Non-lethal weapons: a progress report

Joint Force Quarterly, Spring-Summer, 2001 by Steven Metz

Most advanced states have begun exploring the integration of non-lethality in their militaries, and many have elaborate programs to develop the weaponry and operational concepts to use them. Although the evolution of technology facilitates the development of effective non-lethal weapons, shifts in the strategic environment and nature of warfare also give rise to interest in their utility.

Over the last decade defense officials and strategic thinkers around the world concluded that a fundamental change in the conduct of war--a revolution in military affairs (RMA)--is underway. Most agree that non-lethality is part of this development. But except for a few futurists, defense analysts and military leaders regard nonlethality as a sub-theme in force planning, largely because the revolution in military affairs has been considered technological and operational, assuming that the nature of war will remain constant. But global trends suggest otherwise. Some changes underway in the form and substance of warfare indicate that more lethal forces are not what is needed, but rather greater precision and strategic utility in an interconnected world.

Non-lethality can play a significant role, but its continued development is not guaranteed. To help it reach its full potential, policymakers must treat such weapons as fundamental to the revolution in military affairs. Thinking in this field must become historic and strategic.

Lost in the Woods

Few publications and discussions that stimulate thought on the revolution in military affairs accord non-lethality a central role. This is not to say that the defense establishment is disinterested. The Secretary of Defense established the Non-Lethal Warfare Study Group in 1991. Overseen by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and chaired by the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning, the group supported policies and programs to foster development and fielding, advocating an approach modeled on the Strategic Defense Initiative. But for the Pentagon this proved to be too much too soon. When the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition argued that existing programming architecture could adequately handle non-lethal weapons, his opposition helped blunt the findings of the study group.

Military operations in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti as well as the domestic disaster at Waco revived interest in the subject. The impetus came from commanders rather than strategic theorists. Based on his experience during the withdrawal of United Nations forces from Somalia, Lieutenant General Anthony Zinni, USMC, became the prime advocate for developing and fielding non-lethal weapons. By identifying counterproliferation, information warfare, peace operations, and military operations other than war as high priorities, the Commission on Roles and Missions lent support to advocates of non-lethal weaponry. In 1996 the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict issued DOD Directive 3000.3, Policy for Nonlethal Weapons, designating the Commandant of the Marine Corps as executive agent for the program.

A memorandum of agreement among the services dated January 1997 established the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) that reported to the Commandant. This organization, dealing strictly with joint non-lethal programs and with tactical applications, soon developed a joint concept for non-lethal weapons. JNLWD, in cooperation with the joint experimentation staff (J-9) at U.S. Joint Forces Command, briefed its plan to the Joint Coordination and Integration Group in 2000. JNLWD also has academic partners. For example, the University of New Hampshire has formed a Non-Lethal Technology Innovation Center and Pennsylvania State University organized the Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies to complement efforts in this field.

Internationally, the NATO Defense Research Group, for instance, has held seminars to find common ground. In a policy statement issued in 1999 the Alliance declared

It is NATO policy that non-lethal weapons, relevant concepts of operations, doctrine, and operational requirements shall be designed to expand the range of options available to NATO military authorities. [Non-lethal weapons] are meant to complement the conventional weapons systems at NATO's disposal.

JNLWD has endeavored to winnow out nonlethal technology unlikely to be either effective or affordable and focused on suitable technologies. Recently, for instance, it attracted attention by unveiling a vehicle-mounted active denial system, with which a transmitter fires two-second bursts of focused microwave energy that causes burning sensations on skin up to 700 yards away. This system can break up an unruly mob without killing or maiming.

Various service programs operate in parallel with JNLWD. The Marine Corps has been the most active in assessing and developing nonlethal weapons. While the Air Force has shown less interest, it has made some astute contributions. The Army set the parameters for its efforts in 1996 with the publication of Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 525-73, Concept for Nonlethal Capabilities in Army Operations, while many Navy programs are designed to work in conjunction with the Coast Guard on the drug interdiction mission.