"Human effects experts have determined there are no long-term health effects associated with ADS, and research involving more than 600 volunteers and 10,000 exposures has proven there is a less than a one tenth of 1 percent chance of even a very minor injury."
If this is the case then I don't think this development is all that controversial. The growing need to secure perimeters and checkpoints is real and finding non-lethal ways to do so would seem to me a good thing (given what I have heard and seen in Iraq--makes winning hearts and minds a tad bid problematic). Not to mention that while protesting is certainly a Constitutionally-protected freedom, not all protesters (or groups within a given protest) behave appropriately, making some sort of confrontation necessary. Having a non-lethal way to deal with those instances, again, would seem a positive.
Charli
If I remember “proportionality” correctly, assuming for argument that all other just war conditions are met, if there is a real choice in achieving a legitimate military objective, the one that that cause the least human suffering should be chosen.
Multiple choice:
Suppose I have three ways to defeat an enemy, hiding be hind civilians, who is in eminent danger of killing me, I should:
A. Throw a hand grenade at him.
B. Shoot him with an M-16
C. Shoot him with a “non lethal”: stun gun.
I would have thought that “C” was the correct answer. If I’m wrong please tell me.
By extension does this not apply (all things being equal) to higher commander and civilian decision makers in arming the force if they have a choice? ?
Of course crowd control is something entirely different, one of the elementary rules is not to take sides between demonstrators. Another is to use the least violent type of force practical. I would think that those “stun guns” should only be used when one could legally use deadly force, a better choice than an M-16. For ethical legal and practical reasons.
As a device, it is liable to abuse. That being said, the Spanish Inquisition managed nicely without it and it's existence may save lives.
As I recall, with firearms it's a ROE of warning shot fired into the air, then at the pavement in front of a surging mob and then firing straight at the mob. Another non-lethal option alongside tear gas/pepper spray would be helpful.
Bill,
Surely you don't buy that uncited assertion just because it appears on the DOD website? I haven't looked into this exhaustively, but my sense is that most of the "research" on ADS has been funded by the DOD itself - I'd like to see some independent studies.
WIRED magazine has written about a report discovered through the Sunshine project that casts some doubt on the testing that's gone on so far:
http://www.wired.com/science/dis...s/2006/12/
72236
But for the record, my argument is not that it is or could be lethal. My argument is that even if ADS is truly non-lethal and could save lives, it's essentially a torture implement.
Hank: Your assessment of proportionality is helpful and as I understand it, correct. But the whole point of my post is that ADS is not a "stun gun." It's a torture implement. It causes extreme pain whose cessation is contingent on an individual's ability to move out of the ray. Even if it's never used maliciously, which strains the imagination, it's reasonable to assume some people would suffer horribly because for whatever reasons their movements would be impaired. So the more important Hague Law principle here is "unnecessary suffering." Do we really need to make people feel like they're on fire to control crowds?
Zenpundit, good points all. I agree that bloodless alternatives to crowd control are a fine idea. I simply think that such weapons should be compliant with the same standards of humanitarian law to which lethal weapons are subject.
Charlie: Notice that I said "if this is the case" 
But your point is well take. However I don't agree that the device's use would inherently constitute torture. Does the device compel individuals to change their actions--yes. Does it do so through pain and/or discomfort--yes. I don't think that that inherently equals torture. I think the context of its use would determine that. The police use different types of compellence (both actual and threatened) all the time to alter an individuals actions, and this is completely lawful and does not constitute torture. However, those same techniques could be considered torture if used in excess or in a different context.
My comment on crowd control included the requirement that lethal force would be justified.
I quite agree that the ADS should not be used for ordinary crowd control. But sometimes things deteriorate to the point that lethal force is required. If the effects are as advertised I think that it is significantly less inhumane than using firearms.
Of course sometimes people panic, use poor judgment, or are just plain malicious. But if some one falls into one of these categories, would thy not cause less damage with an ADS than a firearm?
If some one would use an ADS where lethal force is not justified, especially with the intent to torture, I would be happy to support any suggestion for punishment you make that is not “cruel and unusual” or inhumane.
Re: Torture
It depends on use.
Used on physically restrained prisoners or on a crowd backed into a cul-de-sac, I think that would constitute torture.
If the crowd simply needs to cease moving forward and can disperse in some other direction, then I think the device is an aversive irritant to discourge unlawful mob violence and as legitimate an option as tear gas.
As an observation, waiting to take some kind of action until a crowd has reached the point where lethal force is legally justifiable is probably unwise. De-escalation is one tactic, targeting potential ringleaders is another but the initiative should not be left to the crowd.
The wider strategic context of this device has been missed. The problem for the US military is that, despite the RMA, power is not fungible. The ability to deploy coercive, military power to destroy enemies does not necessarily equate into the ability to excercise political control over a situation, as the US has found in Iraq (or indeed Russia in Chechnya). The research into non lethal weapons seems to be intended to fill this strategic gap, allowing military hard power to be converted more easily into soft(er) power. US forces would therefore be better able to take on a police function in conflict theatres, allowing military force to serve political purposes as Clausewitz envisaged.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
