The moral dangers of non-lethal weapons | Stephen Coleman

譯者: Zenan (Roy) Zhou 審譯者: Yuguo Zhang

What I want to talk to you about today

今天我將跟各位探討的

is some of the problems that the military of the Western world --

是西方世界的軍隊

諸如澳大利亞,美國,英國等等

Australia, United States, the UK and so on --

在調遣部署時所面臨的一些問題.

face in some of the deployments that they're dealing with

在調遣部署時所面臨的一些問題.

in the modern world at this time.

如果你試想一下 --

If you think about the sorts of things

we've sent Australian military personnel to in recent years,

近幾年我們派給澳大利亞軍隊的任務；

如伊拉克和阿富汗

we've got obvious things like Iraq and Afghanistan,

but you've also got things like East Timor and the Solomon Islands,

還有东帝汶 【位于东南亚】 —

和所罗门群岛 ，等等，

and so on.

And a lot of these deployments

很多諸如此類的軍事任務--

that we're sending military personnel to these days

很多諸如此類的軍事任務--

aren't traditional wars.

並不是我們所熟悉的傳統戰爭。

In fact, a lot of the jobs we're asking military personnel to do

事實上，很多這些我們讓士兵做的事情

事實上，很多這些我們讓士兵做的事情

in those situations

are ones that, in their own countries -- Australia, the US and so on --

在像澳大利亞和美國這樣的國家

都是由警察包辦的。

would actually be done by police officers.

So there's a bunch of problems that come up

所以，當士兵從事此類任務時 --

for military personnel in these situations,

會遇到很多問題。

because they're doing things they haven't really been trained for.

因為他們對這樣的任務並沒有受過良好的訓練，

另外，真正從事此類任務的 --

And they're doing things that those who do them in their own countries

警務人員接受的是完全不同的培訓，

警務人員接受的是完全不同的培訓，

are trained very differently for and equipped very differently for.

就連他們的裝備也截然不同。

Now, there's a bunch of reasons why we send military personnel,

當然這裡有很多原因為什麼 --

我們會派遣士兵 --

rather than police, to do these jobs.

而不是警察去做這些事情。

If Australia had to send 1,000 people tomorrow

假如澳大利亞要在一夜之間調動一千個人 --

to West Papua, for example,

去西巴布亚。

我們沒有一千名警務人員

we don't have 1,000 police officers hanging around that could go tomorrow,

在那明天就可以馬上走人。

and we do have 1,000 soldiers that could go.

但我們的確有一千名士兵隨時都能走。

所以，當我們要調動人時，我們會派這些士兵去，

So when we have to send someone, we send the military --

因為他們就在那隨時準備待命。

they're there, they're available,

and heck, they're used to going off and doing these things

在某種意義上 --

這些士兵的確也能勝任此類任務

and living by themselves

and not having all this extra support.

他們習慣了在沒有後勤的情況下，去這去哪，做這做那的。

So they are able to do it in that sense.

他們習慣了在沒有後勤的情況下，去這去哪，做這做那的。

但是問題就在於他們所受的訓練與警務人員的不同，

But they aren't trained the same way police officers are,

當然他們的裝備也不一樣。

and they're certainly not equipped the way police officers are,

所以，士兵在處理這類事務時會遇到很多麻煩。

so this has raised a bunch of problems for them

所以，士兵在處理這類事務時會遇到很多麻煩。

when dealing with these issues.

One particular thing that's come up that I am especially interested in,

一個特別讓我感興趣的問題是，

一個特別讓我感興趣的問題是，

is the question of whether,

當我們派遣這些士兵去做這些任務時，

when we're sending military personnel to do these sorts of jobs,

我們應不應該讓他們攜帶不同的裝備

我們應不應該讓他們攜帶不同的裝備

we ought to be equipping them differently;

確切的說，我們應不應該讓士兵們配備

and in particular, whether we ought to be giving them access

警務人員所使用的非殺傷性武器。

to some of the nonlethal weapons that police have.

既然這些士兵們也在做

Since they're doing some of the same jobs,

和警察他們做的一樣的事情，他們也應該裝備的一樣。

maybe they should have some of those things.

當然，你會想在很多地方，

And there's a range of places you'd think those things would be really useful.

這些非殺傷性武器還是挺管用的。

比如說，軍事關卡。

For example, when you've got military checkpoints.

If people are approaching these checkpoints

如果有人靠近這些關卡，

並且，士兵們不知道

and the military personnel are unsure if this person's hostile or not,

此人是不是會具有危險性。

say this person approaching here, and they say,

他們會想

"這是不是人肉炸彈？”

"Is this a suicide bomber or not?

Is something hidden under their clothes?

“他們是不是藏了一些東西在他們的衣服裡面?到底會發生什麽 ?”

What's going to happen?"

你不知道這人是不是心懷鬼胎

They don't know if the person is hostile or not.

如果這人不聽從士兵們的指示

If the person doesn't follow directions, they may end up shooting them,

士兵很可能就會開槍射擊

等事情過後，他們才能知道

and then find out afterwards either, yes, we shot the right person,

“好啊！我們殺對人了。”

or, no, this was just an innocent person

“不！我們殺了無辜的老百姓。“

who didn't understand what was going on.

“不！我們殺了無辜的老百姓。“

So if they had nonlethal weapons, then they would say,

但是，如果士兵們有非殺傷性武器

他們會想，”在這些情況下，我們可以用這個。”

"We can use them in that sort of situation.

”至少，當我們搞錯人的時候

If we shoot someone who wasn't hostile,

，我們不會殺了他們。“

at least we haven't killed them."

還有一個例子。

Another situation: this photo is from one of the missions

這張照片是拍自1990年末，巴爾幹半島的

in the Balkans in the late 1990s.

一次任務。

這次任務和上一個有所不同。

This situation is a little bit different,

這次，士兵們知道誰是敵人

where maybe they know someone is hostile;

有人很明顯的對士兵們表現出敵意，

they've got someone shooting at them

or doing something else that's clearly hostile,

如開槍，扔石頭什麼的。

throwing rocks, whatever.

但是，如果士兵在這個時候回擊的話，

But if they respond,

there's a range of other people around who are innocent people,

很可能會連類一大群無辜的老百姓。

who might also get hurt.

It'd be collateral damage

軍事人員一般都不喜歡談論像這樣的附帶損害

that the military often doesn't want to talk about.

So again, they'd say, "With access to nonlethal weapons,

所以，他們會想，“如果有非殺傷性武器的話，

然後我們知道誰是敵意的，

if we've got someone we know is hostile,

至少我們不會束手無策

we can do something to deal with them,

，就算是傷及了無辜

and know that if we hit anyone else,

at least we're not going to kill them."

至少我們不會殺死這些老百姓。

還有一個建議是，

Another suggestion has been,

since we're putting so many robots in the field,

現在越來越多的機器人被使用在不同的任務中

我們也能預想到

we can see the time coming

where they're actually going to send robots out in the field

在不久的將來，完全自動化的機器人會被派遣到戰場上。

that are autonomous.

他們會在沒有人類控制的情況下，

They'll make their own decisions about who to shoot and who not to shoot,

自我決定要向誰射擊。

without a human in the loop.

所以，一個建議是，

So the suggestion is,

if we're going to send robots out and allow them to do this,

如果我們真的要派遣機器人去執行這些任務

，給機器人裝備非殺傷性武器可能是更明智之舉

maybe it would be a good idea if they were armed with nonlethal weapons,

，給機器人裝備非殺傷性武器可能是更明智之舉

這樣的話，就算機器人做錯了決定，射錯了人

so if the robot makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person,

至少他們不會殺了他們。

again, they haven't actually killed them.

現在有不同種類，各種各樣的非殺傷性武器，

Now, there's a whole range of different sorts of nonlethal weapons,

其中一些現在已經在使用了，

some of which are available now,

還有一些正在研製當中。

some of which they're developing.

所以，我們有傳統的非殺傷武器如胡椒喷雾剂

You've got traditional things like pepper spray,

O.C.噴霧在這上面

OC spray up at the top there,

或者泰瑟枪（電擊槍）在這。

or Tasers over here.

在右上角是一把刺眼的鐳射槍。

The one on the top right here is actually a dazzling laser,

這種鐳射槍可以讓敵人暫時失明，

intended to just blind the person momentarily

從而使他們失去方向感。

and disorient them.

我們還有裝有橡膠子彈的非殺傷性霰弹猎枪，

You've got nonlethal shotgun rounds

我們還有裝有橡膠子彈的非殺傷性霰弹獵槍，

that contain rubber pellets instead of the traditional metal ones.

用來取代傳統的金屬制的子彈。

And this one in the middle here, the large truck,

還有，在這個圖像中間的這輛大卡車

is called the Active Denial System,

其實是美軍現在正在使用的，主动压制系统。

something the US military is working on at the moment.

其實是美軍現在正在使用的，主动压制系统。

It's essentially a big microwave transmitter.

它在本質上其實是一個大的微波傳導器。

它就是所謂的熱射線。

It's sort of your classic idea of a heat ray.

比起其它的東西（輻射）

It goes out to a really long distance,

compared to any of these other sorts of things.

熱射線能夠延伸到更遠的距離。

被（熱射線）擊中的人

Anybody who is hit with this feels a sudden burst of heat,

會感到瞬間的灼熱感，

and just wants to get out of the way.

使得他（她）都想躲開。

當然，它比一個微波爐要來的複雜，

It is a lot more sophisticated than a microwave oven,

but it basically is boiling the water molecules

但是，它其實就是在煮你皮膚表面的水分子。

但是，它其實就是在煮你皮膚表面的水分子。

in the very surface level of your skin.

所以，你會感到極度的熱量

So you feel this massive heat,

然後你會想，“我想離開這裡！”

and you go, "I want to get out of the way."

所以，他們（軍事人員）想，這東西可能在像

And they think this will be really useful

in places where we need to clear a crowd out of a particular area,

驅趕人群的這樣的場合中會很管用。

如果人群懷有敵意，

if the crowd is being hostile.

然後，我們想讓這群人遠離某些地方

If we need to keep people away from a particular place,

我們就可以使用像這樣的東西（主动压制系统）。

we can do that with these sorts of things.

So there's a whole range of different nonlethal weapons

所以，有很多不同種類的非殺傷性武器

我們可以提供給軍事人員。

we could give military personnel,

and there's a whole range of situations

另外，在很多種不同的形勢下，

where they're looking at them and saying,

他們會認為非殺傷性武器會很管用。

"These things would be really useful."

但是，我認為

But as I said,

the military and the police are very different.

士兵和警察

是截然不同的。（笑）

(Laughter)

Yes, you don't have to look very hard at this to recognize

當然，就算你不那麼仔細的觀察

你也會發現他們可能有所不同。

that they might be very different.

更確切的說，

In particular,

the attitude to the use of force

他們對使用武力的態度

and the way they're trained to use force

和他們對使用武力所接受的訓練

is especially different.

是非常不一樣的。

警察們 --

The police --

and knowing because I've actually helped to train police --

我了解他們，因為我曾經訓練過他們 --

police, particularly in Western jurisdictions at least,

警察，尤其是在西方體制下的警察

are trained to De-escalate force,

所接受的訓練是如何緩解衝突，

他們試圖盡量避免使用武力，

to try and avoid using force wherever possible,

他們試圖盡量避免使用武力，

and to use lethal force only as an absolute last resort.

只有在逼不得已的情況下

他們才會使用致命武器。

Military personnel are being trained for war.

士兵是為了戰爭而訓練的，

So they're trained that, as soon as things go bad,

，所以一旦形勢惡化了，他們的第一反應

their first response is lethal force.

就是使用致命武器。

The moment the fecal matter hits the rotating turbine --

在大難臨頭之際

(Laughter)

you can start shooting at people.

士兵們就可以開始掃射群眾。

所以他們對使用武力的態度是十分不同的，

So their attitudes

to the use of lethal force are very different,

所以他們對使用武力的態度是十分不同的。

想當然地，

and I think it's fairly obvious

that their attitude to the use of nonlethal weapons

他們對使用非殺傷性武器的態度

would also be very different from what it is with the police.

也會和警察的不同。

我認為觀察這類事情

And since we've already had so many problems

並試圖將它與戰爭聯繫起來會是個不錯的主意。

with police use of nonlethal weapons in various ways,

因為就連警察在使用非殺傷性武器時

I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of those things

也遇到了種種問題。

and relate it to the military context.

我當時覺得很奇怪，當我開始做這件事的時候

I was very surprised when I started to do this to see that, in fact,

我驚奇的發現

even the people who advocated the use of nonlethal weapons by the military

就連那些支持推廣非殺傷性武器的軍事人員

也都還沒開始做這件事。

hadn't actually done that.

They generally seemed to think,

他們通常認為，

"Why would we care what's happened with the police?

“我們為什麼要去關注在警察身上發生了什麽？

We're looking at something different,"

警察和士兵可不同。"

and didn't seem to recognize

但是他們好像並沒有發現，事實上

they were looking at pretty much the same stuff.

他們（警察和士兵）所遇到的是一類問題。

So I started to investigate some of those issues,

所以，我就開始研究並調查這類事情。

所以，我就開始研究並調查這類事情。

and have a look at the way police use nonlethal weapons

非殺傷性武器剛被採用時，警察是如何使用它的。

when they're introduced,

並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。

and some of the problems that might arise out of those sorts of things

並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。

when they actually do introduce them.

並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。

And of course, being Australian,

，理所當然的，作為一位澳大利亞人

我對在不同時間（澳）引進非殺傷性武器的事情比較楚，

I started looking at stuff in Australia, knowing from my own experience

我對在不同時間（澳）引進非殺傷性武器的事情比較楚，

of various times when nonlethal weapons have been introduced in Australia.

所以我首先調查了澳大利亞

我當時特別關注的事情之一就是

One of the things I particularly looked at was the use of OC spray --

O.C.噴霧器是如何被警察所使用，

oleoresin capsicum spray, pepper spray --

O.C.噴霧器是如何被警察所使用，

諸如，辣椒红色素喷雾、胡椒喷雾,、。

by Australian police,

另外還有，當O.C 噴霧器被採用時所發生的事情，

and seeing what had happened when that had been introduced,

和諸如此類的事宜。

and those sorts of issues.

我覺得有這麼 一個在昆士蘭的研究

And one study that I found, a particularly interesting one,

我覺得有這麼 一個在昆士蘭的研究

was in Queensland,

特別有意思。

because they had a trial period for the use of pepper spray

因為他們在全面推廣胡椒喷雾前

before they actually introduced it more broadly.

有一段適用期。

And I went and had a look at some of the figures here.

然我就看了看數據。

Now, when they introduced OC spray in Queensland,

當初他們在昆士蘭引進 O.C 噴霧時

目標很明確.

they were really explicit.

The police minister's and a heap of public statements were made about it.

他們並且在這方面做了很多的公共聲明.

他們說,"這是一個很明確的指示

They were saying, "This is explicitly intended to give police an option

我們想要給警務人在警告和開槍之間

between shouting and shooting.

多增加一種選擇.

在這些之前需要開槍的情況中,

This is something they can use instead of a firearm

in situations where they would have previously had to shoot someone."

警察可以使用O.C噴霧,而不是槍.

雖然， 像這種警察開槍數據

So I looked at all of the police shooting figures.

And you can't actually find them very easily

在澳大利亞各個州很難找到

for individual Australian states;

我還是找到並調查了這些統計數據。

I could only find these.

我只找到了這些數據。

This is from an Australian Institute of Criminology report.

這是來自於，澳大利亚犯罪学学院的报告

就如你們在這上面所看到的

You can see, in the fine print at the top:

“警察開槍所導致的死亡” 不只包括被警察開搶射死的人

"Police shooting deaths" means not just people shot by police,

還包括了那些在警察面前開搶射殺自己的人。

but people who have shot themselves in the presence of police.

But these are the figures across the entire country,

這是全國性的數據

正如崑山頓，這個紅色箭頭表示的

and the red arrow represents the point where Queensland said,

正如崑山頓，這個紅色箭頭表示的，

"Yes, this is where we're going to give

“這裡就是那些在全國需要給警務人員配備O.C噴霧的地區”

all police officers across the entire state

“這裡就是那些在全國需要給警務人員配備O.C噴霧的地區”

access to OC spray."

So you can see there were six deaths sort of leading up to it,

所以在這裡你可以看見六個死亡組合，從低到高，

every year for a number of years.

數據包括了數年。

There was a spike a few years before,

在前幾年，這裡有一個忽漲

but that wasn't actually Queensland.

，但是這裡不是昆士兰州。

Anyone know where that was?

誰知道這是哪裡？ 不， 不是 阿瑟港

Wasn't Port Arthur, no.

維多利亞？ 對了。

Victoria? Yes, correct.

這裡的猛增多來源於維多利亞。

That spike was all Victoria.

(Laughter)

所以，不是只有昆士兰州有這些問題

So it wasn't that Queensland had a particular problem

，問題像警察射殺所導致的死亡之類的。

with deaths from police shootings and so on.

So, six shootings across the whole country,

在全國有六個射殺事件。

在前幾年，這個數字相當的穩定

fairly consistently over the years before.

所以，當他們引進了O.C 噴霧以後的那兩年裡 ， 2001 和 2002 年裡。

The next two years were the years they studied -- 2001, 2002.

所以，當他們引進了O.C 噴霧以後的那兩年裡 ， 2001 和 2002 年裡。

Anyone want to take a stab at the number of times,

他們研究了在昆士兰州，警察使用噴霧器的數量。

given how they've introduced this,

the number of times police in Queensland used OC spray in that period?

有沒有人想要猜一猜這個數字？

一百？ 一， 三。

Hundreds? One? Three?

一千更接近了。

A thousand is getting better.

Explicitly introduced as an alternative to the use of lethal force --

這是一個很明確的意圖，

除了使用致命武器外另外一個選擇 --

an alternative between shouting and shooting.

在警告和開槍之間,多增加一種選擇.

I'm going to go out on a limb here

我現在想說得再明白點（爬高枝）

and say that if Queensland police didn't have OC spray,

如果昆士兰州的警察沒有使用噴霧劑的話，

they wouldn't have shot 2,226 people

他們不可能在這兩年裡，射殺了2226 個人。

in those two years.

他們不可能在這兩年裡，射殺了2226 個人。

(Laughter)

事實上，如果你看一看

In fact, if you have a look at the studies they were looking at,

他們調查結果。他們所收集的資料和審查，

the material they were collecting and examining,

他們調查結果。他們所收集的資料和審查，

你會發現在警察使用噴霧器的事件中，

you can see the suspects were only armed in about 15 percent of cases

只有百分之15是的嫌疑犯

where OC spray was used.

攜帶了武器。

在那個時期，O.C噴霧器是被常規的使用的，

It was routinely being used in this period,

and, of course, still is routinely used --

當然，現在也是 --

because there were no complaints about it,

這是應為，沒有對這類事件有任何的投訴

至少在這個調查中沒有 --

not within the context of this study, anyway --

噴霧器在面對這類人被常規的使用，

it was routinely being used to deal with people who were violent,

比如說暴力的人，

或者具有暴力傾向的人

who were potentially violent,

and also quite frequently used

另外，噴霧器也會被拿來

對付那些只是不喜歡

to deal with people who were simply passively noncompliant.

順從警察命令的那些人。

This person is not doing anything violent,

這些人沒有做任何具有暴力傾向的事，

but they just won't do what we want them to.

但是，他們只是不想去做別人讓他們做的事，

They're not obeying the directions we're giving them,

他們沒有服從警察的命令，

所以警察就對他們使用了O.C噴霧器。

so we'll give them a shot of the OC spray -- that'll speed them up.

這樣可以迅速解決問題。

Everything will work out better that way.

This was something explicitly introduced

這就是他們所說的，“在使用手槍以外，

有另外一個選擇，

to be an alternative to firearms,

但是，O.C 噴霧器在很多的領域中和其他的問題中

but it's being routinely used

但是，O.C 噴霧器在很多的領域中和其他的問題中

to deal with a whole range of other sorts of problems.

被過度使用了。

Now one of the particular issues that comes up

現在，我們來說說，軍事人員在使用非殺傷性武器所遇到的問題

現在，我們來說說，軍事人員在使用非殺傷性武器所遇到的問題

with military use of nonlethal weapons --

and people actually say, "There might be some problems" --

人們說， “可能會有一些問題”

there's a couple of particular problems that get focused on.

其中有些問題被特別關注了。

其中一個問題就是

One of those problems is: nonlethal weapons may be used indiscriminately.

非殺傷性武器被不加以區分地使用了。

軍事人員在使用武力時所要依循的原則之一

One of the fundamental principles of military use of force

就是要懂得辨別。

is that you have to be discriminate;

當你要開槍時要非常小心

you have to be careful about who you're shooting at.

所以， 由於， 你不需要太擔心使用非殺傷性武器

So one of the problems suggested with nonlethal weapons

is that they might be used indiscriminately --

其中一個使用非殺傷性武器的問題

就是它們被隨意地使用在一批人身上。

that you would use them against a whole range of people,

就是它們被隨意地使用在一批人身上。

because you don't have to worry so much anymore.

事實上，我覺得有一個例子，

And in fact, one particular instance where I think that actually happens

一個已經發生了的例子可以說明問題。

was the Dubrovka Theater siege in Moscow in 2002,

那就是在2002年，俄羅斯大劇院人質事件。

which probably a lot of you, unlike most of my students at ADFA,

不像我的一些年輕的學生們，

大部分在座的老一輩應該還能記得。

are old enough to remember.

一些車臣份子闖進了劇院，並且控制了全場。

So, Chechens had come in and taken control of the theater.

他們挾持了將近700多名人質。

They were holding something like 700 people hostage.

雖然他們釋放了其中一些人，

They'd released a bunch of people,

但是他們還是有將近700名人質。

but they still had about 700 people hostage.

And the Russian military police special forces, "Spetsnaz,"

然後，俄羅斯特總部隊，

雪域特戰隊，

came in and stormed the theater.

偷襲並橫掃了劇院。

The way they did it was to pump the whole thing full of anesthetic gas.

他們先是將整個劇院灌入麻醉氣體。

結果發現

And it turned out that lots of the hostages died

很多人質由於吸入了這些氣體

as a result of inhaling the gas.

而死亡。

It was used indiscriminately.

這就是一個任意濫用武器的例子。

They pumped the whole theater full of the gas.

不難想像，有人會因為這而喪身。

And it's no surprise that people died,

他們把這個劇院灌滿了麻醉氣體。

你不知道每個人會吸入多少氣體，

because you don't know how much gas each person is going to inhale,

你不知道每個人會吸入多少氣體，

what position they'll fall in when they become unconscious, and so on.

當他們失去意識時，會以什麼姿勢倒地，等等。

當他們失去意識時，會以什麼姿勢倒地，等等。

There were, in fact, only a couple of people who got shot

事實上，整個事件只有兩個人被開槍射擊

in this episode.

事實上，整個事件只有兩個人被開槍射擊

So when they had a look at it afterward,

所以，當他們回顧發現，

there were only a couple of people who'd apparently been shot,

只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。

只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。

by the hostage takers or by the police forces

只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。

trying to deal with the situation.

只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。

Virtually everybody that got killed

幾乎所有喪生的人都是由於

got killed from inhaling the gas.

吸入了這種麻醉氣體。

最後喪生的人質總數

The final toll of hostages is a little unclear,

還是有點不清楚

but it's certainly a few more than that,

但肯定是比當場死亡人數要多，

because other people died over the next few days.

因為有些人在過後幾天身亡。

這就是其中一個我們所說的

So this was one problem they talked about,

濫用非致命性武器的問題。

that it might be used indiscriminately.

A second problem people sometimes talk about

第二個人們時常談到的在使用非殺傷性武器時的問題，

第二個人們時常談到的在使用非殺傷性武器時的問題，

with military use of nonlethal weapons --

這也是化學武器公約裡所談到的，

and it's actually why, in the chemical weapons convention,

很明顯的，不應把軍用化學武器

it's very clear that you can't use riot-control agents

用於戰爭

as weapons of warfare --

這個問題就在於

is that it's seen that sometimes nonlethal weapons might be used

這些非殺傷性武器不是用於替代殺傷性武器的

not as an alternative to lethal force,

而是用來輔助殺傷性武器的 --

but as a lethal force multiplier:

that you use nonlethal weapons first,

你可以先使用非殺傷性武器

so your lethal weapons will actually be more effective.

然後你再使用殺傷性武器時就會變得更有效。

被你射擊的人將無法躲開。

The people you'll be shooting at won't be able to get out of the way.

被你射擊的人將無法躲開。

They won't be aware of what's happening, and you can kill them better.

你可以更輕鬆的殺死他們，因為他們不知道發生了什麼。

然而事實上，那正是所發生的事

And that's exactly what happened here.

The hostage takers who had been rendered unconscious by the gas

那些由於吸入氣體而昏迷的挾持人質者

沒有被逮捕，

were not taken into custody;

they were simply shot in the head.

而是被直接爆了頭。

So this nonlethal weapon was being used in this case

所以，在這場事件中，

非殺傷性武器被用來

as a lethal force multiplier,

輔助殺傷性武器，

to make killing more effective in this particular situation.

從而可以更有效率的殺戮。

從而可以更有效率的殺戮。

Another problem I want to quickly mention

我還想簡單的提一下另一個問題，

那就是，人所接受的非殺傷性武器的培訓方法

is that there's a whole heap of problems

那就是，人所接受的非殺傷性武器的培訓方法

with the way people are actually taught to use nonlethal weapons,

那就是，人所接受的非殺傷性武器的培訓方法

and get trained about them and then tested and so on.

有堆積如山的問題。

因為他們是在一個良好及安全的環境下接受訓練

Because they're tested in nice, safe environments,

同樣，他們也是在這樣的環境下接受考核。

and are taught to use them in nice, safe environments --

like this, where you can see exactly what's going on.

就像這裡，你可以確切地看到發生了什麼。

這裡在使用O.C噴霧器的人戴着塑膠手套

The person spraying the OC spray is wearing a rubber glove

以確保他們不會被污染

to make sure they don't get contaminated, and so on.

但是在現實中，這些殺傷性武器

But they're never used like that.

不是被這樣使用的，

They're used out in the real world,

就像在德克萨斯州，“警察對老奶奶使用電擊槍”

like in Texas, like this:

["Police Taser Great-Grandmother During Traffic Stop"]

我承認， 這一事件

I confess, this particular case was one that piqued my interest in this.

激起了我的興趣。

It happened while I was working as a research fellow

這件事情發生的時候，我是美國海軍學院的一名研究員

at the US Naval Academy.

那時，新聞開始播報這件事

News reports started coming up about this situation,

一個老奶奶和警務人員發生了爭執

where this woman was arguing with a police officer.

She wasn't violent.

她並不暴力

In fact, he was probably six inches taller than me,

這個警察比我高六英寸

，而老奶奶有差不多怎麼高

and she was about this tall.

And eventually she said to him,

最後她對警察說

"Well, I'm going to get back in my car."

“我現在要回到我的車上了。”

And he says, "If you get back in your car, I'm going to tase you."

然後他說，“如果你回到你的車上，我就會使用電擊槍."

然後她說， “好啊，來呀，電我啊。” 然後他就照做了。

And she says, "Oh, go ahead. Tase me." And so he does.

這一切被攝像頭記錄了下來。

And it's all captured by the video camera

這一切被攝像頭記錄了下來。

running in the front of the police car.

所以，她是72歲

So, she's 72.

這看來是對付她最適當的方法。

And it's seen that this is the most appropriate way of dealing with her.

And there are other examples of the same sorts of things,

還有其它類似的例子，

這些例子讓你質疑，

where you think,

“這真的是使用非殺傷武器最適合的方法嗎？”

"Is this really an appropriate way to use nonlethal weapons?"

“警察局長朝14歲女孩的頭部使用電擊槍。”

"Police Chief Fires Taser into 14 year old Girl's Head."

“她逃跑了，我別無選擇”

"She was running away. What else was I suppose to do?"

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

Or Florida:

或者， 佛罗里达

"Police Taser 6-year-old Boy at Elementary School."

“警察在小學對六歲男孩使用電擊槍。”

And they clearly learned a lot from it, because in the same district:

他們肯定從中吸取了教訓。

因為這兩件事發生在同一個社區

"Police Review Policy After Children Shocked:

“孩子被電擊，警察重新修訂政策；

在一星期內，兩名孩童被電擊槍擊中。”

2nd Child Shocked by Taser Stun Gun Within Weeks."

Same police district.

又同一個社區,

Another child within weeks of Tasering the six-year-old boy.

在六歲男童被電擊後的幾個禮拜裡，有另一個孩童被電了。

你可能覺得

Just in case you think it's only going to happen in the United States,

這事只會發生在美國

it happened in Canada as well:

但是，這種事也在加拿大發生了。

["Mounties Zap 11-year-old Boy"]

我的一個同事從倫敦發給了我這個， “被捕82歲男人被電擊”

And a colleague sent me this one from London:

我的一個同事從倫敦發給了我這個， “被捕82歲男人被電擊”

["Arrested Man, 82, Shot with Taser"]

但是我必須承認，我最喜歡的還是

But my personal favorite, I have to confess, does come from the US:

來自於美國的；

"Officers Taser 86-year-old Disabled Woman in her Bed."

“警員電擊了一個躺在床上的86歲殘疾女性。”

(Laughter)

我查了查關於這事件的報導。

I checked the reports on this one.

我看了以後大吃一驚。

I looked at it. I was really surprised.

Apparently, she took up a more threatening position in her bed.

很明顯的，她躺在床上時更具有危險性。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

我沒開玩笑，這真的

I kid you not, that's exactly what it said:

“她躺在床上時更具有危險性。”

"She took up a more threatening position in her bed."

好的。

OK.

But I'd remind you --

但是我想要提醒你我今天的主題，

I'm talking about military uses of nonlethal weapons,

我想要說的是軍事人員（士兵）在使用非殺傷性武器時的問題

so why is this relevant?

所以，這有什麼關聯嗎？

Because police are actually more restrained in the use of force

因為警察在使用武力時比士兵受到更多的約束，

因為警察在使用武力時比士兵受到更多的約束，

than the military are.

They're trained to be more restrained in the use of force

所以，在訓練時，他們也被教導要更謹慎地使用武力。

than the military are.

他們會顧慮的跟多，盡量大事化小，小事化了。

They're trained to think more, to try and De-escalate.

如果你覺得就連警察在使用非殺傷性武器時都會遇到問題，

So if you have these problems with police officers

with nonlethal weapons,

那麼，到底什麼會讓你覺得

what on earth would make you think

軍事人員會被警察做的要好呢？

it's going to be better with military personnel?

The last thing that I would like to say:

最後我想說的是，

當我和警員談起什麼是完美的非殺傷性武器時

When I'm talking to the police

about what a perfect nonlethal weapon would look like,

當我和警員談起什麼是完美的非殺傷性武器時

他們必然會說同樣的話：

they almost inevitably say the same thing.

“嗯，它必需要是足夠噁心，使人們不想被它所傷。“

They say, "It's got to be something that's nasty enough

that people don't want to be hit with this weapon.

“嗯，它必需要是足夠噁心，使人們不想被它所傷。"

"當你威脅別人說要用它時，

So if you threaten to use it,

people are going to comply with it.

人人往往會投降。”

But it's also going to be something

“但它還不能留下任何後遺症。”

that doesn't leave any lasting effects."

“但它還不能留下任何後遺症。”

換句話說，完美的非殺傷性武器就是非常適用於虐待人的。

In other words,

your perfect nonlethal weapon is something that's perfect for abuse.

換句話說，完美的非殺傷性武器就是非常適用於虐待人的。

想像一下，當這些人擁有點擊槍或者一個可以操控的，便携版的主动拒止系统

What would these guys have done if they'd had access to Tasers,

當這些人擁有電擊槍或者一個便携版的主动拒止系统

or to a manned, portable version of the Active Denial System --

（主动拒止系统-能讓你使用毫米波電磁的非殺傷技術，而你卻不需要擔心後果）

（主动拒止系统-能讓你使用毫米波電磁的非殺傷技術，而你卻不需要擔心後果）

a small heat ray that you can use on people

（主动拒止系统-能讓你使用毫米波電磁的非殺傷技術，而你卻不需要擔心後果）

and not worry about.

他們會做出什麼呢。

So I think yes,

所以我覺得，非殺傷性武器是在一些情況下會有很大效果，

there may be ways that nonlethal weapons will be great in these situations,

所以我覺得，非殺傷性武器是在一些情況下會有很大效果，

但不能不考慮它所帶來的堆積如山的問題。

but there's also a whole heap of problems

但不能不考慮它所帶來的堆積如山的問題。

that need to be considered as well.

Thanks very much.

非常感謝。

(Applause)

(鼓掌)