Defense Articles

THE U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency has been safely eliminating America’s stockpile of chemical weapons since 1990, and has reached a milestone with the destruction of half of its stockpile of chemical munitions. This accounts for more than 1.7 million munitions in the original stockpile.

“We’ve overcome many obstacles to reach this 50-percent milestone and are on the downhill slope moving closer to the overall goal of getting rid of all of the chemical weapons in the U.S. stockpile,” said Kevin Flamm, program manager for elimination of chemical weapons.

The United States produced a variety of chemical weapons from World War I through 1973 in an effort to deter other countries from using chemical weapons on U.S. troops. The most common agents the Army made were the mustard blister agent and two nerve agents, sarin–also known as (GB)–and VX. Mustard agent produces severe burns and can be fatal, while satin and VX are potent nerve agents that can kill within minutes by attacking the central nervous system.

Although commonly referred to as gasses–because during World War I some chemical weapons were dispersed as vapors–these agents are liquids, each with different physical characteristics.

In the early 1970s the Army began researching ways to safely eliminate the national stockpile to reduce the risks associated with aging weapons. During this time the Army destroyed some of its chemical weapons by incinerating and neutralizing them.

Current efforts to eliminate the U.S. stockpile began in 1986 when Congress required the safe destruction of the entire stockpile, in keeping with a law that predates the Chemical Weapons Convention by more than a decade. Two years later, in 1988, the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program was formed to better prepare nearby civilian communities for any potential chemical-stockpile accident.

By teaming the Army and the Department of Homeland Security, CSEPP provides funding for chemical-accident response equipment and warning systems. It also oversees yearly community-wide emergency preparedness exercises at all of the stockpile sites, and works with communities to provide training that will help residents respond appropriately to a chemical-stockpile incident.

America’s 1997 ratification of the CWC provided additional impetus for the destruction program. As a signatory, the United States agreed to comply with requirements to stop producing, stockpiling or transferring chemical weapons, and also agreed to do its part to eliminate the entire chemical-weapon stockpiles of all signatory nations. As of 2006 officials of more than 170 countries had signed the treaty.

In 1990 the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, the U.S. Army’s first disposal facility, began disposing of the U.S. chemical-weapon stockpile stored on the island, which is about 800 miles southwest of Hawaii.

The pilot facility completed its mission in 2000 after eliminating the more than 412,000 chemical weapons stored on the island. Today, Johnston Atoll is a wildlife refuge, providing habitat for endangered and threatened waterfowl and marine species.

Another chemical-stockpile site, CMA’s disposal facility at the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., completed disposal of the entire Edgewood Area mustard-agent stockpile in 2006.

This was the first facility within the continental United States to completely destroy its stockpile.

Other states with chemical-weapon stockpiles and accompanying disposal facilities include Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Oregon and Utah. In addition, weapons are also stockpiled in Kentucky and Colorado, where disposal facilities are in the design phase as Department of Defense disposal projects.

“With our teams working across the country, we are able to move forward, knowing that we will reach 100 percent destruction in a safe and environmentally sound way. We remain dedicated to eliminating the national stockpile while protecting our communities,” said CMA Director Michael Parker.

Parker said not only does CMA have the chemical-weapon storage and disposal mission, but at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas CMA provides specialized products and services that support Soldiers. The arsenal produces, renovates and stores more than 60 types of special conventional ammunition products.

These products include munitions for smoke, non-lethal, riot control, incendiary, illumination and infrared uses. PBA is also the only facility in the Western Hemisphere with the capability to fill white-phosphorous munitions.

The remaining U.S. chemical-weapon stockpile includes bombs, rockets, mortars, projectiles, land mines and spray tanks filled with blister agent or one of the nerve agents.

Argie Sarantinos-Perrin works for URS Coleman under contract with the Chemical Materials Agency.

Universal Guardian Holdings Inc. (OTCBB:UGHO), a homeland security and defense technology company is pleased to announce the formation and launch of a new non-lethal technology subsidiary. Shield Defense Corp., the new subsidiary, plans to introduce a series of non-lethal products over the next few months that can effectively incapacitate assailants from zero to more than 300 feet. Shield Defense Corp. has appointed Dennis Cole as president due to his background as a former chief of police, sheriff’s captain, SWAT commander and an internationally recognized non-lethal and chemical agents expert. The company plans to leverage professional user credibility for release to the private security and consumer markets.

“Shield Defense Corporation non-lethal weapons provide safe, accurate and effective alternatives to deadly force to subdue assailants in a number of sensitive environments, ranging from airplanes and airline terminals, homes or autos, crowded shopping centers, to checkpoints in Iraq,” said Michael Skellern, chairman and CEO of Universal Guardian. “A lethal weapon in an airplane or automatic weapon in a crowded airport or shopping center is a prescription for disaster.”

President Dennis Cole stated, “Professional and consumer markets are increasingly demanding more effective methods to defuse civil unrest and subdue criminals without causing permanent injury to law enforcement personnel, innocent bystanders, homeowners, or criminals.” Cole also remarked, “With more than 5 million police officers worldwide and over 120 million households in the United States alone, the potential market for Shield Defense non-lethal products is well defined and very sizeable.”

About Shield Defense Corp.

Shield Defense Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc., designs and produces non-lethal weapons and projectiles that are designed for use in environments where mobility, accuracy, and dependability are paramount, and meet existing consumer, homeland security, military and law enforcement use of force requirements. Shield Defense non-lethal weapons will provide military commanders with a variety of offensive and defensive options to address appropriate threat conditions in today’s growing security and terrorist environment.

About Universal Guardian Holdings Inc.

Universal Guardian Holdings Inc. (UGHO), and its subsidiary corporations provide products, systems, and services to mitigate security and terrorist threats worldwide. From integrated and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance systems and interoperable command and control platforms to non-lethal weapons, UGHO companies cover a wide range of security applications and markets, merging cost-effective technology and ease of use, to secure entire threat environments. The U.S. Navy assigned its non-lethal projectile patent to UGHO.

Safe Harbor Statement

In conjunction with the provisions of the Safe Harbor section of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, this news release contains certain forward-looking statements pertaining to future anticipated projected plans, performance and developments, as well as other statements relating to future operations and results. Any statements in this news release that are not statements of historical fact may be considered to be forward-looking statements. Written words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intends,” “goal,” “objective,” “seek,” “attempt,” or variations of these or similar words, identify forward-looking statements. These statements by their nature are estimates of future results only and involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including those detailed from time to time in Universal Guardian Holdings Inc.’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.

Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:UGHO), a provider of integrated homeland security and personal defense solutions, today announced its 2004 strategic plans to increase its focus and investments in multi-dimension non-lethal and less-lethal weapons program through its subsidiary, Shield Defense Corporation. Shield Defense Corporation’s new product range offers law enforcement, military, and consumers effective non-lethal and less-lethal defense products designed for a multitude of threat environments

Shield Defense Corp.’s defense product portfolio include Cobra StunLight(TM), a patent-pending ruggedized flashlight, delivering a high-pressure stream of debilitating chemical deterrent and LED light source integrated with laser targeting; a U.S. Navy patented non-lethal projectile system and projectile launcher pistol; and a patented amplified acoustic device, called The Acoustic Defender.

Cobra StunLight(TM)

In October of 2003, Universal Guardian submitted its application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for its proprietary non-lethal flashlight, Cobra StunLight(TM). The Cobra StunLight(TM) flashlight is a non-lethal, ruggedized flashlight that uses high-intensity LED light source and a built-in laser aiming device to identify and mark its target. Users of this device can defend themselves within 21 feet of their assailant by releasing high-pressure chemical stream through the flashlight. This device can accurately and effectively target and temporarily blind and paralyze attackers, while enabling users to remain at a safer distance.

“The Cobra StunLight is a breakthrough development for non-lethal defense products. Military, security guards, law enforcement officials and individuals can use this product for applications ranging from self-defense to crowd control, while minimizing the accidental death that is caused by today’s less-lethal weapon products,” stated Michael Skellern, CEO of Universal Guardian Holdings.

Python Projectile Launcher

The Python Projectile Launcher, a non-lethal semi-automatic pistol, has been developed, based on the exclusive licensing of U.S. Navy’s non-lethal frangible projectile patent that was assigned to Universal Guardian. The Python Projectile Launcher has the capacity of 10-shots or 180-round carbine and can be supplied with a laser aiming device for better precision and accuracy. This launcher has an exceptional and effective range for a 9 inch circle at a 54 plus feet distance.

“Our law enforcement and military personnel are increasingly called upon to manage volatile situations without the potential for escalation and accidental death of using live firearms. The Python Projectile Launcher is a versatile, effective tool for a wide variety of law enforcement and crowd control scenarios. This product meets the increasing demand for cost effective methods for individuals to protect themselves, while keeping their families safe from lethal weapons,” commented Michael Skellern.

“Universal Guardian continues to strengthen its relationships with the U.S. Navy and remains in good standing on this license,” stated Michael J. Skellern.

The projectile patent, No. 6145441, assigned to Universal Guardian by the U.S. Secretary of Navy, is an exclusive licensing agreement for 20 years, starting in 1998, that includes the right to six different projectiles based on, PAVA or OC Powder, Olfactory Stimuli, Inert Liquid, Glass Shattering, Marking and Kinetic Impact.

The Acoustic Defender

The Acoustic Defender is a patented amplified acoustic device that delivers clear and audible broadcast warnings in any language at ranges up to 1,000 yards, and can be used as non-lethal use-of-force to debilitate an intruder at ranges from a few feet to 150 yards. Product applications include security perimeters around military bases, port facilities and national borders.

“Shield Defense products are designed to offer professionals and consumers the right non-lethal product for the right situation at the greatest standoff distance possible,” stated Dennis Cole, President of Shield Defense Corporation.

“We believe our immediate non-lethal and less-lethal products provide tremendous growth opportunities for us,” commented Michael Skellern. “Universal Guardian Holdings is in the process of negotiating the manufacturing of its projectiles and launchers with contract manufacturers in the U.S. and Asia. Concurrently, we are working to develop the sales and marketing channels to bring these products to the law enforcement, military and consumer markets worldwide.”

About Shield Defense Corporation

Shield Defense Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc., designs and produces non-lethal weapons and projectiles that are designed for use in environments where mobility, accuracy, and dependability are paramount, and meet existing consumer, homeland security, military and law enforcement use-of-force requirements. Shield Defense non-lethal weapons will provide military commanders with a variety of offensive and defensive options to address appropriate threat conditions in today’s growing security and terrorist environment.

WASHINGTON–A representative of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recently told the U.S. Congress that the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) should have the flexibility to finance the export of U.S. non-lethal, dual-use products used primarily for civilian purposes.

At a hearing of the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade and Monetary Policy, AIA vice president-international Joel Johnson said restrictions on Eximbank encourage countries to purchase dual-use products from competitors or duplicate their commercial and military expenditures. He indicated this is occurring at a time of declining U.S. defense budgets, when major defense contractors and their subsidiary companies are looking for commercial applications on their products and technologies.

“Many governemtns face stringent financial limitations on their defense and civilian budgets, and cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs… This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

Recommended legislation would modify the Bank’s charter to clarify that nonlethal dual-use products, which will be mainly used for civilian activities in a particular application, should be eligible for Eximbank programs. Mr. Johnson warned the time was right to discuss the issue as it would intensify over the near term for several reasons, such as conversion strategies and budget restraints.

With U.S. defense budget cutbacks, defense companies and subsidiaries are looking for commercial applications of their products and technologies. “Many in Congress and the administration have encouraged them to do so… A number of companies are succeeding, particularly in areas closely related to products and technology they are already producing, such as air traffic control, surveillance, night vision, communications, simulation, and data processing. Defense firms are being urged to look at commercial technologies and incorporate them into military applications as ways to reduce both development and procurement costs. This trend is likely to continue, and in the same kinds of areas….”

He added that in many high-tech areas, the commercial sector is driving technology and “given the increasingly short product cycles of such commercial products, the military will increasingly have to turn to the commercial sector for its needs. This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

In addition, with many governments facing stringent financial limits on their defense and civilian budgets, they cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs. “Thus a country contemplating an upgrade to its commercial air traffic control system may also want that system to serve an air defense purpose…the prime operator of such systems may be a civilian or military agency,” Mr. Johnson said. “Particularly in developing countries…the military often performs functions that are handled by civilian government organizations or the private sector in industrial countries.”

Mr. Johnson made the point that even if a new and separate export financing guarantee program for defense products were to be established, the issue of how Eximbank should deal with dual-use items would still need to be addressed.

“An air traffic control system, for example, which would be used on a day-to-day basis to land commercial aircraft, but which would also serve as part of an air defense system, would most logically be financed by Eximbank, not by a defenseoriented guarantee facility. Eximbank has extensive experience in financing air traffic control systems, and in evaluating whether a potential buyer was structuring the program in a way that would likely generate the income stream needed to pay off the loan. This is not the kind of analysis that would be conducted by a facility oriented toward defense equipment,” he said.

Political support may be a problem, however. Mr. Johnson said industry believes it ought to be possible to provide Eximbank with more discretion to provide financing for dual-use products, while assuring that the bank maintains its commercially focused character. Many members of Congress have made clear their belief that Eximbank should restrict its programs to supporting the export of U.S. commercial products. There is thus some apprehension in the industry that it would be difficult to define a range of dual-use products or applications which would be eligible for Eximbank financing. “Such a definition should assure that U.S. exporters are not shut out of legitimate commercial markets, while at the same time protecting the bank’s current and future public support,’ he said.

Another concern is the question of the bank’s resources, and whether expanding the bank’s mandate might reduce the loans and guarantees available for current users. “We do not believe this is likely to be a problem,” Mr. Johnson said. “The volume and value of products which fall into the current gray area is not large, and is likely to involve activities already financed by the bank. For example, in 1993, the bank financed four air traffic control projects, which is the product area most likely to immediately benefit from a change in the bank’s charter. Adding another system or two a year would not be a major resource problem,” he said.

“I helped her out of a jam, I guess, but I used a little loo much force.”

Bob Dylan, “Tangled Up in Blue” 1974

I. INTRODUCTION

The governmental mechanisms that exercise a state’s physical coercive power-various cadres of military and law enforcement agencies-often face a difficult dilemma. In confrontations with recalcitrant opposing forces, the authorities must recognize that if they exercise too much power, they incur an unacceptable danger of “collateral damage,” unintended casualties to civilians and unnecessary destruction of valuable property. On the other hand, if they exercise too little power, they may risk the safety of their own personnel and compromise the accomplishment of an important and legitimate mission.

In recent years, this dilemma has arisen with painful frequency inside the United States and elsewhere. Officials increasingly express frustration at having only an impoverished array of tools at their disposal, especially regarding confrontations in which the specific target of the police or military forces is intermingled with civilians or innocent bystanders. Government actors may have only “bullhorns or bullets” to choose from; if emphatic verbal instructions and warnings do not suffice, the only recourse official forces have is the application of deadly force, which often cannot be applied with anything like the desired surgical precision.

This Article presents that dilemma in the context of the imminent development of a novel toolkit of so-called “non-lethal weapons” (NLW), which promise to radically alter the existing Hobson’s choice. These armaments-a wide range of technologies, new and old, incorporating different types of physical mechanisms, capable of both anti-personnel and anti-materiel operations-seek to provide a viable intermediate capability, for the first time affording governmental actors additional options in volatile situations. These emerging capabilities include a breathtaking array of devices such as enhancements of the traditional “rubber bullets”; foam sprays that make a surface either impossibly slippery or impassively sticky; millimeter wave “heat rays” that peacefully repel people without inflicting lasting harm; projectile netting or other entangling devices to capture individuals or vehicles; chemicals that temporarily irritate, repel, or becalm a person; biological agents that embrittle metal or contaminate petroleum products; and many more.

This Article examines three representative recent confrontations: the 1993 shootout and siege at Waco, Texas, involving federal ATF and FBI units against the Branch Davidians led by millennialist David Koresh; the 2002 seizure of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow by Chechen separatists; and the 2003 Gulf War II fighting by the British Army against indigenous resistance in Basra, Iraq. Although in each of these episodes government forces “prevailed” in some crude sense, each was at least partially unsatisfactory, resulting in more carnage and more destruction than anyone would have wanted. Therefore, the goal of this Article is to determine whether the availability of a richer configuration of non-lethal weapons might have made a difference.

These three case studies provide an array of contrasts: they occurred on three different continents, they involved three different countries and three different types of resistance units as protagonists, and they engaged notably different genres of armaments and tactics. In addition, the three selected incidents are usefully diverse in yet another regard. The first, Waco, was clearly a law enforcement operation, initially occasioned by the effort to serve ordinary arrest and search warrants. In contrast, the third, Basra, was plainly a conventional military operation, occurring in the midst of a broad-gauged international armed conflict. The second, Moscow, presents a sort of middle ground, containing aspects of both law enforcement and military counter-terrorism operations, thereby illuminating the rainbow of legal and policy considerations at play.

This Article does not argue that non-lethal weapons shouldhave been applied in these confrontations, or that they necessarily would have made a profound difference in resolving the clashes at appreciably less cost. It may be that these instances were simply intractable, that the opposing forces were so resistant, fanatic, or entrenched that even improved technology and tactics would have proven unavailing. Still, the hypothetical inquiry remains: in these three tragic cases, what might have happened if the respective governments had been able to try something else-something non-lethal?

The Article proceeds in the following steps. First, Section II surveys the emerging world of non-lethal weapons, beginning with the observation that the very name “non-lethal” is at least partially misleading; any application of force by police or military units inherently carries the potential for death. Although this new family of technologies at least attempts to reduce greatly the probability of mortality and widespread destruction of property, it offers no absolute guarantees.

WASHINGTON–A representative of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recently told the U.S. Congress that the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) should have the flexibility to finance the export of U.S. non-lethal, dual-use products used primarily for civilian purposes.

At a hearing of the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade and Monetary Policy, AIA vice president-international Joel Johnson said restrictions on Eximbank encourage countries to purchase dual-use products from competitors or duplicate their commercial and military expenditures. He indicated this is occurring at a time of declining U.S. defense budgets, when major defense contractors and their subsidiary companies are looking for commercial applications on their products and technologies.

“Many governemtns face stringent financial limitations on their defense and civilian budgets, and cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs… This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

Recommended legislation would modify the Bank’s charter to clarify that nonlethal dual-use products, which will be mainly used for civilian activities in a particular application, should be eligible for Eximbank programs. Mr. Johnson warned the time was right to discuss the issue as it would intensify over the near term for several reasons, such as conversion strategies and budget restraints.

With U.S. defense budget cutbacks, defense companies and subsidiaries are looking for commercial applications of their products and technologies. “Many in Congress and the administration have encouraged them to do so… A number of companies are succeeding, particularly in areas closely related to products and technology they are already producing, such as air traffic control, surveillance, night vision, communications, simulation, and data processing. Defense firms are being urged to look at commercial technologies and incorporate them into military applications as ways to reduce both development and procurement costs. This trend is likely to continue, and in the same kinds of areas….”

He added that in many high-tech areas, the commercial sector is driving technology and “given the increasingly short product cycles of such commercial products, the military will increasingly have to turn to the commercial sector for its needs. This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

In addition, with many governments facing stringent financial limits on their defense and civilian budgets, they cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs. “Thus a country contemplating an upgrade to its commercial air traffic control system may also want that system to serve an air defense purpose…the prime operator of such systems may be a civilian or military agency,” Mr. Johnson said. “Particularly in developing countries…the military often performs functions that are handled by civilian government organizations or the private sector in industrial countries.”

Mr. Johnson made the point that even if a new and separate export financing guarantee program for defense products were to be established, the issue of how Eximbank should deal with dual-use items would still need to be addressed.

“An air traffic control system, for example, which would be used on a day-to-day basis to land commercial aircraft, but which would also serve as part of an air defense system, would most logically be financed by Eximbank, not by a defenseoriented guarantee facility. Eximbank has extensive experience in financing air traffic control systems, and in evaluating whether a potential buyer was structuring the program in a way that would likely generate the income stream needed to pay off the loan. This is not the kind of analysis that would be conducted by a facility oriented toward defense equipment,” he said.

Political support may be a problem, however. Mr. Johnson said industry believes it ought to be possible to provide Eximbank with more discretion to provide financing for dual-use products, while assuring that the bank maintains its commercially focused character. Many members of Congress have made clear their belief that Eximbank should restrict its programs to supporting the export of U.S. commercial products. There is thus some apprehension in the industry that it would be difficult to define a range of dual-use products or applications which would be eligible for Eximbank financing. “Such a definition should assure that U.S. exporters are not shut out of legitimate commercial markets, while at the same time protecting the bank’s current and future public support,’ he said.

Another concern is the question of the bank’s resources, and whether expanding the bank’s mandate might reduce the loans and guarantees available for current users. “We do not believe this is likely to be a problem,” Mr. Johnson said. “The volume and value of products which fall into the current gray area is not large, and is likely to involve activities already financed by the bank. For example, in 1993, the bank financed four air traffic control projects, which is the product area most likely to immediately benefit from a change in the bank’s charter. Adding another system or two a year would not be a major resource problem,” he said.

I. INTRODUCTION

The governmental mechanisms that exercise a state’s physical coercive power-various cadres of military and law enforcement agencies-often face a difficult dilemma. In confrontations with recalcitrant opposing forces, the authorities must recognize that if they exercise too much power, they incur an unacceptable danger of “collateral damage,” unintended casualties to civilians and unnecessary destruction of valuable property. On the other hand, if they exercise too little power, they may risk the safety of their own personnel and compromise the accomplishment of an important and legitimate mission.

In recent years, this dilemma has arisen with painful frequency inside the United States and elsewhere. Officials increasingly express frustration at having only an impoverished array of tools at their disposal, especially regarding confrontations in which the specific target of the police or military forces is intermingled with civilians or innocent bystanders. Government actors may have only “bullhorns or bullets” to choose from; if emphatic verbal instructions and warnings do not suffice, the only recourse official forces have is the application of deadly force, which often cannot be applied with anything like the desired surgical precision.

This Article presents that dilemma in the context of the imminent development of a novel toolkit of so-called “non-lethal weapons” (NLW), which promise to radically alter the existing Hobson’s choice. These armaments-a wide range of technologies, new and old, incorporating different types of physical mechanisms, capable of both anti-personnel and anti-materiel operations-seek to provide a viable intermediate capability, for the first time affording governmental actors additional options in volatile situations. These emerging capabilities include a breathtaking array of devices such as enhancements of the traditional “rubber bullets”; foam sprays that make a surface either impossibly slippery or impassively sticky; millimeter wave “heat rays” that peacefully repel people without inflicting lasting harm; projectile netting or other entangling devices to capture individuals or vehicles; chemicals that temporarily irritate, repel, or becalm a person; biological agents that embrittle metal or contaminate petroleum products; and many more.

This Article examines three representative recent confrontations: the 1993 shootout and siege at Waco, Texas, involving federal ATF and FBI units against the Branch Davidians led by millennialist David Koresh; the 2002 seizure of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow by Chechen separatists; and the 2003 Gulf War II fighting by the British Army against indigenous resistance in Basra, Iraq. Although in each of these episodes government forces “prevailed” in some crude sense, each was at least partially unsatisfactory, resulting in more carnage and more destruction than anyone would have wanted. Therefore, the goal of this Article is to determine whether the availability of a richer configuration of non-lethal weapons might have made a difference.

These three case studies provide an array of contrasts: they occurred on three different continents, they involved three different countries and three different types of resistance units as protagonists, and they engaged notably different genres of armaments and tactics. In addition, the three selected incidents are usefully diverse in yet another regard. The first, Waco, was clearly a law enforcement operation, initially occasioned by the effort to serve ordinary arrest and search warrants. In contrast, the third, Basra, was plainly a conventional military operation, occurring in the midst of a broad-gauged international armed conflict. The second, Moscow, presents a sort of middle ground, containing aspects of both law enforcement and military counter-terrorism operations, thereby illuminating the rainbow of legal and policy considerations at play.

This Article does not argue that non-lethal weapons shouldhave been applied in these confrontations, or that they necessarily would have made a profound difference in resolving the clashes at appreciably less cost. It may be that these instances were simply intractable, that the opposing forces were so resistant, fanatic, or entrenched that even improved technology and tactics would have proven unavailing. Still, the hypothetical inquiry remains: in these three tragic cases, what might have happened if the respective governments had been able to try something else-something non-lethal?

The Article proceeds in the following steps. First, Section II surveys the emerging world of non-lethal weapons, beginning with the observation that the very name “non-lethal” is at least partially misleading; any application of force by police or military units inherently carries the potential for death. Although this new family of technologies at least attempts to reduce greatly the probability of mortality and widespread destruction of property, it offers no absolute guarantees.

Universal Guardian Holdings Announces Strategic Plans to Increase Focus in Non-Lethal Defense Products
Business Wire, March 1, 2004

Related Results: non-lethal
products…

* Non-lethal
response.(PRODUCTS &…
* Gold star products.
More

Bird flu case in Scotland Video
Bird flu case in Scotland
Bird flu case in Scotland…
More

Business Editors

COSTA MESA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–March 1, 2004

Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:UGHO), a provider of integrated homeland security and personal defense solutions, today announced its 2004 strategic plans to increase its focus and investments in multi-dimension non-lethal and less-lethal weapons program through its subsidiary, Shield Defense Corporation. Shield Defense Corporation’s new product range offers law enforcement, military, and consumers effective non-lethal and less-lethal defense products designed for a multitude of threat environments

Shield Defense Corp.’s defense product portfolio include Cobra StunLight(TM), a patent-pending ruggedized flashlight, delivering a high-pressure stream of debilitating chemical deterrent and LED light source integrated with laser targeting; a U.S. Navy patented non-lethal projectile system and projectile launcher pistol; and a patented amplified acoustic device, called The Acoustic Defender.

Cobra StunLight(TM)
Advertisement

In October of 2003, Universal Guardian submitted its application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for its proprietary non-lethal flashlight, Cobra StunLight(TM). The Cobra StunLight(TM) flashlight is a non-lethal, ruggedized flashlight that uses high-intensity LED light source and a built-in laser aiming device to identify and mark its target. Users of this device can defend themselves within 21 feet of their assailant by releasing high-pressure chemical stream through the flashlight. This device can accurately and effectively target and temporarily blind and paralyze attackers, while enabling users to remain at a safer distance.

“The Cobra StunLight is a breakthrough development for non-lethal defense products. Military, security guards, law enforcement officials and individuals can use this product for applications ranging from self-defense to crowd control, while minimizing the accidental death that is caused by today’s less-lethal weapon products,” stated Michael Skellern, CEO of Universal Guardian Holdings.

Python Projectile Launcher

The Python Projectile Launcher, a non-lethal semi-automatic pistol, has been developed, based on the exclusive licensing of U.S. Navy’s non-lethal frangible projectile patent that was assigned to Universal Guardian. The Python Projectile Launcher has the capacity of 10-shots or 180-round carbine and can be supplied with a laser aiming device for better precision and accuracy. This launcher has an exceptional and effective range for a 9 inch circle at a 54 plus feet distance.

“Our law enforcement and military personnel are increasingly called upon to manage volatile situations without the potential for escalation and accidental death of using live firearms. The Python Projectile Launcher is a versatile, effective tool for a wide variety of law enforcement and crowd control scenarios. This product meets the increasing demand for cost effective methods for individuals to protect themselves, while keeping their families safe from lethal weapons,” commented Michael Skellern.

“Universal Guardian continues to strengthen its relationships with the U.S. Navy and remains in good standing on this license,” stated Michael J. Skellern.

The projectile patent, No. 6145441, assigned to Universal Guardian by the U.S. Secretary of Navy, is an exclusive licensing agreement for 20 years, starting in 1998, that includes the right to six different projectiles based on, PAVA or OC Powder, Olfactory Stimuli, Inert Liquid, Glass Shattering, Marking and Kinetic Impact.

The Acoustic Defender

The Acoustic Defender is a patented amplified acoustic device that delivers clear and audible broadcast warnings in any language at ranges up to 1,000 yards, and can be used as non-lethal use-of-force to debilitate an intruder at ranges from a few feet to 150 yards. Product applications include security perimeters around military bases, port facilities and national borders.

“Shield Defense products are designed to offer professionals and consumers the right non-lethal product for the right situation at the greatest standoff distance possible,” stated Dennis Cole, President of Shield Defense Corporation.

“We believe our immediate non-lethal and less-lethal products provide tremendous growth opportunities for us,” commented Michael Skellern. “Universal Guardian Holdings is in the process of negotiating the manufacturing of its projectiles and launchers with contract manufacturers in the U.S. and Asia. Concurrently, we are working to develop the sales and marketing channels to bring these products to the law enforcement, military and consumer markets worldwide.”

About Shield Defense Corporation

Shield Defense Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc., designs and produces non-lethal weapons and projectiles that are designed for use in environments where mobility, accuracy, and dependability are paramount, and meet existing consumer, homeland security, military and law enforcement use-of-force requirements. Shield Defense non-lethal weapons will provide military commanders with a variety of offensive and defensive options to address appropriate threat conditions in today’s growing security and terrorist environment.

WASHINGTON–A representative of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recently told the U.S. Congress that the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) should have the flexibility to finance the export of U.S. non-lethal, dual-use products used primarily for civilian purposes.

At a hearing of the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade and Monetary Policy, AIA vice president-international Joel Johnson said restrictions on Eximbank encourage countries to purchase dual-use products from competitors or duplicate their commercial and military expenditures. He indicated this is occurring at a time of declining U.S. defense budgets, when major defense contractors and their subsidiary companies are looking for commercial applications on their products and technologies.

“Many governemtns face stringent financial limitations on their defense and civilian budgets, and cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs… This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”
Advertisement

Recommended legislation would modify the Bank’s charter to clarify that nonlethal dual-use products, which will be mainly used for civilian activities in a particular application, should be eligible for Eximbank programs. Mr. Johnson warned the time was right to discuss the issue as it would intensify over the near term for several reasons, such as conversion strategies and budget restraints.

With U.S. defense budget cutbacks, defense companies and subsidiaries are looking for commercial applications of their products and technologies. “Many in Congress and the administration have encouraged them to do so… A number of companies are succeeding, particularly in areas closely related to products and technology they are already producing, such as air traffic control, surveillance, night vision, communications, simulation, and data processing. Defense firms are being urged to look at commercial technologies and incorporate them into military applications as ways to reduce both development and procurement costs. This trend is likely to continue, and in the same kinds of areas….”

He added that in many high-tech areas, the commercial sector is driving technology and “given the increasingly short product cycles of such commercial products, the military will increasingly have to turn to the commercial sector for its needs. This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

In addition, with many governments facing stringent financial limits on their defense and civilian budgets, they cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs. “Thus a country contemplating an upgrade to its commercial air traffic control system may also want that system to serve an air defense purpose…the prime operator of such systems may be a civilian or military agency,” Mr. Johnson said. “Particularly in developing countries…the military often performs functions that are handled by civilian government organizations or the private sector in industrial countries.”

Mr. Johnson made the point that even if a new and separate export financing guarantee program for defense products were to be established, the issue of how Eximbank should deal with dual-use items would still need to be addressed.

“An air traffic control system, for example, which would be used on a day-to-day basis to land commercial aircraft, but which would also serve as part of an air defense system, would most logically be financed by Eximbank, not by a defenseoriented guarantee facility. Eximbank has extensive experience in financing air traffic control systems, and in evaluating whether a potential buyer was structuring the program in a way that would likely generate the income stream needed to pay off the loan. This is not the kind of analysis that would be conducted by a facility oriented toward defense equipment,” he said.

Political support may be a problem, however. Mr. Johnson said industry believes it ought to be possible to provide Eximbank with more discretion to provide financing for dual-use products, while assuring that the bank maintains its commercially focused character. Many members of Congress have made clear their belief that Eximbank should restrict its programs to supporting the export of U.S. commercial products. There is thus some apprehension in the industry that it would be difficult to define a range of dual-use products or applications which would be eligible for Eximbank financing. “Such a definition should assure that U.S. exporters are not shut out of legitimate commercial markets, while at the same time protecting the bank’s current and future public support,’ he said.

Another concern is the question of the bank’s resources, and whether expanding the bank’s mandate might reduce the loans and guarantees available for current users. “We do not believe this is likely to be a problem,” Mr. Johnson said. “The volume and value of products which fall into the current gray area is not large, and is likely to involve activities already financed by the bank. For example, in 1993, the bank financed four air traffic control projects, which is the product area most likely to immediately benefit from a change in the bank’s charter. Adding another system or two a year would not be a major resource problem,” he said.

“I helped her out of a jam, I guess, but I used a little loo much force.”

Bob Dylan, “Tangled Up in Blue” 1974

I. INTRODUCTION

The governmental mechanisms that exercise a state’s physical coercive power-various cadres of military and law enforcement agencies-often face a difficult dilemma. In confrontations with recalcitrant opposing forces, the authorities must recognize that if they exercise too much power, they incur an unacceptable danger of “collateral damage,” unintended casualties to civilians and unnecessary destruction of valuable property. On the other hand, if they exercise too little power, they may risk the safety of their own personnel and compromise the accomplishment of an important and legitimate mission.

In recent years, this dilemma has arisen with painful frequency inside the United States and elsewhere. Officials increasingly express frustration at having only an impoverished array of tools at their disposal, especially regarding confrontations in which the specific target of the police or military forces is intermingled with civilians or innocent bystanders. Government actors may have only “bullhorns or bullets” to choose from; if emphatic verbal instructions and warnings do not suffice, the only recourse official forces have is the application of deadly force, which often cannot be applied with anything like the desired surgical precision.
Advertisement

This Article presents that dilemma in the context of the imminent development of a novel toolkit of so-called “non-lethal weapons” (NLW), which promise to radically alter the existing Hobson’s choice. These armaments-a wide range of technologies, new and old, incorporating different types of physical mechanisms, capable of both anti-personnel and anti-materiel operations-seek to provide a viable intermediate capability, for the first time affording governmental actors additional options in volatile situations. These emerging capabilities include a breathtaking array of devices such as enhancements of the traditional “rubber bullets”; foam sprays that make a surface either impossibly slippery or impassively sticky; millimeter wave “heat rays” that peacefully repel people without inflicting lasting harm; projectile netting or other entangling devices to capture individuals or vehicles; chemicals that temporarily irritate, repel, or becalm a person; biological agents that embrittle metal or contaminate petroleum products; and many more.

This Article examines three representative recent confrontations: the 1993 shootout and siege at Waco, Texas, involving federal ATF and FBI units against the Branch Davidians led by millennialist David Koresh; the 2002 seizure of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow by Chechen separatists; and the 2003 Gulf War II fighting by the British Army against indigenous resistance in Basra, Iraq. Although in each of these episodes government forces “prevailed” in some crude sense, each was at least partially unsatisfactory, resulting in more carnage and more destruction than anyone would have wanted. Therefore, the goal of this Article is to determine whether the availability of a richer configuration of non-lethal weapons might have made a difference.

These three case studies provide an array of contrasts: they occurred on three different continents, they involved three different countries and three different types of resistance units as protagonists, and they engaged notably different genres of armaments and tactics. In addition, the three selected incidents are usefully diverse in yet another regard. The first, Waco, was clearly a law enforcement operation, initially occasioned by the effort to serve ordinary arrest and search warrants. In contrast, the third, Basra, was plainly a conventional military operation, occurring in the midst of a broad-gauged international armed conflict. The second, Moscow, presents a sort of middle ground, containing aspects of both law enforcement and military counter-terrorism operations, thereby illuminating the rainbow of legal and policy considerations at play.

This Article does not argue that non-lethal weapons shouldhave been applied in these confrontations, or that they necessarily would have made a profound difference in resolving the clashes at appreciably less cost. It may be that these instances were simply intractable, that the opposing forces were so resistant, fanatic, or entrenched that even improved technology and tactics would have proven unavailing. Still, the hypothetical inquiry remains: in these three tragic cases, what might have happened if the respective governments had been able to try something else-something non-lethal?

The Article proceeds in the following steps. First, Section II surveys the emerging world of non-lethal weapons, beginning with the observation that the very name “non-lethal” is at least partially misleading; any application of force by police or military units inherently carries the potential for death. Although this new family of technologies at least attempts to reduce greatly the probability of mortality and widespread destruction of property, it offers no absolute guarantees.