Evolution of Less-Lethal

The Evolution from "Non-Lethal" to "Less-Lethal"
by Sid Heal
The controversy surrounding the nomenclature and terminology of the class of weapons
referred to at various times as, "less lethal," "less-than-lethal" or "nonlethal" defies precision
and acceptance. Other, but less well-known terms which have fallen into disuse are "low
lethal," "soft kill," "mission kill," "low level force," "disabling effects," "low collateral damage,"
"controlled force," and "limited damage" are equally confusing. Currently, there is no adequate
description and certainly none that are universally accepted. Even more poignant, there
appears to be no acceptable solution forthcoming.
In order to fully understand the issues begetting the controversy, it is necessary to understand
the roots of the confusion. First, while a lethal weapon attempts to defeat an adversary’s ability
to resist, a less lethal device attempts to defeat his will to resist. An adversary’s ability to resist
is visible, measurable and concrete. For example, the U.S. Military uses algorithms to predict
the degree of damage and destruction from artillery rounds, bombs and small-arms fires. Each
bomb, naval shell, artillery or mortar round can be rated according to such things as killing
radius, wounding radius and shrapnel radius. A person’s will, on the other hand, is intangible. It
defies measurement. When employing less lethal devices, abundant examples exist of
persons who have resisted despite being struck by different devices scores of times.
Conversely, persons have surrendered after a nonlethal device was fired and missed!
This concept leads us to the second point of confusion because lethal weapons are defined by
their capability, while nonlethal devices are defined by their intent. Until relatively recently, all
weapons were rated by such things as the number of people who could be killed at one time,
how fast it could be done and the likelihood of persons escaping the effects. Everything from
rifle bullets to nuclear bombs were simply a lethal weapon of some sort with varying degrees of
effectiveness. In the words of one U.S. Marine officer, "When it comes to force, we go from an
M-16 to an F-16."
With the advent of nonlethal options, however, the definitions and ratings no longer fit. For one
thing, nonlethal weapons, by definition, are never intended to kill. For another, lethal weapons
have never been totally effective so why would we require less lethal options to be? There are
ample examples of people who were intended to be killed but who, for one reason or another,
survived. Likewise, situations in which less lethal options were employed sometimes resulted
file:///U|/taser/M26/2000/Feb/SidHeal.htm (1 of 3) [5/26/2009 1:55:21 PM]

Evolution of Less-Lethal

in serious injury and death, or conversely, were completely ineffective. Consequently, even
rating a nonlethal device becomes extremely difficult because the conventional standards used
to rate lethal devices are not applicable.
The controversy became heated in the mid-1990s after U.S. Marines had proven the concept
of nonlethal force in military operations when extracting United Nations personnel from
Mogadishu, Somalia in early 1995. The operation was a noteworthy success and captured the
imagination of the world. By the late summer, military study groups throughout the western
world were organized and tasked with developing concepts, issues, doctrine and training
requirements for integrating nonlethal options into military operations. One of the first and most
controversial issues was what to call them.
"Nonlethal" was a term already in use but many of the devices could be deadly and sometimes
were. "Less-than-lethal" tended to imply that a device couldn’t be lethal." "Less lethal" had
connotations that a device was lethal but just not as effective. Because much of the expertise
in the employment and development of these devices was in the civilian and law enforcement
communities, they were also called upon for advice. Law enforcement, universally, rejected the
term "nonlethal." The feeling was that juries would be swayed when someone was accidentally
killed. They were split between the terms "less lethal" and "less-than-lethal" and are so to this
day, although "less lethal" has been gaining more favor.
The controversy continued throughout 1995 and into 1996 when the U.S. Department of
Defense required the selection of a term to bring closure to what was really an ancillary issue.
The term "nonlethal" was selected and the following definition was provided.
"Nonlethal weapons are defined as weapons that are explicitly designed and
primarily employed, at a minimum, to discourage or at most, incapacitate
personnel or materiel while minimizing fatalities and undesired damage to
property and the environment."
While this brought closure to the dispute in the military community, the controversy remains in
law enforcement. One reason is that while the U.S. Department of Defense provides guiding
information and regulations for all the uniformed services and defense related industries, there
is no such body in U.S. law enforcement. Each region, jurisdiction and agency remains free to
use any terminology it chooses. In attempting to develop a common understanding and bring
closure to a number of less lethal issues, the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA)
sponsored a study comprised of a group of subject matter experts. The study began in July
1995 and continued almost two years through June of 1997. The findings were published in
the organization’s professional journal, The Tactical Edge. The term "less lethal" was chosen
and the definition (in part) is as follows:
Those devices employed (paraphrased) ". . . for the purpose of encouraging

file:///U|/taser/M26/2000/Feb/SidHeal.htm (2 of 3) [5/26/2009 1:55:21 PM]

Evolution of Less-Lethal

compliance, overcoming resistance or preventing serious injury without posing a
significant potential of causing death."
Today, the various opinions remain strong and the controversy will probably never be
completely put to rest. You will notice that, to this point, I have used less lethal and nonlethal
interchangeably. Because I regularly work on less lethal projects for both the law enforcement
and military communities, I am required to be "bilingual." It is difficult to constantly consider in
which environment I am working and to whom I am speaking and so, I too, am not exempt
from the difficulties in using more than one term to describe the same concept. In this case, I
intentionally used both terms to show how trivial the issue really is. Everyone understands that
"nonlethal" doesn’t mean that it can’t be. Everyone understands that "less lethal" means that it
might be. Everyone understands that "less-than-lethal" means that it can be. If I could express
one hope it would be this. Even if we have to accept the Department of Defense term, let’s put
the controversy behind us. It detracts from the more important issues of how this technology
should be developed, employed and integrated with our law enforcement tasks. If we can’t
accept a single term, let’s at least quit bickering over what is really a trivial aspect of one of the
most exciting advancements in modern law enforcement.

file:///U|/taser/M26/2000/Feb/SidHeal.htm (3 of 3) [5/26/2009 1:55:21 PM]