Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Nonlethal options needed

Despite millennia of investment in developing better weapons, the options remain staggeringly binary — kill or not kill.

That’s too simplistic in today’s complex world. It demands greater investment in nonlethal weapons so urgently needed in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

The Navy’s recent standoff with Somali pirates might have ended sooner and without bloodshed had the destroyer Bainbridge or the merchant ship had nonlethal systems. Ditto for the recent French assault on a yacht held captive by pirates, during which a hostage was killed.

Needed capabilities include knockout agents, heat and sound beams, laser “dazzlers” to dissuade attackers, and nonkinetic systems that disable vehicles. But progress has been slow, despite field commanders’ calls for more humane systems.

Critics say the Pentagon’s inability to deliver working systems has prompted field commanders to seek effective commercial wares, only to find themselves stymied from procuring them.

Admittedly, nonlethal progress is also hampered by international convention. Sleep-inducing agents are banned as chemical weapons, while systems that cause temporary blindness are viewed as inhumane — grounded on twisted logic that it’s better to kill someone than blind them or put them to sleep.

Advances in warfare usually face resistance, as most recently with unmanned systems, but gain acceptance thanks to visionary leadership.

Absent nonlethals, field commanders relied on lethal force or its threat to do their job. But while no weapon, no matter how well intentioned, will be risk-free, it only makes sense to have nonlethal options when something less than deadly force is required.