Today, the United States has been actively fighting two wars with high casualty rates for both sides. It would be valuable for the commander in chief and senior military leaders to consider the merits of a nonlethal approach to warfare.
The term “nonlethal weapon” generally refers to weapons intended to be less likely to kill or to cause great bodily injury than a conventional weapon, i.e., guns, missiles, bombs, etc.
Nonlethal weapons can 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.
One, our side has not been suffering heavy casualties. And two, it's a good thing that the enemy is suffering casualties.
Oh! And bonus density! He uses as an example the so-called "threat" of nonlethal munitions to cover the withdrawal of peacekeepers from Somalia! That is not an example of winning a war. That's an example of an enemy allowing us to run away. Be still my heart. At best, it is an example of crowd control.
I have one question? How do we get the enemy to agree to one massive tickle fight on the battlefield? Because if our jihadi enemies don't agree to that, we'll face the situation of our guys trying to incapacitate the enemy while they kill us.
Imagine how that will work. Our guys will be burdened with body armor and MRAPs since our enemies will still try to kill our troops. And the enemy can run around, in t-shirts and trackshoes, more mobile because they are confident that maybe they'll get dizzy and vomit if we catch up to them.
And so what if we do incapacitate them and capture them? Could we hold them? Hah! Look how much trouble we have with the ones we do capture. Can you imagine the human rights lobby going ape over so many prisoners if we actually capture those we currently kill? At least the volume would overwhelm the number of lawyers in America willing to defend them (I hope), but other than that, what's the up side?
The effect on our morale and their morale would be obvious. Our guys would feel like they can never win and our enemies would feel like they can hardly lose. What's the downside for continuing the fight for them, after all?
And these issues are separate from the fact that "nonlethal" weapons are really just "usually not lethal" weapons.
Kill our jihadi enemies. Keep killing them. And then kill them some more until the idea of joining the jihad is a cruel joke said in hushed tones to scare small children in Karachi.
Anything less than fighting a war to win is foolish.
