NATO alliance unveils 'non-lethal weapon' program

By Douglas Hamilton

BRUSSELS (Reuters): If North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ever has to repeat a Kosovo-style coercion campaign in support of oppressed minorities, its pilots could be launching superglues that stick tanks to the road, instead of missiles to blow them up.

Instead of blasting highways with bombs, they could be coating them with agents that destroy vehicle tyres. They could be playing low-frequency sound tapes that make ground forces vomit, instead of shredding them with depleted uranium bullets.

These soft techniques are aspects of a new generation of so- called "non-lethal weapons" being developed to take some of the death and destruction out of low-level conflict.

They are also meant to widen the choices open to peacekeepers, cut reconstruction bills, and spare the environment.

NATO allies recently announced their first policy statement on the use of such weapons, preparing for the day that troops could be called on to use them in tasks short of all-out war.

They include disorienting noise, painful ultra-sound, bad smells, skin irritants, strobe lights, stun weapons, glue guns, sticky foam bombs, eyesight dazzlers, microwaved "minefields", nets, meshes, and immobilizing airbags.

"The idea is to enhance the range of options open to a NATO commander, not to replace or undermine his authority to use lethal force," a NATO official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"There's also a tremendous push after Kosovo to reduce collateral damage to civilians and to protect the environment," the NATO official added.

The new policy, adopted in late September, applies to the development and acquisition of "weapons designed specifically for the purpose of minimizing fatalities, permanent injury...and undesired damage to property and the environment" even though they may have limited harmful effects.

A NATO internal document notes such weapons are politically sensitive because they are anti-personnel and some are legally restricted or banned in warfare, such as tear-gas.

"Some of these new techniques, although not lethal, are still pretty frightening," the official said, citing the example of corrosive agents for attacking optical equipment.

But he said it had been clear for some years that the alliance needed an umbrella policy for the use of non-lethal arms as military functions changed to encompass roles more like those traditionally carried out by riot police.

"Green" voter constituencies in allied member states can also not be ignored, and they are demanding that while coercion may be sometimes necessary it need not always rely on high explosives and cause major environmental problems.

Softer security could also relieve political pressures.

Microwave systems are being developed to fence off terrain in place of landmines, aiming acoustic or other incapacitators at any intruder instead of blowing legs off.

Having destroyed bridges over the River Danube in Serbia and vowing not to help repair them until President Slobodan Milosevic departs the scene, the allies now face warnings from Hungary that winter ice snagged on underwater concrete hulks could block the river, flooding hundreds of towns.

Appeals for help will be politically hard to resist.

While trying to address demands for kinder, gentler forms of military coercion, Western allies are anxious not to whet any naive appetite for bloodless war that leaves no mess.

The NATO policy states that "the availability of non-lethal weapons shall in no way limit a commander's or individual's inherent right and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate action in self-defense".

There should be no obligation to use non-lethal means, no guarantee that they will not kill, and no imposition of higher standards for using lethal force.

"In all cases NATO forces shall retain the option for immediate use of lethal weapons consistent with applicable national and international law and approved rules of engagement," the policy states.

Non-lethal weapons could increase NATO's leverage by deterring hostile groups that gamble on the alliance not daring to risk using deadly force, or holding back because of the risk of hurting civilians, the non-classified paper says.

They can be employed alongside highly lethal conventional weapons to give troops a broader range of possible responses.

In situations short of war, where political, diplomatic, economic or environmental demands may dictate methods used and lethal force is unnecessary or inconsistent with the mission, they offer ways of putting hostile forces or equipment temporarily out of action with a minimum of damage.

The U.S. Coast Guard is already using non-lethal weapons against Caribbean drug smuggling boats, dropping high-strength nets from helicopters and employing sting bombs and malodorants.

Soft weapons also offer new ways to enforce a peace mandate.

In the 1992-1995 Bosnia war, small groups of hostile civilians often thwarted NATO troops of the United Nations Protection Force by barring the path of aid convoys, daring heavily-armed soldiers to use firearms to break up their blockades.

In Kosovo, NATO peacekeepers deployed with main battle tanks and mammoth self-propelled guns in June, but quickly found mobs, arson and street killings were their real problems.

Non-lethal weapons such as net-guns and glue guns were not issued to NATO's Balkan peacekeepers in Bosnia or Kosovo because of their relative newness, the NATO official said.

There is also resistance from the military. Troops in general do not want to give up essential weapons for arms that are deliberately designed to have a "low probability" of killing, as the policy states.

"There has been a natural reluctance on the part of the military to adopt systems that could challenge the soldier's conventional lethal capability," the official said.

There was also resistance to taking on tasks normally allotted to police forces. But the official said it was clear that combat troops make the best peacekeepers and so there was a "certain inevitability" to them being handed more such jobs.

"Those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle," wrote the ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in The Art of War, a view contrasting sharply with Prussian Carl von Clausewitz's theory of escalating, overwhelming force.

Together with today's precision-guided munitions, non-lethal weapons point to a conflict environment of the future in which bloodshed and destruction could -- in theory -- be limited.

The European Union allies who helped bomb Yugoslavia will end up paying for some of the damage, so lowering the cost of repair, as well as avoiding the stigma of willfully causing grave pollution, is an important objective.

Non-lethal weapons can already address such concerns.

In the Kosovo air war, the United States used a hitherto secret non-lethal weapon, in the form of a carbon filament "bomb" that could short-circuit the power supply without blowing up toxin-filled transformers, although this was also done.

But pulling punches is not the only use for such weapons.

A U.S. military doctrine paper says they could "augment economic, information or military sanctions", degrade an adversary's ability to wage war, facilitate quick military incursions, hostage rescues or anti-terrorist operations.

Classic non-lethal weapons in past conflicts included displays of overwhelming force -- real or fake -- spreading of disinformation, and interfering with electronics.

The latter tactic can be taken a lot further in today's Information Age, but "information operations" are specifically not included under the umbrella of NATO's new policy.

"With today's techniques of wrecking computers and electronic gear, these methods may not be at all non-lethal. Think of the effects of paralyzing modern aircraft," a NATO source explained.