The Soft-Kill Fallacy

Aftergood, Steven; Rosenberg, Barbara Hatch

doi:10.1080/00963402.1994.11456556

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 There is also good evidence that the United States has promoted genetic engineering research on novel biological warfare agents that extends bioweapons knowledge and capability and that could be deemed a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (Aftergood 1994;Alexander 1992;Piller and Yamamoto 1988). In any case, violations or not, such work stimulates military interest in other countries.…”

Section: Benefits and Biological Weaponsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Legitimating Genetic Engineering

Wright¹

2001

pbm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

L e g i t i m a t i n g G e n e t i c E n g i n e e r i n g 235 If I am to convince you that it is really in your interests for me to be self-interested, then I can only be effectively self-interested by becoming less so. -Terry Eagleton (1991)T HE NEW FIELD OF BIOTECHNOLOGY was launched in the early 1970s, when the ability to perform controlled genetic engineering was first demonstrated at Stanford University by a graduate student in the department of biochemistry, Peter Lobban, and independently by the chair of the same department, Paul Berg, and his associates. Responses spanned the spectrum from optimistic predictions that genetic engineering would provide a cornucopia of marvelous new products to horror that anyone would contemplate putting tumor virus DNA into a common bacterium (a further experiment contemplated by Paul Berg). Possibilities of its application for biological warfare, human

show abstract

Section: Benefits and Biological Weaponsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Legitimating Genetic Engineering

Wright¹

2001

pbm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But basic political, legal, and strategic questions about the utility of the non-lethal thrust remain unanswered -sometimes even unasked. 7 …”

Section: Taking On the Criticsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…But he probably shouldn't be spending taxpayer money without adult supervision. 7 On 2 November 2000, Steven Aftergood sent me an email in which he bridged the mental gap between philosophy and reality. He wrote:…”

Section: Downloaded By [Mount St Vincent University] At 01:19 07 Octomentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of the future of non‐lethal weapons

Alexander¹

2001

Medicine, Conflict and Survival

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past decade, vast changes have occurred in the geopolitical landscape and the nature of the types of conflicts in which technologically developed countries have been involved. While the threat of conventional war remains, forces have been more frequently deployed in situations that require great restraint. Adversaries are often likely to be elusive and commingled with noncombatants. There has been some shift in public opinion away from tolerance of collateral casualties. Therefore there is a need to be able to apply force while limiting casualties. Non-lethal weapons provide part of the solution. Among the changes that will influence the future have been studies by the US and NATO concerning the use of non-lethal weapons, coincidental with increased funding for their development and testing. New concepts and policies have recently been formalized. Surprisingly, the most strident objections to the implementation of non-lethal weapons have come from organizations that are ostensibly designed to protect non-combatants. These arguments are specious and, while technically and academically challenging, actually serve to foster an environment that will result in the deaths of many more innocent civilians. They misconstrue technology with human intent. The reasons for use of force will not abate. Alternatives to bombs, missiles, tanks and artillery must therefore be found. Non-lethal weapons are not a panacea but do offer the best hope of minimizing casualties while allowing nations or alliances the means to use force in protection of national or regional interests.

show abstract

“…Steven Aftergood echoes the view of many in insisting that, instead of portraying nonlethals as an alternative to lethal force, they are better understood as complementing and thus enhancing such force. 5 Attempts to present a benign public face to nonlethals through relatively innocuous names-such as rubber and plastic bullets, stun weapons, and incapacitant sprays-present a false picture.…”

Section: Lethality and Nonlethalitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Toward an Understanding of Nonlethality

Rappert

2001

Peace & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent times, growing attention has been given to the possible role "nonlethal" technology might play in helping to resolve contemporary security challenges. The concept of nonlethality offers the possibility of reducing suffering through the application of weapons designed and intended to minimize unnecessary harmful effects. Despite this promise and the accompanying expansion of literature on nonlethal weapons, there are basic disagreements about the nature of nonlethality. This article considers how we should conceive of the effects of nonlethal weapons and the underlying notions of lethality and nonlethality. An approach is proposed for elucidating how their characteristics and effects could be understood."Nonlethal" weapons have emerged as possible key solutions to contemporary challenges facing military and security forces. The rise of military operations other than war, the implications of the revolution in military affairs, and the continuing threats to domestic order are all said to require novel technological responses.

show abstract

The Soft-Kill Fallacy

Cited by 21 publications

References 2 publications

Legitimating Genetic Engineering

Legitimating Genetic Engineering

An overview of the future of non‐lethal weapons

Toward an Understanding of Nonlethality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About