| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
020462
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July-Sept 2001.
|
| Description |
180-193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
068190
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
139096
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
US military operations are increasingly conducted within urban environments and with these operations come the risk of increasing the number of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. The use of non-lethal weaponry, such as directed-energy weapons, is one method for minimizing collateral damage. This method enables US military forces to effectively fight within urban environments through force escalation capabilities. Using a series of historical examples and future scenarios for urban warfare, this article highlights deficiencies affecting military capabilities in military urban operations, addresses the consequences of collateral damage, assesses the effectiveness of directed-energy weapons in military urban operations and encourages further funding, research and integration of non-lethal weaponry, such as directed-energy weapons, within the US military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
020461
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July-Sept 2001.
|
| Description |
175-179
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
075774
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Military interest in incapacitating biochemical weapons has grown in recent years as advances in science and technology have appeared to offer the promise of new "non-lethal" weapons useful for a variety of politically and militarily challenging situations. There is, in fact, a long and unfulfilled history of attempts to develop such weapons. It is clear that advances are opening up a range of possibilities for future biological and chemical weapons more generally. The treaties prohibiting biological and chemical weapons make no distinction between lethal and "non-lethal" weapons-all are equally prohibited. Indeed, a sharp and technically meaningful distinction between lethal and "non-lethal" biological and chemical weapons is beyond the capability of science to make. Thus, interest in incapacitating biochemical weapons, and efforts on the part of various states to develop them, pose a significant challenge to the treaty regimes, to the norms against biological and chemical warfare that they embody, and, ultimately, to the essential protections that they provide. Preventing a new generation of biological and chemical weapons from emerging will take concerted efforts and action at the local, national, and international levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
130317
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article focuses on the development of Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW). It says that the Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) offers advantages, like enough amount of energy needed to achieve the effect. It mentions that the Conducted Energy Weapons depend on physical wires to provide the energy into the target. It adds that water cannons have been used to control riot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
059404
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
020463
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July-Sept 2001.
|
| Description |
194-206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
081490
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The occupation of Iraq is a challenging task for the United States (US) military, which is considering resort to options other than lethal force as a possible just response. From the outset, the notion that a weapon can be deemed 'non-lethal' is problematic. Some weapons intended to leave their target alive often have lethal consequences and other weapons intended to have lethal effects often do not kill their target. This article explores ethical and legal challenges that arise from the potential use by US forces in Iraq of two classes of so-called 'non-lethal' weapons: incapacitating chemical agents and dazzling laser devices. Such challenges are highly relevant to questions about the role of Just War theory in the context of modern warfare. In particular, they beg the question whether the use of non-lethal weapons supports or subverts the jus in bello requirement that war be waged in a discriminate and proportionate fashion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
023201
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 2002.
|
| Description |
4-7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
013115
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Autumn 1997.
|
| Description |
71-93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
058397
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Sep 1999.
|
| Description |
Aug 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
146232
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The role of norms and military utility in the use of weapons is disputed by constructivist and realist scholars. Through an examination of US decision-making regarding anti-plant and irritant agents in the Vietnam War, I advance this debate in three key ways. First, I develop structural realism’s expectations regarding the role of military utility. Second, I demonstrate that social and material factors are at play in our understandings of both ‘norms’ and ‘military utility’, and that both played a role in US decisions. Third, I find that the dominant role – as structural realism expects – was played by military utility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
093439
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
020466
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July-Sept 2001.
|
| Description |
272-285
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
020464
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July-Sept 2001.
|
| Description |
207-220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
019838
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
April 2001.
|
| Description |
57-82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
110567
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
167410
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The killing of Micah Johnson by Dallas police using a teleguided exploding robot on 8 July 2016 is the first known example of the use of a killer drone by US law enforcement in the domestic arena. This repatriation of the drone, under conditions of racialized urban unrest designated as exceptional, was predicted by Didier Bigo and follows a familiar pattern whereby coercive security technologies are tested abroad before finding their way ‘home’ to arm police forces that are becoming increasingly paramilitary in style and conduct. I use the Dallas incident to probe the cogency and limits of ‘drone theory’ and to consider its application in domestic policing contexts. I work through three broadly delineated areas of scepticism about drone theory as it intersects with policing and, in so doing, develop my own account of the weaponized policing drone as a defining techno-cultural element within the emergent form of neoliberal political rationality I call ‘governance’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
174289
|
|
|