The Grand Moral Strategy and the World Development Program enabled
the New Transformation to proceed according to plan. President
Carey's pledge to eliminate mismanagement in the government made big
strides. One by one, the new programs promised were passed by a
supportive Congress. The mid-term elections increased the Democratic
majority in both Houses. The opposition was demoralized and
ineffective. The new programs were accompanied by government
reorganization actions. The federal departments were streamlined;
functions were reallocated as needed. A special effort was made to
use the vast computer and information resources of the government to
increase productivity and provide better service to the citizens. As
part of the New Transformation, many functions were delegated to
state and local governments. This cooperative relationship was
extended to other areas, to eliminate government waste at all levels.
The federal civil service responded to the challenges with eagerness.
Once again a government career became attractive to dedicated young
Americans eager to serve the common good.
As expected, the nation's taxpayers did not mind paying higher taxes provided they could see the benefits of their sacrifice. The dramatic reduction in defense expenditures provided much of the funding needed for the new programs. Taxation was made fairer by increasing the progressivity of rates. The economy rebounded strongly once the new federal programs started to make their impacts. The massive construction projects under the infrastructure reconstruction and new housing programs created many new jobs. The economy was booming and tax revenues increased steadily. The much needed improvement of the nation's education system was started. More and better paid teachers were recruited. Less affluent school districts were supplied with needed equipment and resources. Core curriculums were developed and national standards were established to measure accomplishments. The assistance of business and industry was obtained, to ensure the well-trained labor force for industrial competitiveness. The other programs of the New Transformation were similarly inititated. The economy was so productive that after satisfying the domestic needs of Americans with the New Transformation, money and resources still were available for the World Development Plan.
Paul's Department of Peace was forging ahead according to the master plan of Warless World 2000. Job applicants with the highest credentials were eager to work for such a beneficial function as war abolition. Retired generals and admirals did not mind working with new graduates of our universities. The promise of peace overcame many previous barriers .
The restructuring of the regular defense forces was proceeding according to plan. The strategic force was completing its 50% reduction of nuclear warheads earlier agreed upon with the Soviet Union. The rapid deployment force was strengthened to be able to deter overly aggressive Third World dictators. Joint exercises were held with their Soviet counterparts, as well as with the allies.
The Department of Peace was completing several major projects. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world ethnic, tribal and other forms of violence continued. Much of this violence came about because of purposeful actions of governments. To stay in power, many dictators and authoritarian regimes found it expedient to fan the flames of enmity and hatred. These were the traditional methods of uniting the in-groups against the out-groups. But in the waning years of the 20th century these primitive techniques were becoming counter-productive. In other countries, lack of democracy prevented the taking of meaningful actions against poverty and other social disfunctions. These, too, created flash points for potential or actual violence.
The Violence Control System was the method of controlling violence, and prevent their explosion into wars. It was not possible to abolish war, without developing methods and techniques for abating armed violence among human groups. The system consisted of a combination of information gathering and conflict resolution activities. An inventory was taken, world wide, of actual and potential sources of violence. An amity-enmity index was prepared, to measure the official government expressions through the media and the press. Potential and actual allies were lined up to prevent or contain violence.
Finally, a set of plans were prepared for conflict recognition; conflict prevention; conflict abatement; and conflict resolution. With the Violence Control System in place, it was feasible to take measures, on a country by country basis, on reducing violence that might have led to war. For example, since economic prosperity tended to reduce violence, development assistance was provided as a prevention measure. In other cases governments were pressured to reduce enmity-causing propaganda. Democratization tended to reduce enmities. And most importantly, the spread of world wide communications and television showed that people of different cultures and backgrounds were not by definition tribal enemies.
Paul also continued his efforts toward implementing the two non-lethal components of the New Model Army. The Defense Department created the first military units armed with non-lethal weapons. They were given the same mobility as the rapid deployment units, so that they could be dispatched to trouble spots quickly. But they were armed only with armaments that were designated to disable temporarily potential aggressors Then other conflict resolution techniques could be employed, until the violence was contained and stopped. Here again, a policy of cooperation and information sharing with allies and with the Soviet Union contributed to the development of an international capability to contain violence. Since the stated objective was the preserving of human life and the development of the human potential, a strong moral impetus was given to this new method of eliminating violence among the tribes of humanity.
It is widely believed that one of the primary goals in war, particularly contemporary war, is to kill the enemy. Quite the contrary, in many if not most circumstances, killing the enemy is at best a second choice. In dealing with combat troops, the far more desirable strategy is to maim and injure the troops, particularly with some continuing or long-lasting condition, such that a vast logistics chain of hospital support and maintenance is tied up in saving and working with them. Hence the broad appeal of such weapons as mustard gas, phosphorus (which burns), and weapons which create large amounts of shrapnel and wounds. Tying up the enemy's logistics, creating fear and terror among the troops, are more important objectives than merely killing a soldier.
The second goal of weapons, particularly in the modern world, is to create demoralization and terror among the civilians who are the backbone support for the military. In the contemporary era that was the purpose of the V-2 against England, and the purpose of much of civilian firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo by the Allies. In traditional conflict, the role of physical violence, death and destruction is central. It is a primary tool for making the enemy either knuckle under and sue for peace, or simply defeating the enemy by overwhelming losses and unmeetable commitments.
In contrast, in many of the emerging kinds of conflicts there is a strong premium for accomplishing the reverse objectives, that is, reducing deaths, reducing maiming, reducing heinous injuries. Why? Because in many of the kinds of internal conflicts, irredentist movements, balkanizing movements, rebellions, tribal conflict, interracial or intergroup conflict, the people in conflict still have to live together after the issue is settled. The objective in these forms of collective violence ought to be less to create the terrible future burden from death and violence, and more to prepare for the positive future.
Even more significant for non-lethal weaponry is the emerging opportunity, for international and multilateral intervention, to either make or preserve the peace. In one extreme, should a collective force go into a country to restore order and establish a government, it would be absolutely incompatible with those international objectives to use death and maiming as a tool.
The need for nondeadly force and non-lethal weapons is clear and expanding.
The Military Missions for Non-Lethal Firepower and Weapons
The intensity of conflict, the aggressiveness and the deadliness of violence and force to be used, and the number of combatants and noncombatants influences the choice of weapons. Understanding operational, organizational and tactical choices is necessary to assess the potential use of less destructive techniques.
The applicability of non-lethal techniques depends largely on the presence of noncombatants. As the number of noncombatants increases, both relatively and absolutely, the requirements for less deadly techniques go up.
While the general objective in "non-lethal" warfare is to reduce casualties (in the sense of lethal and maiming injuries), it is often unclear what casualties are being spoken of. They may be among friendly forces, enemy forces, or civilians whose affiliations are mixed, unknown, or even fully committed to one side or another. Finally, they may be among neutrals or aliens such as foreign visitors, businessmen, or embassy personnel. In many future actions the safety of civilians, particularly when they are located in the potential field of fire, will be quite important. In other instances, casualties among aliens may have a principal significance, as in a rescue operation. Reducing lethal casualties among enemy forces may have practical value beyond the general aspiration to humaneness and civility during war. For example, the opportunity to inflict non-lethal casualties may facilitate capture and rehabilitation, promote the gathering of intelligence, and reduce overall violence by reducing the risks in surrender. However, the possibility that non-lethal weapons might enhance the aggressiveness of the enemy by reducing his deadly risks cannot be discounted.
The reduction of casualties among friendly forces is almost always considered desirable. Most of the destruction currently associated with combat in low-level conflict is directly or indirectly a derivative of the desire to reduce casualties among friendly forces. This is often brought about by neutralizing the enemy position with heavy expenditures of firepower. All other considerations aside, the commander will act to reduce casualties in his forces. Discipline, fire control, care to be precise and certain before taking action, and deemphasis on speed can reduce casualties among the enemy and the neutral without necessarily impeding or frustrating the combat objective.
The pattern of casualties varies with the particular kind of operation. Consequently, the emphasis on methods for reducing casualties varies as a function of the military mission.
Methods of Reducing Casualties
Within the framework of present equipment and military doctrine, casualties can be controlled or reduced by:
The most promising area for a large
reduction in the lethality and destructiveness of warfare is in the
development of new devices and agents which offer the commander new
capabilities or new tactical and strategic alternatives. Each of the
above considerations (tactics, discipline, care in operation, and
evacuation and forewarning) are applicable to any weapon system in
reducing the primary or secondary casualties. The major decrement in
casualties for given types of operations will come about in the
development of new devices and agents and, in turn, these will lead
to new concepts, new tactics, and new doctrines. In some cases these
may be adapted to old systems, entirely new systems, or may be
required for dealing with particular military situations.
Antipersonnel Mechanisms and Non-Lethal Weapons
Before proceeding with non-lethal weapons applicability to special missions, consideration must be given to various biological, physical and other mechanisms that lend themselves to antipersonnel applications, in order to draw from this a list of non-lethal weapons mechanisms.
The next task before us in this exposition
of the role of non-lethal weapons in peacemaking and peacekeeping is
to review the details of the potential applications of these weapons
concepts. Non-lethal weapons as tools to be introduced in a complex
situation known as conflict have to be linked, related to, or
evaluated against a number of considerations, criteria, and varying
circumstances. Simple solutions and blind ideology-driven advocacy
have no place in conflicted situations in which there is any
potential use of violence.