This was an initial draft version of the Introduction, minus the referencing.
In early 1995, some U.S. Marines were supplied with so-called dazzling lasers. The idea was to inflict as little harm as possible if Somalis turned hostile. But the Marines' commander then decided that the lasers should be “de-tuned” to prevent the chance of their blinding citizens. With their intensity thus diminished, they could be used only for designating or illuminating targets.
On March 1, 1995, commandos of U.S. Navy SEAL Team 5 were positioned at the south end of Mogadishu airport. At 7 a.m., a technician from the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory, developer of the lasers, used one to illuminate a Somali man armed with a rocket-propelled grenade. A SEAL sniper shot and killed the Somali. There was no question the Somali was aiming at the SEALs. But the decision not to use the laser to dazzle or temporarily blind the man irks some of the nonlethal-team members. “We were not allowed to disable these guys because that was considered inhumane”, said one. “Putting a bullet in their head is somehow more humane?”.
During the same year much deliberation had taken place in an international
forum regarding similar technology. State Parties of the United Nation’s
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons discussed the possibility of prohibiting
blinding lasers. In previous years, organizations such as Human Rights Watch
and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) along with some governments
had pressed for controls on the use of these weapons. Against the initial opposition
from the US and United Kingdom (UK), advocates of restrictions argued that blinding
lasers would cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering and thus be
prohibited under international humanitarian law. In part, the logic given for
this was somewhat counter-intuitive. Humanitarian groups argued that the causalities
incurred during war by conventional weapons were not as severe, frequent or
long term as might be assumed. Whatever the intent of soldiers on the ground
or military commanders in bunkers, the lethality of warfare with conventional
arms should not be taken for granted. In contrast, the deployment of tools designed
to blind opened up the potential for permanent damage that would almost certainly
bring severe physical, psychological and financial consequences. However horrific
the loss of a limb or the reduction in mobility caused by shrapnel or bullet
wounds, no prosthesis exists to aid those who cannot see. The question which
need to be addressed then was not whether it was better to be dead or blind,
but whether the almost certainty of blinding was more inhumane than the possibility
of injury or death through conventional arms.
Such augments followed from various experts meetings in the late 1980s and early
1990s held by the ICRC to determine the threat posed by laser technology. Silent,
portable, low cost, and effective, blinding lasers were presented as step too
far. The possible use of these weapons outside of war, say in terrorists attacks
on civilian populations, was so disturbing that governments had to act before
the technology became diffused. In the end, calls for restraint prevailed. In
September 1995 the US Department of Defense announced a ban on development of
lasers specifically designed to cause blinding to unenhanced vision. In October
of the same year State Parties of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
adopted a new protocol that placed limits on blinding lasers.
The quote about experiences in Somalia asks the reader to consider the appropriateness
of general restrictions on weapons in relation to an alternative context where
the class of technology in question is presented in a rather different light.
Here a form of merely dazzling non-lethal weaponry offers a more humane force
option. The account is premised on a number of assumptions about the intent
of the users of weapons, the likely operation and effects of the dazzlers in
specific situations, and the necessity of their use therein. The possible development
of dazzling weapons raises a number of questions: How can dazzling and blinding
lasers be differentiated? What would the deployment of the former mean for attempts
to prohibit the latter? In the chaotic situations of conflict, how likely are
dazzlers to inadvertently blind civilians and others? Who is competent to judge
such matters? Various questions could be asked about the merits of non-lethal
weapons in specific examples. In the case above, could the SEALs have ascertained
whether the Somali was ‘temporarily’ blinded before needing to resort
to deadly force? What would have happened until and when the temporary effects
ended? Thus, the manner in which the legitimacy of particular force options
is decided is a matter of concern and much potential debate.
This book addresses the legitimacy of weaponry in conflict situations. It examines
past, present and future intersections of expertise, politics, science and technology
through a consideration of the growing attention paid to non-lethal weapons
in military, police and incarceration circles. But what does it mean to speak
of force as having legitimacy? Beetham has suggested actions are legitimate
to the extent they conform to established rules, those rules can be justified
by reference to beliefs shared by both the dominant and the subordinate, and
there is evidence of consent by the subordinate to the particular power relation.
This would require, for instance, force be applied in accordance with the limits
of the law and that these rules only sanctioned force that was necessary and
proportionate. Such determinations, in turn, depend on assessments of the likely
effects. Moreover though, new weapons alter standards for what counts as proportionate
and appropriate responses by helping to define the range of possible actions.
While the meaning and appropriateness of the term ‘non-lethal’ is
much contested, as a starting point these are weapons that are supposed to minimize
or at least reduce the severity of injury. In doing so they are meant to entail
comparatively more acceptable options than other force means. Today there are
a variety of non-lethals in the arsenal of Western police and military forces,
and research and development continues apace into new ones. Among the current
options include kinetic projectile munitions such as plastic bullets; chemical
irritants such as tear gas; and electroshock devices such as stun guns. To believe
some, these ‘old fashion’ technologies are soon to give way to a
far broader spectrum of possibilities: acoustic weapons which shatter windows
and cause internal damage; electromagnetic pulse beams designed to knock individuals
down and cause seizures; and chemical agents which act as calmatives. Add to
these old and new weapons innovations in the delivery systems and the combination
of different types of non-lethals (for instance, projectiles which release chemical
irritants on impact), and it is possible to imagine something of the diversity
of potential force options. In recent years, this form of weaponry figured prominently
in the highly publicized policing of public protests in Seattle and Genoa, though
their possible areas of deployment extend well beyond such instances to include
routine policing, incarceration, and military interventions.
Despite attempts to foster a positive image of this class of weapons by proponents,
their merits are disputed. The use of force by security apparatuses of the state
and others is often contentious and the utilization of particular weapons in
such acts has been a source of some unease. From the hills of Los Angeles to
the streets of Nairobi, concerns have been voiced. Here the potential for abuse
with non-lethals, their less than harmless effects, their unintentional consequences,
and their potential to be used as a complement to ‘lethal’ force
makes them less than benign.
This book considers how the promise of technology is created, sustained and
questioned. I wish to illustrate how a detailed examination of non-lethal weaponry
requires addressing a host of issues about the functioning of expertise, the
relations between citizens and organizations of the state, the trust held in
modern institutions, and the regulation of technology. In these matters considerations
of power and authority loom large. The reader is asked to view accounts of non-lethal
weapons as attempts to both inform and persuade audiences about the moral standing
of technology and those who utilize it. Non-lethal weapons are bound up with
efforts to negotiate the respectability of the use of force, where the standards
by which such acts are judged are themselves in flux. Discussions about the
merits of non-lethal weapons are often characterized by uncertainty over the
facts of the matter, where ‘technical’ issues mixed quite readily
with ‘ethical’ appraisals. Disagreements about the merits of such
weapons hinge on interpretations and judgments. Through an examination of the
claims and counterclaims about this form of weaponry, this book will illustrate
how the technology functions as a site of political negotiation.
This book takes as its starting point for analysis the ambivalence of non-lethal
weapons. It is generally acknowledged that any technology can be used for good
or bad purposes. The suppression of peaceful political dissent is likely to
be viewed quite unfavorably by most compared to, say, attempts to defend police
officers from belligerents intent on violence. In between these extremes though
there are vexing questions about what constitutes acceptable force and how such
evaluations can be made. Instances of the use of force are occasions for multiple
interpretations of what is happening and why. Just whether someone should be
labeled a rioter, a potential security threat, a peaceful protester, and an
innocent bystander is often contested.
Still, for some individuals any recourse to weapons is regrettable. The idea
of a non-lethal weapon might appear a contradiction in terms if not an anathema.
Weapons are by definition designed or used to inflict injury and thereby possibly
cause death. Yet, as long as one maintains that the resort to some form of force
is necessary in some situations, questions must be asked about what that should
be. A prohibition against all non-lethal weapons presumably would include devices
such as the police baton. Even for the harshest critic is likely to acknowledge
non-lethal weapons could have advantages in some circumstances. In the US, the
phrase ‘suicide by cop’ has emerged to describe when individuals
with weapons confront the police in an effort to provoke them to fire. In such
situations there are pressing questions about the most appropriate response.
Much of the ambivalence of ‘non-lethal weapons’ derives from the
difficulty of classifying the disorderly and diverse set of practices and technologies
associated with the term. Classification is itself an attempt to suppress messiness
of the world and provide a basis for comprehension and evaluation. There are
many ambiguities associated with this class of weapons that make moral determinations
problematic. What counts as a non-lethal weapon is unclear. By definition a
weapon is intended to inflict damage and therefore has the potential to kill,
so categorizing a particular weapon as lethal or non-lethal would be difficult
even if there were consensus on the nature of the potential risks entailed.
As will be illustrated in this book, though, such a consensus cannot be taken
for granted. Related questions arise in disputes about where to cast blame when
things go wrong, whether that be with the technology, its user, the intended
target, or the volatility of the situations in question. Still further questions
can be asked about the right criteria for assessing non-lethals; whether that
is merely in terms of the direct physical effects or whether other factors,
such as the possible consequences for the escalation of violence, ought be considered.
In short, there are considerable evaluation and classification problems.
In starting with a recognition of the ambivalence of these weapons, I do not
wish to simply suggest that there are different views about their acceptability
and appropriateness. While this is apparent, it is not necessarily helpful observation.
Rather, in drawing attention to matters of ambivalence and ambiguity, I want
to set the analysis of this book on a particular footing. Ambivalence is not
treated as innate properties of these technologies or situations; rather it
is the outcome of social and organizational processes. Accounts about this class
of weapons are attempts to establish ethical relations between technology and
humans. How this is done is a matter that requires attention. As suggested in
the case of dazzling and blinding lasers, any assessment of non-lethal force
begs questions about what options are being compared, by what criteria, in relation
to what circumstances and by whom. Complex technical, legal, medical and operational
factors can enter into calculations regarding the appropriateness and acceptability
of the use of force. The ambivalence of non-lethals raises a number of questions
regarding how statements about them are framed and the strategies by which such
framings are advanced.
Moreover, the ambivalence of non-lethal weapons matters in the way in which
questions about responsibility, praise and blame are negotiated. When a technology
with uncertain or disputed effects, whose proper use requires following highly
proscriptive rules, is introduced into a volatile setting then there are important
questions about how disputes about the appropriateness of force are managed.
Cavalier attempts to simply adjudicate on the merits of weapons once and for
all are bound to be open to question.
This orientation contrasts with attempts to advance a definite reading of technology,
in terms of say its ‘real’ effects and whether a particular weapon
is actually lethal or non-lethal. While such appraisals are obviously important
and necessary, this book seeks to steps back from specific claims to consider
their basis and implications. This is important because installments of the
latest technical or operational information about particular weapons alone often
offer little hope of clarifying, let alone resolving, disputes. There are important
issues at stake regarding how we discuss technology and how debates are conducted.
In this book I appraise the promise and threat posed by non-lethal weapons both
in terms of how such technologies are instruments of control for acting in the
world and how characterizations of them are actively managed. I argue that these
weapons need to be understood in terms of both these two fundamentally intertwined
aspects. Without a careful examination of how accounts of these devices are
presented and handled, the analysis risks taking for granted issues that might
otherwise be questioned.
The contingencies and assumptions entailed with how notions about the legitimacy
of non-lethal weapons are advanced will be put under close scrutiny in this
book. I consider how organizations advance particular types of arguments and
the justifications for such positions. In doing so, my role is not simply one
of apologist for the technology, opposed critic to it, or technician merely
try to clarify the issues at stake without taking any position on the relative
merits of arguments.
It is not the intention of this analysis to try an authoritatively adjudication
of contentious issues. I do not want to blind readers with a rendition of the
‘real’ facts of the matter about a wide range of issues if those
could be determined authoritatively. Rather I intend to acknowledge the contingencies
and negotiations at work in any assessment. Particular assessments of the merits
of non-lethal weapons are advanced, while also trying to acknowledge more fundamental
issues at stake about uncertainty, disagreement and controversy. In surveying
the recent rise of non-lethal weapons, a skeptical orientation is given to claims
about individual devices and the overall merits of the class of technology in
general. ‘Skeptical’ in the sense that it is prudent to unpack the
range of claims and counterclaims made.
Adopting this position, it is suggested that taking the uncertainties and disputes
associated with this technology as a topic of analysis, rather than trying to
offer a definitive or resolved account of weapons, can provide a number of insights.
As will be argued more fully in later chapters, in assessments of weapons, technology
in general, or any matter there are various ways in which implicit and explicit
framings are given to the topic in hand. Throughout questions are raised about
what evidence and inferences would be required to assert particular assessments
of non-lethal weapons. In this way the book attempts to offer a persuasive account
of non-lethals while trying to persuade the reader about how to approach the
study of technology.
To date non-lethal weapons have been of limited concern to researchers outside
of those agencies concerned with deploying them and those groups and others
that question them. Of the academic work that does exist, much of it stems from
peace and security studies, where the main interest is in peacekeeping, or more
broadly, applications of this technology in warfare. To the extent criminologists
have examined this weaponry, they have been preoccupied with meeting the managerial
agenda of their funders in asking questions about the effectiveness of different
devices. Recently, legal scholars have begun to ask how the introduction of
non-lethals might affect or be controlled by existing international and national
laws.
In this book a diverse range of technologies on offer under the banner of ‘non-lethal
weaponry’ are examined from their initial justifications to their operational
deployment. In doing so a variety of issues will be touched on that are themselves
worthy of a far more detailed consideration than is on offer here. Topics such
as the weapons acquisition in the military, the use of scientific standards
for judging safety, policing cultures surrounding the use of force, and the
presentation of accounts of conflict in the media have been the topic of many
books and could be the subject of many more. Furthermore, particular instances
of deployment, such as political protests or conflicts, could be given detailed
consideration.
The purpose here is to provide a window into a diverse set of issues. That window
is framed by examining debates about non-lethals and following the arguments
where they lead. This broad analysis can be justified on a number of grounds.
As will be argued in later chapters, developing and utilizing particular weapons
with some degree of legitimacy requires the creation of audiences receptive
to such initiatives. In considering the growing importance of non-lethals it
is prudent to not only look at specific innovations, but also the wider promises
on offer with this class of weapons. Commenting on the ‘successfulness’
or ‘unsuccessfulness’ of the introduction of a particular device,
and the meaning these terms, requires an institutional as well as technical
analysis sensitive to both general and specific promises made.
This broad analysis also enables connections to be made between various stages
in the development process that might otherwise be missed. In doing so, it is
able to consider how claims about technologies made in one setting get translated
into others. For instance, only examining the operational use of a technology
would fail to notice how the initial justifications offered change and how the
scope for deployments expands or contracts over time as an innovation matures.
A narrow analysis also risks glossing over important questions about the functioning
and inter-relation of expertise. Toxicologists with a scientific training often
look into on likely health effects; security personnel might be asked to comment
on the practicality of the technology in specific situations; criminologists
and others might be commissioned to assess the impacts of devices on issues
such as the number of assaults to officers; and clinicians might document the
nature of injuries and deaths incurred. While it is necessary for experts to
work in limited domains of competence, the argument presented here brings together
a variety of claims made about non-lethals in order to assess them in relation
to one another.
In doing so, however, the obvious risk exists of making poorly thought out claims
across a number of ill-understood areas. I am not a solider, toxicologist, a
police chief, or a lawyer, but rather a social scientist with a fairly broad
range of interests within that domain. The situation calls for some caution,
but there is much insight to be gained from venturing outside of well-trodden
ground. It is a matter for the reader to decide if this has been done competently
and to venture outside of the argument presented and make further assessments
about its relevance.
As a book that takes as its topic a wide range of concerns about a class of
technology, there is also the danger that the argument will be rather thin in
places. The chapters ahead mix general overview of technological areas (Parts
I and II) with more detailed case studies (Part III). The empirical basis for
this book could always be more thorough, and the reader will no doubt want further
information about the technologies detailed than is provided. Indeed, one of
the central contentions I want to advance is that when one starts unpacking
disputes about the merits of particular non-lethal weapons, the desire for more
and more information than is typically on offer becomes readily apparent. In
such a situation, an analysis that evokes a wide range of connections and interpretations
offers the potential to be provocative and challenging.
The topic of non-lethal weapons and related concerns about the use of technology
in the application of force are not only worthy of study because they break
new topical ground. They also press us to re-examine a number of conceptual
issues in the social sciences. So, how authority is exercised by security force
tells us a good deal about the relation between the state and its citizens as
well as the relation between states, but these cannot be understood without
a consideration of the means of exercising authority. As detailed below, themes
in policing, criminology, peace and security studies, politics, technology studies,
and policy analysis are integrated into the chapters. This book though is primarily
an attempt to analyze the legitimacy of a class of technology, so I will not
spend a great deal of effort engaging in specialized theoretical debates, though
this analysis is immersed in them. Those in search of more thorough considerations
of some of the themes discussed can follow the references out elsewhere.
Inevitably though, some issues will be given more attention than others in the
chapters that follow. While activities in a number of countries are considered,
most of the analysis is focused on developments in the US and the UK. In many
respects the US is the world leader in terms of the state its technology and
volume of commercial interest. The UK has a long history of the use of non-lethals
because of its colonial history and more recent conflicts in Northern Ireland.
In the case of non-lethals the UK also plays a familiar role of bridging between
continental Europe and North America. There are certain substantive limitations
to this book as well. Anti-personnel applications are given far more attention
than anti-material ones (see Chapter 3).
This book is divided into four parts and eleven chapters. The organization
is designed to bring an ever-widening range of considerations to bear. The chapters
in Part I provide an overview of non-lethals as well as an initial elaboration
of how this analysis approaches the study of technology. Chapter 2 begins by
asking a seemingly straightforward question regarding non-lethal weapons: what
are they? Far from being a clear-cut issue, however, a detailed consideration
of this question raises important issues about how we understand the relation
between technology and its situations of use. Drawing on insights regarding
the relationship between politics and technology developed by sociologists of
technology such as Steve Woolgar and Keith Grint, this chapter establishes the
importance of examining how claims are made about technology and why particular
stories win out over others. This chapter begins to elaborate themes that are
taken up in later chapters about context, claims, and classifications as well
as agency, assumptions, and associations.
Following from these considerations, the Chapter 3 provides a fairly conventional
account of current and proposed non-lethals. Such weapons are said to offer
the possibility of disorientating, dazzling, disabling, and calming rather than
the shattering bones or tearing flesh. In reciting these accounts, the organizations
and funding programs in place to foster non-lethal weapons are surveyed. Following
on from points raised in Chapter 2, this one draws attention to the commitments
of particular types of descriptions, the role of interpretation and the bounds
of debate.
Chapter 4 outlines the assertions made regarding the range of wide-scale environmental
changes which are thought to require additional non-lethal responses: the growing
importance of peacekeeping, the changing character of warfare, the continuing
threats to domestic order, and the growing unacceptability of the use of force.
This chapter considers how such claims are marshaled to justify the development
and deployment of non-lethals. It describes the multiple promises accorded to
non-lethals at the strategic and tactical levels. By way of contrast, alternative
schools of thought from those associated with advocates are discussed. Critics
of the technology turn many of the statements of proponents on their head. Divergent
interpretations derive from fundamental differences in the framing given to
situations and the inferences made by commentators. Through noting the importance
of such issues, this chapter highlights the need to interrogate the basis of
evaluations and the limitations therein.
Building on the earlier discussion, the chapters of Part II investigate the
main areas of discussion about non-lethal weaponry: their effects, their operational
use, and their control. Appeals to science are often evoked to establish authoritative
determinations about the relative harm caused by these devices. Through a series
of studies of existing non-lethals, Chapter 5 outlines claims and counterclaims
made about the safety of specific weapons and how notions about their effects
have been used to justify or criticize their deployment. It is argued that even
if one takes well established technology, like chemical irritants or kinetic
energy munitions, it is possible to raise a host of concerns about their safety.
In general, what can be said is that the existing publicly available evidence
about the safety of particular devices is often weak or mixed and not able to
resolve the ‘facts of the matter’ in an authoritative fashion. The
appraisal of weapons is bound up with processes for defining, identifying, and
interpreting risks that are conditional and speculative.
Whatever lab tests about safety indicate, the appropriate use of non-lethals
requires following certain rules that define standards of acceptable force.
Chapter 6 discusses a few contested operational deployments of non-lethal weapons
in the US, Israel and the Occupied Territories and Northern Ireland. In doing
so it considers how controversies about particular situations unfold and what
implications these have for questions about the legitimacy and proper control
of the technology. The possibility or lack of adherence to rules in the use
of force is given some attention. As will become apparent, even when there is
agreement about unfortunate injuries and ‘deviations’ from protocols,
the actions that should follow are hotly disputed. In such disputes, the importance
of context is multi-faceted and varying definitions of it are drawn upon to
make sense of particular interpretations.
Chapter 7 then follows on from the other chapters in Part II to consider attempts
to govern and restrict the proliferation and development of non-lethals. International
treaties and obligations are examined as they relate to the control of different
types of weapons. The application of general principles and prescriptions about
the proper conduct of conflict to specific uses of non-lethals raises a basic
problem: when is it justifiable to cut through complex assemblages of individuals
and technologies in order to offer definitive assessments about what prohibitions
ought to be in place. Various themes are raised in relation to this problem
such as the policing of controls, appraisals of trust, and the negotiation of
classifications.
Parts I and II identify a number of key issues and tensions associated with
non-lethal weapons, these are then elaborated further through the use of case
studies that cover military, police, and prison situations in Part III. Chapter
8 evaluates the deployment of incapacitant sprays for routine policing in the
UK. This topic provides something of a ‘best case’ scenario for
the potential of non-lethal weapons. As opposed to highly charged public order
events or military interventions, routine policing does not evoke the same degree
of controversy. In addition, the supposed ‘consensual’ nature of
policing in Britain and the previous experiences with sprays outside of the
UK should have meant that their introduction was fairly unproblematic. This
chapter examines the dynamics surrounding the introduction and deployment of
the devices. In doing so, significant doubts are raised about the robustness
of the precautions taken and the wisdom of decisions made. More generally though,
this chapter illustrates how the uncertainties associated with the sprays were
handled and how these boar on determinations of who was responsible for ensuring
their appropriate use at an operational level. In doing so, many of the core
conceptual themes discussed in the book are drawn upon.
Chapter 9 analyses a recent major non-lethals initiative in the US: the introduction
of electroshock stun guns and forms of pepper spray to all detention officers
in Maricopa County, Arizona jails. This was first such trial in the US and has
been billed as a major success story by some. Yet, upon closer examination the
merits of the trial are far less certain. Various official and unofficial evaluations
were undertaken that made conflicting assessments about the trial and how they
ought to be appraised. It examining this, Chapter 9 considers how the assessment
of technology can be approached when the facts are disputed and uncertain. A
major theme, and one that follows from previous chapters, is the importance
of recognizing the inter-relation between ‘technology’ and its ‘context’
in the production of credible claims.
Chapter 10 takes as its topic the possibilities for existing and future non-lethals
in humanitarian interventions; particularly in relation to changes in the overall
strategic level of warfare. A variety of prominent theoretical scenarios are
described and analyzed, including those by the US Marines and the US Council
of Foreign Relations. The assumptions beyond these are interrogated in light
of past discussions in the book. Following from this, the recent NATO intervention
into Kosovo is drawn on as an example for thinking through the possible strategic
and tactical implications of non-lethals. Among proponents of non-lethal weapons,
Kosovo is often presented as a lost opportunity to introduce a new form of warfare.
Various aspects surrounding the public relations handling of this intervention
are examined so as to consider what implication non-lethals are likely to have
on the character and legitimacy of similar conflicts in the future. Drawing
on previous arguments, Chapter 11 concludes with a summary discussion and proposes
various policy recommendations.