Any non lethal weapon may reduce the threat of immediate attack, but may allow an increase the likelyhood in the future of an attack if they regroup.  History has suggested that too much reliance on technology ensures a failure of said technology. It is this “Murphy’s law” idea that most skeptics seem to be voicing.  And remember, the dead do not become repeat offenders! That said, we have a familiarization with CS gas to allow us to experiance the threat and learn from it how to remain a cohesive and effective unit, as well as what to do when we meet this threat.  The enemy may learn from repeated exposure, what to do to “adapt, improvise, and overcome”.  Just sayin’.

my brother in law was in the marines in vietnam at that time. he just showed us some old video he had transfered.

I don’t see the need for non-lethals when your training gives you such immense control. However, they do provide dynamic options for entry and clearing of buildings that can result in less casualties on both sides. Some of these can brushed in the place of an extra man making it possible to have fewer men in situations where they might have to serve as two men. Others make for good perimeter control, it is still recommended to have sentries posted because the non-lethals only work when no one realizes they are there. Once they are exposed then they can be circumvented.

Non lethal is for the Army…

No! The Marine Corps is not a police force. The only weapons they should have are the most lethal ones possible. If you want a stun gun call the police.

From a very Pround Marine Mom

Are there valid, battle-wise arguments against having non-lethal weapon systems used in the Marine Corps? I would like to hear such arguments before casting my ignorant civilian vote in your poll.

Thank you

Does it penatrate walls ?
What a great option it would be to flush out the enemy rather than kicking in doors.

Speaking as an mp and knowing the effectiveness of oc spray and some other non lethal weapons they work and can be very crucial to our mission at home or deployed.

I understand and agree with the logic that more tools mean more options, which means more strength. But this is a one-dimensional view of the matter.

In the long-term, it would become more politically correct for our government to use the military AGAINST U.S. CITIZENS as military weapons options grow less destructive to person and property.  There is already recent legislation in place that takes a great step in this direction.  We absolutely must stop our society’s march in this direction.

Also, potential enemies of the U.S. could easily be convinced by propaganda that such a move as a sign of growing weakness, in both our psychological willingness and physical ability to wage war, regardless of any facts to the contrary.

I have little doubt that the Marines, and other military branches, will pursue these tools.  I will hope and pray our so-called “leaders” will only order their use for purposes of serving the People who employe them, never for controlling them.

Best wishes.
Semper Fidelis