Notes 1 Introduction 1. Quotation marks are used throughout this book surrounding the phrase ‘non-lethal’ to reflect these disagreements. 2. Fidler, D. (2005) The meaning of Moscow: ‘Non-lethal’ weapons and interna- tional law in the early 21st century. International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 859, September 2005, pp. 525–52. 3. Advocate literature during the 1990s included Morris, C. and Morris, J. (1991) Nonlethality: A Global Strategy White Paper. Washington, DC: US Global Strategy Council; Council on Foreign Relations (1995) ‘Non-Lethal’ Technologies: Military Options and Implications. Report of an Independent Task Force. New York: Council on Foreign Relations; Morehouse, D. (1996) Nonlethal Weapons: War without Death. Westport: Praeger; Alexander, J. (1999) Future War: ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons in Twenty-First-Century Warfare. New York: St. Martin’s Press; Copernoll, M. (1999) The Nonlethal Weapons Debate. Naval War College Review, Vol. LII, No. 2, Spring 1999, pp. 112–31; Garwin, R. (1999) Nonlethal Technologies: Progress and Prospects. Report of an Independent Task Force. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. 4. Sceptic literature during the 1990s included Aftergood, S. (1994) The soft-kill fallacy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 50, No. 5, September–October 1994; Dando, M. (1996) A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons. London: Brasseys; Coupland, R. (1997) ‘Non-lethal’ weapons: precipitating a new arms race. British Medical Journal, Vol. 315, p. 72, 12 July 1997; Lewer, N. and Schofield, S. (1997) ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons: A Fatal Attraction? London: Zed Books; Wright, S. (1998) An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control. Working Document, PE 166 499. Luxembourg: European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Scientific and Technological Options Assessment; Altmann, J. (1999) Acoustic Weapons – A Prospective Assessment: Sources, Propagation, and Effects of Strong Sound. Occasional Paper No. 22, May 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 5. Ackroyd, C., Margolis, K., Rosenhead, J., and Shallice, T. (1980) The Technology of Political Control. Second edition, London: Pluto Press; Wright, S. (1978) New Police Technologies: An exploration of the social implications and unforeseen impacts of some recent developments. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 305–22. 6. Security Planning Corporation (1972) ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons for Law Enforcement: Research Needs and Priorities. A Report to the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: Security Planning Corporation, p. 14. 7. Sweetman, S. (1987) Report on the Attorney General’s Conference on Less Than Lethal Weapons. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, p. 26. 8. For example, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and police forces in the US; and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO), Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), and police forces in the UK. 9. Security Planning Corporation (1972) op. cit., p. 14. 220 Notes 221 10. International Law Enforcement Forum (2005) Less-Lethal Weapons Definitions and Operational Test Criteria. International Law Enforcement Forum Report, p. 17. 11. US Department of Defense (1996) Policy for ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons, Directive 3000.3, 9 July 1996. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict. 12. NATO (1999) NATO Policy on ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons, 13 October 1999. Brussels: NATO. 13. The latter is used by the NIJ in the US. 14. Lewer, N. and Schofield, S. (1997) op. cit., pp. 5–7; Rappert, B. (2003) ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons as Legitimizing Forces? Technology, Politics and the Management of Conflict. London: Frank Cass, pp. 17–34. 15. US Department of Defense (1996) op. cit.; also see, NATO (1999) op. cit. 16. United States/United Kingdom (2001) US/UK ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons (NLW)/Urban Operations Executive Seminar, 30 November 2000, London. Assessment Report. ONR-NLW-038, p. 7. 17. Ibid., p. 11. 18. Howard, P. (1973) Operational Aspects of Agent CS. USATECOM Deseret Test Center technical report DTC-FR-S700M, April 1973. Cited in Meselson, M. and Perry Robinson, J. (2003) ‘Non Lethal’ Weapons and Implementation of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Paper given at the 20th Pugwash Workshop Study Group on the Implementation of the CBW Conventions: The BWC Intersessional Process towards the Sixth Review Conference and Beyond, Geneva, Switzerland, 8–9 November 2003. 19. European Parliament (2000) Crowd Control Technologies: An Assessment of Crowd Control Technology Options for the European Union. Section C: Technical Annex, EP/1/1V/B/STOA/99/14/01. Brussels: European Parliament, Scientific Technology Options Assessment, Appendix 6. 20. BBC News (2002) How special forces ended siege. BBC News Online, 29 October 2002. Accessed December 2006 at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/. 21. US Army (2005) Force Operating Capabilities, TRADOC Pamphlet 525–66. Fort Monroe: US Army, Training and Doctrine Command. 22. The rather cynical counter-arguments that have been made by military policy- makers are twofold. Firstly, that ‘non-lethal’ weapons can be used to identify combatants who are then killed more easily, thereby reducing the risk of causing civilian casualties through the use of ‘lethal’ weapons alone. Secondly, that the concept of reducing casualties can apply solely to your own side (i.e. ‘friendly casualties’), while actually using ‘non-lethal’ weapons to increase enemy casual- ties. However, these arguments do not fit with the way in which ‘non-lethal’ weapons are commonly presented and advocated. 23. National Institute of Justice (2006), Less-Than-Lethal Technologies (LTL) pro- gram website. Accessed December 2006 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/. 24. For a recent example see Lardner, R. (2007) Marines In Iraq Decry Lack Of Laser System. Tampa Tribune, 31 January 2007. 25. Metropolitan Police Authority (2003) Introduction of the taser (electronic stun gun) as a less lethal option. London: Metropolitan Police Authority, Co-ordination and Policing Committee, 4 April 2003; also see, Association of Chief Police Officers (2007) Extended operational Deployment of Taser for Specially Trained Units (exclud- ing firearms incidents), Policy, Version 2 – July 2007. 26. NATO (1999) op. cit.; also see, US Department of Defense (1996) op. cit. 222 Notes 27. Ackroyd, C., Margolis, K., Rosenhead, J., and Shallice, T. (1980) op. cit., p. 199. 28. Amnesty International (2004) United States of America: Excessive and lethal force? AMR 51/139/2004. London: Amnesty International. 29. Lewer, N. and Davison, N. (2006) Electrical stun weapons: alternative to lethal force or a compliance tool? Bradford: University of Bradford. 30. Migoya, D. (2004) Police Tasers set to stun. Denver Post, 4 May 2004. 31. This included incidents where the Taser was either displayed, fired, or used as a ‘stun gun’. 32. Seattle-Post Intelligencer (not dated) Taser use in King County. Sample of law enforcement agencies using tasers and a breakdown of incidents by agency. Accessed September 2008 at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/. 33. The Canadian Press (2007) Most people hit with RCMP Tasers unarmed: reports. 18 November 2007. Accessed September 2008 at: http://www.ctv.ca/. 34. Coupland, R. and Loye, D. (2000) Legal and Health Issues: International Humanitarian Law and the Lethality or Non-Lethality of Weapons. In: M. Dando (ed.) ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons: Technological and Operational Prospects. Coulsdon: Jane’s, pp. 60–6. 35. Coupland, R. (2005) Modelling armed violence: a tool for humanitarian dia- logue in disarmament and arms control. In: J. Borrie and V. Martin Randin (eds) Alternative Approaches in Multilateral Decision Making: Disarmament as Humanitarian Action. Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNDIR), May 2005, pp. 39–49. 36. Ibid. 37. Klotz, L., Furmanski, M., and Wheelis, M. (2003) Beware the Siren’s Song: Why “Non-Lethal” Incapacitating Chemical Agents are Lethal. Washington D.C.: Federation of American Scientists. 38. Walsh, P. (2003) Families claim death toll from gas in Moscow siege kept secret. The Guardian, 18 October 2003. 39. Klotz, L., Furmanski, M., and Wheelis, M. (2003) op. cit. 40. See, for example: Allison, G., Kelley, P., and Garwin, R. (2004) Nonlethal Weapons and Capabilities. Report of an Independent Task Force. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press. 41. United States/United Kingdom (2001) op. cit., p. 3. 42. Ibid. 43. Allison, G., Kelley, P., and Garwin, R. (2004) op. cit., p. 12. 44. The US Army ran a Low Collateral Damage Munitions (LCDM) programme at the Army Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) during the early 1990s, which emphasised variable effects weapons, describing them as ‘non-lethal’. This is now referred to as the ‘Scalable Effects’ programme. See National Research Council (2003) An Assessment of ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, pp. 63–4; Galvan, J. and Kang, T. (2006) The Future of the Army Nonlethal Scalable Effects Center. Military Police, PB-19-06-1, April 2006. 45. US Marine Corps (1998) Joint Concept for ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons, 5 January 1998. Quantico: US Marine Corps. 46. See Davison, N. and Lewer, N. (2003–6) Bradford ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons Research Project Research Reports No. 4–8. Bradford: University of Bradford. 47. Coates, J. (1970) Nonlethal and Nondestructive Combat in Cities Overseas. Washington, DC: Institute for Defense Analyses, Science and Technology Division, pp. 102–3. Notes 223 48. Dando,