The urgency of using UPM is growing due to the increasing number of cases of terrorist attacks, with the desire to avoid unjustified losses among the civilian population during anti-terrorist operations, as well as law enforcement operations and the release of illegally seized objects. At the round table there were four reports on this topic, the discussion at times became acute. It should be noted a high expert level of participants. All of them are qualified experts in the development and application of non-lethal technologies.
Two represent Russia in the European Working Group on UPD. Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman is the only university in the country where the elective course “Weapons of non-lethal action” has been taught since 2001, and a database has been created that includes descriptions of developments in the field of non-lethal technologies, their testing and application in leading countries of the world that have the corresponding scientific and technical potential.
FALSE SECURITY ILLUSION
One American expert said that it was an almost obscene oxymoron, a “weapon,” at the same time a “non-lethal act.” In legislative acts of the Russian Federation it is called "special means of non-lethal action." The British and the Dutch call this type of special means "less lethal weapons." In other countries, it is called a weapon of low mortality. Because, sadly, there is no absolutely safe weapon. And they did the right thing in the Russian Federation that the word “traumatic weapon” disappeared in the recently amended Law on Arms. Since 2004, when he was legalized, about 100 people have been killed from “traumatic” in Russia. But this refers to civilian and service weapons. At the round table at MSTU. N.E. Bauman talked about weapons of low mortality for police, anti-terrorist and army peacekeeping operations. And they remembered about the “trauma” in connection with the fact that such names create the illusion of the safety of using such firearms among citizens and thus lower the threshold for using civilian weapons. Simply put, a false name gives rise to the irresponsibility of the owners of the “trunks”, a false illusion of security, since this is only a trauma.
Professor MGTU them. N.E. Bauman Victor Selivanov, noted the main features of the UPM: “The most important criterion is to minimize the irreversible damage to human health, the consequences and cause significant harm to the environment. The main criterion is supplemented by a number of private, but very important criteria, without which non-lethal weapons cannot be applied. ” In his opinion, there can be no such weapon of non-lethal action, which with 100% probability would exclude victims.
What should a weapon do to a person? Basically neutralize the participants of the riots, stop unauthorized access to prohibited objects.
When should such weapons be used? Clearly, in the application strategy, political measures must first be involved, then the informational impact, economic, only then the UPM will be applied. And only then ordinary weapons. But all over the world, this is practically not happening. And this is a big trouble, because there is no legislatively strategically established order. And in many cases there are simply no good special devices.
Although attention is paid to OND. There is a whole directorate in the US and NATO. In many other countries there are groups to study this issue in the police, the army, in the judiciary. The study goes in three main directions. The first is information-analytical, that is, how can OND be applied. The second is scientific and technical research, that is, is it possible to apply. And the third is biomedical, legal and social studies. This third point, in the opinion of Professor Viktor Selivanov, is the most laborious and socially sensitive. It is here that all the controversies associated with the tactics, consequences and legitimacy of the use of special means of non-lethal action appear most acutely.
WRITING NEW TYPE
Doctor of Medical Sciences Vladimir Savostyanov several years ago was the head of the laboratory of combat pathology at the Ministry of Defense and was studying the effects of various combat systems on biological objects. Repeatedly went on business trips to Chechnya. OND started working on problems in 1995, when gas revolvers and pistols appeared on the territory of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the first gunshot wounds from this type of weapon began to appear, the treatment of which was seriously complicated by gas burns and differed significantly from the protocols for the treatment of gunshot wounds in the practice of military field surgery.
In a report on the biomedical features of the OND action, Vladimir Savostyanov noted that the main principles of the development of UPM are unchanged - this is minimization of the damage. The main features are the reduction of irretrievable losses. But at all conferences on OND the same sharp discussion always arises :: is it possible to create a non-lethal weapon from the position of biology and the biological system's response to the irritating traumatic impact?
The stronger the impact, the stronger the biological system, that is, the person will resist. Accordingly, when trying to twist the offender, he resists. Therefore it is necessary to increase the power of exposure. In the end, it still leads to damage to the biological system. But due to the fact that a new defeat factor was used, we have a new kind of wound process. Therefore, we probably will never create a weapon that completely eliminates mortality and meets all the requirements of the law on its application, while at the same time ensuring the fulfillment of a tactical mission.
If we find relationships between them that we can describe mathematically using special coefficients, then we can go on the criteria for quantifying special means of non-lethal action, which can be used either on individual objects or on a group of individuals (crowd). “This dependence was calculated, and I had such coefficients that reflect the effectiveness of non-lethal systems. They are defined by two main components. This is the degree of damaging effect and the degree of effective impact of the applied system. With what energy should we act on the biological system in order to achieve the desired effect? The more effective this non-lethal impact technology, the more damage it will inflict. ”
Conducted an experiment with a pig. The rubber bullet went tangentially, but an internal colon bruise occurred that could cause peritonitis. When using an Italian non-lethal cluster munition, penetrating wounds to the abdominal cavity with colon injuries were obtained. The rubber bullet is ineffective, but belongs to the fourth class - “Low danger and the likelihood of irreversible consequences for human health.” The danger of death is insignificant, but another danger is that the object can continue its aggressive actions.
As for cluster munitions, it falls into the group of the third hazard class - “The average probability of irreversible consequences for human life and health”. But here, too, the effectiveness of the impact is weak, since there is a high probability that a person may die.
With the help of the developed model, we tried to evaluate the effectiveness of the special operation itself. As a result, the mathematical value of the probability of the combat mission was obtained. It is central when it is necessary to decide whether we will use firearms in anti-terrorist operations or use complex weapons, or use them in conjunction with special non-lethal weapons. those. develop a special operation scenario. When they say that 25% of losses during the release of the hostages at Nord-Ost is the result of the use of special equipment, I disagree.
A special operation is a multifaceted complex concept. And it cannot be said that the loss among the hostages at Nord-Ost is the fault of only those special forces that freed the hostages. We must not forget the truism: there must be special units that must engage in minimizing and eliminating the consequences of an emergency and conducting special operations. Opinion of all specialists, including Western ones, who had to communicate: the victims could be practically avoided if subsequent effective medical care were used. And the problem is not the use of special equipment. After all, the hostages were carried out alive, but people were for a long time without food, without water, exhausted, in a state of shock. Help had to be rendered on the spot, on the threshold. And they were side-by-side loaded onto buses and transported to hospitals without first aid, which in some cases resulted in death.
Let me be frank: it was the failure of our medical system in an emergency. As a member of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee, I repeatedly reported on this, but it was not possible to achieve some kind of common understanding - all the departments are too divided. If earlier we relied on civil defense units, they are not there now. Specially trained employees of medical and preventive institutions of the Ministry of Defense could effectively participate, which are now virtually nonexistent either. And civil health care does not always have time to quickly respond to threats of mass destruction, and it is not intended for such situations.
In my opinion, to effectively assist, it is necessary to develop appropriate scenarios. To create an automated control system based on multivariate flexible solutions, in which everything can be laid - wind rose, positioning on the ground, typical buildings, etc. Only under such conditions it is possible to achieve that the BCD becomes truly non-lethal. When we learn to eliminate the consequences of special operations, then we will effectively save lives and health.
MILITARY DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT EXIST
When asked why the army does not use UPM, one of the participants of the round table said: “There was no talk of weapons here, they mostly talked about special operations that have nothing to do with the military operation. And while I see no reason to rank the development of the technologies referred to as military technologies ”.
During the discussion, it turned out that the research in the field of infrasound closed the OND Directorate in the United States due to the inefficiency even 20 years ago. The United States also created several prototypes of self-propelled units with microwave emitters. But technically the machines were not adapted for military operations, as it turned out during their trial operation in Iraq. When exposed to a crowd of microwave radiation with a frequency of 95 GHz, a person may experience superficial thermal burns. It is believed that a person will run away, but where will he run if behind a crowd he presses? Such technologies are more suitable for protecting objects from penetration.
To protect the ships, acoustic “Oralki” (LRAD - Long Range Aqustic Devices) are already widely used, transmitting a mixture of 40-50 annoying sounds at the maximum volume, starting from the rattle of iron on the glass and ending with the cry of a child. Such acoustic devices are mainly used not as a weapon, but as a warning system: maybe this is a boat with a terrorist approaching, or maybe a drunken tourist.
The participants of the round table noted that the Ministry of Defense considered UPM a police weapon. So far no one has formulated a theme for the military: how to accomplish a combat mission with non-lethal means within the framework of typical scenarios?
An ordinary troop commander asks a question: “I attack the enemy with humane weapons, but for me it’s obviously inhumane.” So the motivation for the use of UPM in army operations is not at all obvious. And in the army more stringent conditions than the police. It is forbidden, for example, to use gases. The equipment of a soldier, if you take the complete set, goes off scale for 60 kg. Let's load it with another parallel system of non-lethal special means. And what will the soldier choose when he goes into battle? The answer is obvious, especially if he does not know what his task will be. Some military departments of the NATO countries had target programs: they had gases, kinetics, microwave, and acoustics. And then life quietly all this was buried.
UPM for military units is still practically non-existent in full, and has already been regulated to the limit. To use conventional weapons, no special orders from above are required. And to use non-lethal, you must first obtain the permission of the prosecutor. That is, you can forget about operational efficiency - a key factor in hostilities.
The police officers are dissatisfied with the existing OND. The disadvantages are obvious: shooting is carried out on the front projection, that is, the most vulnerable organs of the person: the eyes, the neck, the abdominal cavity, the groin. 20 years of use in Northern Ireland have shown that the accuracy of the use of rubber bullets is extremely small. In a circle with a diameter of 450 mm from a distance of 23 m, only 50% of rubber bullets fall. And finally, the use of standard means is dangerous for the person applying them. The maximum shooting range of a rubber bullet is 40 m, and any average man will get a 50 kilogram stone, a petrol bomb or any other dangerous object on 60-0,25 m.
Victor Selivanov, head of the department of the Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman; Vladimir Korenkov - director of the Special Technological Center; Denis Levin - Associate Professor of the Moscow State Technical University. N.E. Bauman; Vladimir Savostyanov - MD; Vladimir Elfimov and Sergey Lezhnin - graduate students, as well as researchers, teachers, technologists and designers of other departments of the Moscow State Technical University. N.E. Bauman. The moderator (moderator) of the round table was the author of these lines.