Designing the Threshold
REFRAMING FORCE IN AN AGE OF ESCALATION
With firearms once again at the centre of political, social, and security debates, the conversation around force is narrowing when it arguably needs to widen.
Discussions tend to polarise quickly. On one side sits the necessity of lethal force in defence, policing, and national security. On the other, idealistic visions of demilitarisation that struggle to engage with operational reality. Between these positions lies a space that has historically been underexplored, underfunded, and often misunderstood: non-lethal force.
Non-lethal technologies are not new. Rubber bullets, tear gas, conducted energy devices, water cannons, and flashbangs have been part of security toolkits for decades. Yet they have rarely been treated as strategically significant. More often, they are framed as adjuncts, crowd-control tools, or politically convenient compromises rather than as credible instruments that shape outcomes (1).
That framing is beginning to shift.
Advances in sensing, power generation, materials science, signal processing, and networked systems are quietly transforming what non-lethal force can look like in practice. Not as a replacement for lethal force, but as a means to reduce escalation, expand decision space, and alter moments where outcomes hinge on seconds, distance, and uncertainty (2).
The question is no longer whether lethal force disappears. It is whether credible alternatives can change how often it becomes the only option left.
FROM COMPLIANCE TO CONTROL OF ESCALATION
Traditional force models are binary. Presence, command, compliance. If compliance fails, escalation follows, often rapidly. Lethal force becomes the final guarantor of control.
Non-lethal systems, when treated seriously, introduce gradation. They allow force to be applied in ways that disrupt, deny, disorient, or temporarily incapacitate without permanently removing actors from the system through death or severe injury (1).
This matters most in environments where ambiguity dominates decision-making. Urban operations, maritime interdiction, base security, and public order scenarios all share a common challenge: identifying intent before intent becomes action.
In these spaces, escalation management is not about restraint alone. It is about options. NATO doctrine increasingly frames this as “intermediate force capability”, a deliberate effort to widen the space between presence and lethal engagement (3).
DIRECTED ENERGY SYSTEMS: PRECISION WITHOUT PERMANENCE
Directed energy systems, particularly high-power microwave (HPM) and laser-based technologies, are often discussed in the context of counter-drone or missile defence. Less attention is paid to their non-lethal potential.
Low-energy laser dazzlers, for example, are already deployed in maritime security to warn, deter, and disorient approaching vessels without resorting to gunfire. Their value is not purely tactical but also legal and political, providing visible, graduated responses that are recordable and defensible under international use-of-force frameworks (4).
Similarly, non-lethal microwave systems such as the US Active Denial System create intense but temporary sensations that compel withdrawal without lasting injury. While controversial, these systems illustrate how energy can be used to control space rather than destroy targets (5).
As power modulation, targeting precision, and safety mechanisms improve, directed energy offers a way to influence behaviour at distance while preserving reversibility, a core principle in non-lethal weapons design (1).
ACOUSTIC AND SONIC DETERRENTS: SHAPING SPACE WITH SOUND
Sound is one of the most underappreciated domains of influence. Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) have proven effective in maritime security, perimeter defence, and crowd management, particularly where verbal commands are ineffective or unsafe (2).
Modern acoustic systems go beyond volume. Directional sound, frequency modulation, and adaptive output allow operators to target specific areas or groups without affecting entire environments. This is especially relevant in dense urban settings where collateral impact is a constant concern.
Used properly, acoustic deterrents create psychological and physiological barriers that slow, redirect, or disperse movement. They buy time. Time for assessment, communication, and de-escalation.
Critically, they also generate data. Acoustic interactions can be logged, analysed, and integrated into wider sensor networks, contributing to after-action review, accountability, and legal oversight (4).
ELECTRICAL INCAPACITATION: FROM POINT SOLUTIONS TO SYSTEMS
Electrical incapacitation technologies, most notably conducted energy devices, have evolved significantly from early stun guns. Improvements in range, accuracy, energy control, and physiological monitoring are reshaping how these tools are deployed (1).
The next shift is integration. Rather than standalone devices, electrical incapacitation is increasingly embedded within systems that include biometric sensing, officer-worn cameras, and command oversight. This enables better decision-making before, during, and after use.
In military and security contexts, scalable electrical systems may offer options for boarding operations, detainee control, and close-quarters engagements where lethal force carries disproportionate strategic and political risk (3).
The challenge remains trust. Public perception and ethical concerns will continue to shape adoption, but transparency, governance, and clear rules of engagement may ultimately matter as much as technical performance (4).
DENIAL AND AREA-CONTROL SYSTEMS: OWNING SPACE WITHOUT OCCUPYING IT
Non-lethal force is not only about incapacitating people. It is also about controlling terrain.
Denial systems such as vehicle barriers, net-based entanglement, obscurants, and mobility-disruption technologies allow forces to shape movement without direct confrontation. In base protection and critical infrastructure defence, these systems form layered responses that reduce reliance on armed guards as the first point of contact (2).
In maritime security, non-lethal entanglement systems can disable propulsion without sinking vessels. In urban environments, temporary access denial can isolate threats while evacuation or negotiation occurs.
Area control through non-lethal means reframes security from reaction to environment design. It shifts emphasis from who you stop to what you prevent from happening.
SENSOR-LED ESCALATION MANAGEMENT: DECISION ADVANTAGE AS FORCE
Perhaps the most important development underpinning non-lethal force is sensing.
Modern escalation management depends on fusing inputs from video analytics, acoustic detection, RF sensing, behavioural modelling, and biometric data. This allows threats to be identified earlier and responses to be calibrated more precisely (2).
Sensor-led systems do not remove human judgement, but they extend it. They provide context, pattern recognition, and early warning that reduce the likelihood of surprise-driven, irreversible decisions.
In this model, non-lethal force becomes a function of information superiority. The better intent is understood, the less likely escalation defaults to lethal outcomes. This is particularly relevant in grey-zone operations where attribution, legality, and proportionality are constantly contested (3).
WHERE THIS MATTERS MOST
The impact of credible non-lethal capability is greatest where escalation carries strategic consequences:
Crowd control, where deaths can trigger political instability
Maritime security, where miscalculation can escalate between states
Base protection, where layered responses deter without provoking
Urban operations, where civilian presence complicates every decision
In each case, non-lethal systems do not replace lethal force. They delay it, contextualise it, and in many cases, make it unnecessary.
THE REAL SHIFT: CULTURE, NOT JUST TECHNOLOGY
The greatest barrier to non-lethal adoption is not technical maturity. It is institutional mindset.
Non-lethal systems have often been viewed as tools of restraint rather than tools of control. That distinction matters. Restraint implies limitation. Control implies mastery.
As defence and security organisations adapt to increasingly complex operating environments, the ability to shape outcomes without crossing irreversible thresholds becomes a strategic advantage.
Non-lethal force expands the palette. It widens the space between presence and destruction. And in an era defined by scrutiny, ambiguity, and escalation risk, that space is where many future conflicts will be decided.
Also By Us:
REFERENCES
Department of Defense. (2018). Non-lethal weapons reference book. Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program. Retrieved from https://jnlwp.defense.gov/Resources/Reference-Book/
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate. (2023). Non-lethal weapons and escalation management. Retrieved from https://jnlwp.defense.gov/
Mesterházy, A., & Binnendijk, A. (2020). Developing NATO intermediate force capabilities concept. Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 19(3), 5–22. Retrieved from https://connections-qj.org/article/developing-nato-intermediate-force-capabilities-concept
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021). Use of force in law enforcement operations. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/use-force-law-enforcement-operations
NATO Science and Technology Organization. (2012). The human effects of non-lethal technologies. Retrieved from https://www.sto.nato.int/document/the-human-effects-of-non-lethal-technologies/
