They should spend as much time working on non-lethal technologies.
Not that I don't appreciate this weapon, but todays soldiers are faced with second class threats more than warsaw-pact (including Iraq) style threats.
For instance... You are the guard of an embassy, your country does something which is viewed as 'anti the-people'. A large gathering of students and others begin a peaceful demonstration outside the embassy, and you and the other guards look on with at first irritation, and then with anticipation as the growing demonstration starts to get violent, and demonstrators start to throw rocks and bottles. Soon a group of demonstrators rushes the embassy fence, and starts climbing over...
What do you do?
A) Mow them down, bringing on an international incident...
B) Fire above the crowd and hope they disperse, but risk causing a panic...
C) Fall back, giving ground for time and hope you can be evacuated...
Hypothetical situation. Nope. Fall of the American Embassy in 1979 in Iran. The time when "American" and "Hostage" were synonomous.
In the past decade, a great deal of research has been put into non-lethal, restraining technologies, but it pales with the money being spent on lethal technologies. With American and UN forces spread around the globe trying to enforce peace, the normal day to day threat isn't a traditional army, but a group of rock and brick throwing kids. Our society won't tolerate the concept of armed soldiers cutting down a pack of 14 year old just for throwing bottles, but they haven't provided much more than rubber bullets for the last 10 years (and yes, i include sting-balls in that).
We need to find a way to suppress an enemy, without killing them. Largely because the battlefields of the 21st century will be in Urban and City settings, whether in Kosovo or Columbia or Malaysia.
Just my $.02.
Facebook
Twitter