at least once or twice - there is the case of the "headache causing speakers" the US forces used in Haiti in 1994 - mounted on a Humvee, and used to disperse crowds gathering.

                Let's not forget a weapon considered LTL by the Geneva conventions is white phosporous, as it only produces "smoke"
                Now listening too;
                - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X