The late modern warfare and controversies of non-lethality

Abstract

The article seeks to investigate how the practice of non-lethality, built on recent advances in armament technology, may affect the ontology of warfare in the 21st century by turning enemy soldiers and civilian population of other countries into deviant outlaws devoid of moral value “naturally” attributed to “civilised” nations gathered under the (neo)liberal global order. The author analyses the practice of non-lethality in the context of military operations within the framework of US/West policing over the global periphery. The paper hypothesises that the anticipated development of non-lethal weapons raises several controversies related to the projected moral insensitivity of interventionist troops in the treatment of enemy fighters/combatants and the civilian population. The hypothesis is addressed by the critical approach to international security and ontology of warfare, as well as by philosophy of mind and normative approach to moral agency. The author concludes that the Western vision of war as a foreign policy instrument, entirely “sanitised” of the risk of moral wrongdoings, seems to turn a blind eye on the plausible negative effects of non-lethal weapons in combat situations. Contrary to expectations and military-strategic visions, the practice of non-lethality, combined with the manhunt, is likely to eventually oust enemy soldiers and civilians from the realm of moral concerns integral to military ethics.

Keywords

• non-lethality
• non-lethal weapons
• the ontology of warfare
• military intervention
• military technology
• armament
• military ethics
• moral agency