Non-Lethal Weapons: “The First Arms Race In Which The Opponent Is The General Population”
Designed to “control crowds, clear streets, subdue and restrain individuals and secure borders,” they are the 21st century’s version of the police baton, pepper spray and tear gas. As journalist Ando Arike puts it, “The result is what appears to be the first arms race in which the opponent is the general population.”
The demand for non-lethal weapons (NLW) is rooted in the rise of television. In the 1960s and ’70s the medium let everyday Americans witness the violent tactics used to suppress the civil rights and anti-war movements. Today’s rapid advancements in media and telecommunications technologies allow people to record and publicize images and video of undue force more than ever before.
Authorities are well aware of how images of violence play out publicly. In 1997, a joint report from the Pentagon and the Justice Department warned: “A further consideration that affects how the military and law enforcement apply force is the greater presence of members of the media or other civilians who are observing, if not recording, the situation. Even the lawful application of force can be misrepresented to or misunderstood by the public. More than ever, the police and the military must be highly discreet when applying force.”
The global economic collapse coupled with the unpredictable and increasingly catastrophic consequences of climate change and resource scarcity, along with a new era of austerity defined by rising unemployment and glaring inequality have already led to massive protests in Spain, Greece, Egypt, and even Madison, Wisconsin.
From the progressive era to the Great Depression to the civil rights movement, Americans have a rich history of taking to the streets to demand greater equality. Meanwhile, tens of millions of dollars have been invested in the research and development of more “media-friendly” weapons for everyday policing and crowd control. This has lead to a trade-in of old school weapons for more exotic and controversial technologies.