From Special Guest Richard L. Scott…

Niccolo Machiavelli writes in the 1532 book The Prince that a conquered republic must be entirely reduced because history proves anything less works against the victor. Carl von Clausewitz would agree, and in the 1832 publication On War he asserts that any attempt to disarm an enemy, rather than destroy him, is a mistake. But in The Art of War (Delacorte Press, 1983), Sun Tzu suggests the epitome of skill is to subdue the enemy without fighting. This debate continues today. Some assert a nonlethal approach to warfare is foolish while others argue the U.S. can conduct aggressive military campaigns while also working to control levels of violence. So who’s right?

Proponents of nonlethal weapons acknowledge the term “nonlethal” reflects intention, not capability, and posit nonlethal weapons might effectively reduce noncombatant death and collateral damage and bridge the gap between lethality and show of force. Opponents argue some nonlethal weapons are biological warfare and inappropriate for use against any population. Thus far, neither President Obama nor the National Security Council (NSC) has weighed in on the debate or issued a formal policy on nonlethal weapons. In 1996, DoD issued Directive 3000.3, “Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons,” and although it is a well-intentioned effort, support by the president or the NSC would provide a significant boost for nonlethal weapons proponents.

Today’s nonlethal weapons cover the spectrum of tactical applications and include chemical and biological agents, electroshock devices, acoustic devices, optical munitions, blunt or rubber projectiles, traction modifiers, nets or rapid-hardening rigid foam, radio frequency or microwave technologies, computer viruses, noxious smells, and acoustical interference technologies. These types of weapons are found in any number of operations including communication- and information-control techniques, psychological warfare, and disrupting target command-and-control capabilities. However, once deployed, knowing who controls nonlethal weapons might be as important as understanding why and how to employ them. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have recorded electroshock technology used as a method of torture in at least 76 countries, including the U.S. and other developed and underdeveloped countries. Watchdog groups like the HRW and the International Committee of the Red Cross have strongly opposed the proliferation of nonlethal weapons, even going so far as campaigning to have them banned. However, it is the nonlethal weapons user’s intent, not the tool itself, that can be problematic; there is no shortage of objects that can be used as an instrument of torture or ill will.

Terrorists would welcome any device that might further their efforts. How much more effective would a terrorist be if he or she were armed with the capacity to apply traction modifiers, nets, or rapid-hardening rigid foam against first responders in the vicinity of a catastrophe? If envelopes laced with Anthrax powder can shut down a federal building, so could terrorists releasing smoke into the ventilation system of a federal building or on an airplane while in flight. If the U.S. government can blind, dazzle, and disorient those it holds captive, it can be expected that terrorists might try the same.

Now more than ever, servicemembers understand the types of wars being fought and the enemy they are facing.

Ground forces are expected to demonstrate maturity and discipline and feel confident handling their weapon systems, but confidence can only be attained as a result of training. Only through familiarization, qualification, and testing and simulations and exercises will ground forces feel confident employing nonlethal weapons. Senior military officials need to consider the ramifications of sending servicemembers armed only with lethal weapons into tenuous environments laden with political, economic, social, infrastructural, and information challenges. Nonlethal weapons allow for intangibles that lethal weapons do not.

Given the likelihood that irregular warfare will dominate operations in the near-term, nonlethal weapons might support U.S. efforts to demonstrate restraint and reduce the catastrophic effects associated with lethal weapons. Servicemembers understand the types of wars they are fighting and the enemy they are facing. In an age when stories and images are transmitted in real time all around the world by way of cell phones, satellite communication, Internet access, and 24-hour news outlets, this issue is paramount. When combined with well-trained and well-placed servicemembers on the ground, nonlethal weapons could have a profound effect on how wars are fought.

Rich Scott is a resident of Belton, Texas. He is a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and currently works as a Fire Support Officer for the 21st Cavalry Brigade in Fort Hood. He Can be found on Facebook .