Another international concern is that nonlethal weapons may be used to suppress dissent or used as implements of torture. This complaint is often leveled at electric stun guns, which are banned in Europe. In reality, almost any item can be used to inflict pain on another human being; again, the intent of the user is paramount. There is nothing about nonlethal weapons that makes them inherently more dangerous than any other implement. When properly applied under controlled conditions, the use of physical, although nonlethal, force to deter unacceptable behavior can ultimately save lives. The alternatives, which may include physically beating the subject into submission, are more dangerous to both the protestors and those attempting to control them.

Finally, there is a small but vocal group of conspiracy theorists that view nonlethal weapons as tools for illegally controlling the civilian populace. This argument fails the test of logic. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that sufficient force already exists to control large segments of society. It is the moral fiber of a people and not the state of its technology that keeps it free.

I would here like to introduce the concept of ergofusion. Defined as "the misidentification of causal relationships," ergofusion is prevalent in the field of nonlethal weapons. Frequently, it is assumed that the availability of these weapons will necessarily lead to increased propensity for conflict or more pain and suffering. An extreme example is when any form of gas is used against citizens-even a relatively benign substance such as a riot control agent-someone, often in the media, equates that application to the use of lethal gas in the Nazi death camps. Obviously, there is a significant difference, but this extrapolation plays to the emotional value of the argument. Technologies do not cause bad behavior. It is the people who use technologies for evil purposes that demonstrate bad behavior. Blaming nonlethal weapons for increased conflict or human suffering is a quintessential example of ergofusion.

"Compared to What?"

While it is easy to criticize a given issue, it is far more difficult to present a viable alternative. Surprisingly, those most vocal in decrying the effects of nonlethal weapons have been organizations usually associated with supporting human rights. Members of these organizations publicly lament the abuses sometimes attributed to certain weapons, based on the altruistic philosophy that intentional pain, even if temporary, is unacceptable when delivered by law enforcement or members of the military. Entirely missing from their refrain is a positive alternative. The question "Compared to what?" should be answered before complaints are lodged against nonlethal weapons.

Nonlethal antipersonnel weapons are designed for use in a manner that protects and conserves life. Unfortunately, both law-enforcement and military personnel are frequently confronted by people who do not share these values and whose behavior is deemed intolerable. Societies have determined that there are absolute limits to bad behavior and have authorized government bodies to act to stop certain misconduct. Without nonlethal alternatives, the most likely outcome is that the protestors will be shot or will sustain greater injury from physical beatings.

Issues of Importance

A number of important issues related to nonlethal weapons should be addressed, including those of effectiveness, casualty acceptability limits, and rules of engagement. The effects of bullets and explosives are well known, while those of nonlethal weapons are not. Therefore, a concern facing commanders is to have high assurance that the new weapons will perform to expected standards. Questions arise about the effects of various types of nonlethal weapons on humans. Problematic is the wide range of physical variability found in any diverse group of people. There is similar concern about measuring the effectiveness of antimateriel nonlethal weapons. Debate abounds as to whether or not nonlethal weapons can serve as a deterrent to further aggression. It is agreed that they should not be deployed without adequate lethal capability to successfully accomplish the mission. Additionally, nonlethal weapons should not have an adverse impact on the environment, and longterm toxicity testing should be accomplished before fielding.

Casualty acceptability is an exceptionally thorny issue. Unlike the zero tolerance for mistakes in law enforcement, military operations are likely to incur some level of casualties that are deemed acceptable by the politicians who commit troops in these situations. Though politically incorrect to state, it is highly likely that the level of acceptable casualties will be based on such factors as race, religion, ethnicity, and the value of natural resources in the disputed territory to the technologically developed nations. Another related factor may be the visibility of casualties. If CNN and other news organizations are filming and airing massive numbers of deaths, the acceptance level will probably decrease. If the deaths are not visible and confrontational, public tolerance for even genocidal fatalities is extraordinarily high.

Establishing clear rules of engagement that can be effectively implemented when employing nonlethal weapons is vital. The pace at which operational situations can change is accelerating. Therefore, the authority to switch from nonlethal to lethal force will by necessity be pushed to lower and lower levels. Conversely, there is a need to be able to rapidly de-escalate the levels of conflict when the direct threat abates. Countering adrenaline, as required for de-escalation, will be particularly difficult and will require extensive training and strict supervision.

Smarter Wars

The nature of warfare has changed. Traditional enemies remain, but new, mercurial adversaries are emerging. Identifying and locating them is difficult, as they are often commingled with civilians, thus presenting the problem of unwanted casualties. The reality of these new conflicts is already manifesting itself both internationally and domestically. Terrorism has established a strong foothold worldwide. Economic and environmental issues are inextricably entwined on a global basis and tied directly to national and regional security. Based on the hard-learned lessons of Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Panama, and many other places, military officers are searching for alternative solutions.

Nonlethal weapons are a pragmatic application of force, not a peace movement. They are essential for the preservation of stability. From old rubber bullets and common tear gas to exotic advanced systems that can paralyze a country, they are the weapons of the future. They will be used in peacekeeping operations and employed as strategic weapons. Nonlethal weapons are not a panacea, and complex international issues remain involved. Conventional force is also necessary and tightly coupled to these alternatives. However, across the spectrum of conflict, as in law enforcement, nonlethal weapons will be a part of the future.