What do you think of modern military turning to strict use of non lethal weapons?

PITX5

A very pleasant thought. However, it is not in the reality zip code so to speak. It would be fantastic if there were no need for a military, or police force for that matter, but given human nature and differences in beliefs and the very meaning of right and wrong, this is not even remotely possible short of God returning to rule the earth.

To quote Edmund Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Unfortunately, given the world we live in, sometimes good men are required to use lethal force. However, with that said, it is still a beautiful dream.

The Yeti

It will NEVER turn entirely to non lethal weapons. Our job is still to fight and win our countries wars.

However, with the contemporary operational environment, non lethal weapons give soldiers and marines more tools for peacekeeping/nationbuilding operations.

In Iraq and Kosovo I carried M203 grendade launcher with bean bag and dowel rounds. Never got to shoot anybody with them, but I'm sure it would hurt like hell.

The Blue Shadow

Sounds like an easy way to be killed by people who don't follow the rules.

Red 10th account

Retarded.

Fonz

insane

Ms. Mikki

Ridiculous. I think it's absolutely absurd. The military has current weapons that range from pissing you off (rubber bullets makes one vow revenge) loud, repetitive exposure to crappy music, to crippling ones (aka the heat ray). All of these weapons just have momentary stun capability, painful, yet not deadly enough to make the offender not want to commit more crimes. If people most were reasonable, willing to negotiate differences in thinking and living, then maybe it would be beneficial to have non-lethal weapons. It's very sad, very tragic. Until then, we need unstoppable, killing forces.

Mr. Getmoney

STUPID, THE TALIBAN DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY PAINTBALL

pamjh960

I suggest you ask that question again after you've had a chance to stare down the business end of a "lethal" weapon. . .

LPW

Great idea as long as it is not my countries (UK) military that is using em, much better if it is the enemy that is using em.

canute tinnie

Sounds like you are the type person who believes in a war where no one shows up for it.

Wars are fought to kill the enemy and win the war as quickly as possibly.

Wars have to be so disgusting that it will only be used when all other means have failed.

Ravencalls

If they can kill us through our cell phones.. its VERY BAD!!

remoserjr107

I Don't Think that will ever Happen; I'm sure the opposite is more likely....!!

REB

I think it is pretty scary in a natural sense. May the Lord have mercy on us, and be our keeper.

john h

If your question is with regards to the U.S military, then I`m all for it, because the people they are shooting are probably innocent , Muslim, and in their own country.... Nuff said..

Gavin R

The idea is way overdue. If you can subdue a hostile mob with sound cannons, why not? It's a whole lot better than machine guns.

Mar

Fine.

LaxeyS

Which modern military is doing this? I don't think they would be very successful!
Lethality often refers to killing the enemy, but modern warfare techniques focus more on 'killing' the enemies weapon system, not neccesarily killing the person; an enemy without a weapon system being fairly harmless.
Weapons technology is often aimed at achieving certain 'effects', such as disabling an aircraft, ship, or vehicle (not neccesarily killing the occupants). However, it seems fairly clear that the most effective ways of stopping these systems may well be lethal to the occupants as well.

The Rikstir VII

Don't be ridiculous .

Jack

Flash-bangs, tazers.. it's all controversial.

wensleydale

When troops are going house to house where civilians could be affected by military action. It seems like a good idea. Can I point out to Mr "Get em Slotted" that under the Geneva Convention that killing an enemy soldier when you don't have to is a war crime.

Dr.John L

I think it would be better because few people would get killed . However in the USA incidents have happened when police used Taser guns. For example a woman with a heart condition, or someone who was knocked off a building and died. So this would have to be monitored very carefully. Never the less it would be better than guns or grenades.

martinez2180

good

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: