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

是西方世界的軍隊

Australia, United States, U.K. and so on --

諸如澳大利亞,美國,英國等等

face in some of the deployments

在調遣部署時所面臨的一些問題.

that they're dealing with in the modern world at this time.

在調遣部署時所面臨的一些問題.

If you think about the sorts of things

如果你試想一下 --

that 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；

we've got obvious things like Iraq and Afghanistan,

如伊拉克和阿富汗

but you've also got things like East Timor

還有东帝汶 【位于东南亚】 —

and the Solomon Islands and so on.

和所罗门群岛 ，等等，

And a lot of these deployments

很多諸如此類的軍事任務--

that we're actually 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

事實上，很多這些我們讓士兵做的事情

that we're asking the military personnel to do in these situations

事實上，很多這些我們讓士兵做的事情

are ones that, in their own countries, in Australia, the United States and so on,

在像澳大利亞和美國這樣的國家

would actually be done by police officers.

都是由警察包辦的。

And 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 that 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，

and they're doing things

另外，真正從事此類任務的 --

that those who do them in their own countries

警務人員接受的是完全不同的培訓，

are trained very differently for

警務人員接受的是完全不同的培訓，

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

當然這裡有很多原因為什麼 --

we actually do send military personnel

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 a thousand 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。

we don't have a thousand police officers hanging around

我們沒有一千名警務人員

that could just go tomorrow

在那明天就可以馬上走人。

and we do have a thousand soldiers that could go.

但我們的確有一千名士兵隨時都能走。

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

所以，當我們要調動人時，我們會派這些士兵去，

because they're there, they're available

因為他們就在那隨時準備待命。

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

在某種意義上 --

and living by themselves

這些士兵的確也能勝任此類任務

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。

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

但是問題就在於他們所受的訓練與警務人員的不同，

and they're certainly not equipped in the same way police officers are.

當然他們的裝備也不一樣。

And 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 sorts of issues.

所以，士兵在處理這類事務時會遇到很多麻煩。

One particular thing that's come up

一個特別讓我感興趣的問題是，

that I am especially interested in

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

we ought to be equipping them differently,

我們應不應該讓他們攜帶不同的裝備

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

確切的說，我們應不應該讓士兵們配備

to some of the sorts of non-lethal weapons that police have.

警務人員所使用的非殺傷性武器。

Since they're doing some of these same jobs,

既然這些士兵們也在做

maybe they should have some of those things.

和警察他們做的一樣的事情，他們也應該裝備的一樣。

And of course, there's a range of places

當然，你會想在很多地方，

where you'd think those things would be really useful.

這些非殺傷性武器還是挺管用的。

So for example, when you've got military checkpoints.

比如說，軍事關卡。

If people are approaching these checkpoints

如果有人靠近這些關卡，

and the military personnel there are unsure

並且，士兵們不知道

whether this person's hostile or not.

此人是不是會具有危險性。

Say this person approaching here,

他們會想

and they say, "Well is this a suicide bomber or not?

"這是不是人肉炸彈？”

Have they got something hidden under their clothing? What's going to happen?"

“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 ?”

They don't know whether this person's hostile or not.

你不知道這人是不是心懷鬼胎

If this person doesn't follow directions,

如果這人不聽從士兵們的指示

then they may end up shooting them

士兵很可能就會開槍射擊

and then find out afterward

等事情過後，他們才能知道

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 non-lethal weapons

但是，如果士兵們有非殺傷性武器

then they would say, "Well we can use them in that sort of situation.

他們會想，”在這些情況下，我們可以用這個。”

If we shoot someone who wasn't hostile,

”至少，當我們搞錯人的時候

at least we haven't killed them."

，我們不會殺了他們。“

Another situation.

還有一個例子。

This photo is actually 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。

Situation's a little bit different

這次任務和上一個有所不同。

where perhaps they know someone who's hostile,

這次，士兵們知道誰是敵人

where they've got someone shooting at them

有人很明顯的對士兵們表現出敵意，

or doing something else that's clearly hostile, throwing rocks, whatever.

如開槍，扔石頭什麼的。

But if they respond, there's a range of other people around,

但是，如果士兵在這個時候回擊的話，

who are innocent people who might also get hurt --

很可能會連類一大群無辜的老百姓。

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

軍事人員一般都不喜歡談論像這樣的附帶損害

So again, they would say, "Well if we have access to non-lethal weapons,

所以，他們會想，“如果有非殺傷性武器的話，

if we've got someone we know is hostile,

然後我們知道誰是敵意的，

we can do something to deal with them

至少我們不會束手無策

and know that if we hit anyone else around the place,

，就算是傷及了無辜

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

至少我們不會殺死這些老百姓。

Another suggestion has been,

還有一個建議是，

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

we can see the time coming

我們也能預想到

where they're actually going to be sending robots out in the field that are autonomous.

在不久的將來，完全自動化的機器人會被派遣到戰場上。

They're going to make their own decisions about who to shoot and who not to shoot

他們會在沒有人類控制的情況下，

without a human in the loop.

自我決定要向誰射擊。

And so the suggestion is, well hey,

所以，一個建議是，

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

maybe it would be a good idea, again, with these things

，給機器人裝備非殺傷性武器可能是更明智之舉

if they were armed with non-lethal weapons

，給機器人裝備非殺傷性武器可能是更明智之舉

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

這樣的話，就算機器人做錯了決定，射錯了人

again, they haven't actually killed them.

至少他們不會殺了他們。

Now there's a whole range of different sorts of non-lethal weapons,

現在有不同種類，各種各樣的非殺傷性武器，

some of which are obviously available now,

其中一些現在已經在使用了，

some of which they're developing.

還有一些正在研製當中。

So you've got traditional things like pepper spray,

所以，我們有傳統的非殺傷武器如胡椒喷雾剂

O.C. spray up at the top there,

O.C.噴霧在這上面

or Tasers over here.

或者泰瑟枪（電擊槍）在這。

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

在右上角是一把刺眼的鐳射槍。

intended to just blind the person momentarily

這種鐳射槍可以讓敵人暫時失明，

and disorient them.

從而使他們失去方向感。

You've got non-lethal shotgun rounds

我們還有裝有橡膠子彈的非殺傷性霰弹猎枪，

that contain rubber pellets

我們還有裝有橡膠子彈的非殺傷性霰弹獵槍，

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 actually 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 U.S. 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。

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

它就是所謂的熱射線。

It goes out to a really long distance,

比起其它的東西（輻射）

compared to any of these other sorts of things.

熱射線能夠延伸到更遠的距離。

And anybody who is hit with this

被（熱射線）擊中的人

feels this 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。

It is a lot more sophisticated than a microwave oven,

當然，它比一個微波爐要來的複雜，

but it is basically boiling the water molecules

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.

但是，它其實就是在煮你皮膚表面的水分子。

So you feel this massive heat,

所以，你會感到極度的熱量

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

然後你會想，“我想離開這裡！”

And they're thinking, well this will be really useful

所以，他們（軍事人員）想，這東西可能在像

in places like 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。

if the crowd is being hostile.

如果人群懷有敵意，

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

然後，我們想讓這群人遠離某些地方

we can do that with these sorts of things.

我們就可以使用像這樣的東西（主动压制系统）。

So obviously there's a whole range of different sorts

所以，有很多不同種類的非殺傷性武器

of non-lethal weapons we could give military personnel

我們可以提供給軍事人員。

and there's a whole range of situations

另外，在很多種不同的形勢下，

where they're looking a them and saying, "Hey, these things could be really useful."

他們會認為非殺傷性武器會很管用。

But as I said,

但是，我認為

the military and the police

士兵和警察

are very different.

是截然不同的。（笑）

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

當然，就算你不那麼仔細的觀察

to recognize the fact that they might be very different.

你也會發現他們可能有所不同。

In particular,

更確切的說，

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。

The police --

警察們 --

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, in particular 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，

to try and avoid using force

他們試圖盡量避免使用武力，

wherever possible,

他們試圖盡量避免使用武力，

and to use lethal force

只有在逼不得已的情況下

only as an absolute last resort.

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

you can start shooting at people.

士兵們就可以開始掃射群眾。

So their attitudes

所以他們對使用武力的態度是十分不同的，

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。

and I think it's fairly obvious

想當然地，

that their attitude to the use of non-lethal 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。

And since we've already had so many problems

我認為觀察這類事情

with police use of non-lethal weapons in various ways,

並試圖將它與戰爭聯繫起來會是個不錯的主意。

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

因為就連警察在使用非殺傷性武器時

and try to relate it to the military context.

也遇到了種種問題。

And I was really surprised when I started to do this,

我當時覺得很奇怪，當我開始做這件事的時候

to see that, in fact,

我驚奇的發現

even those people who were advocating the use of non-lethal weapons by the military

就連那些支持推廣非殺傷性武器的軍事人員

hadn't actually done that.

也都還沒開始做這件事。

They generally seem to think,

他們通常認為，

"Well, 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, in fact,

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 actually started to investigate some of those issues

所以，我就開始研究並調查這類事情。

and have a look

所以，我就開始研究並調查這類事情。

at the way that police use non-lethal weapons when they're introduced

非殺傷性武器剛被採用時，警察是如何使用它的。

and some of the problems that might arise

並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。

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

I started looking at stuff in Australia,

我對在不同時間（澳）引進非殺傷性武器的事情比較楚，

knowing, again, from my own experience about various times

我對在不同時間（澳）引進非殺傷性武器的事情比較楚，

when non-lethal weapons have been introduced in Australia.

所以我首先調查了澳大利亞

So one of the things I particularly looked at

我當時特別關注的事情之一就是

was the use of O.C. 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，

by Australian police

諸如，辣椒红色素喷雾、胡椒喷雾,、。

and seeing when that had been introduced, what had happened

另外還有，當O.C 噴霧器被採用時所發生的事情，

and those sorts of issues.

和諸如此類的事宜。

And one study that I found,

我覺得有這麼 一個在昆士蘭的研究

a particularly interesting one,

我覺得有這麼 一個在昆士蘭的研究

was actually 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 O.C. spray in Queensland,

當初他們在昆士蘭引進 O.C 噴霧時

they were really explicit.

目標很明確.

The police minister had a whole heap of public statements made about it.

他們並且在這方面做了很多的公共聲明.

They were saying, "This is explicitly intended

他們說,"這是一個很明確的指示

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.

This is something they can use instead of a firearm

在這些之前需要開槍的情況中,

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

警察可以使用O.C噴霧,而不是槍.

So I went and looked at all of these police shooting figures.

雖然， 像這種警察開槍數據

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 ones.

我只找到了這些數據。

This is from a Australian Institute of Criminology report.

這是來自於，澳大利亚犯罪学学院的报告

As you can see from the fine print, if you can read it at the top:

就如你們在這上面所看到的

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

“警察開槍所導致的死亡” 不只包括被警察開搶射死的人

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

還包括了那些在警察面前開搶射殺自己的人。

But this is the figures across the entire country.

這是全國性的數據

And the red arrow represents the point

正如崑山頓，這個紅色箭頭表示的

where Queensland actually said,

正如崑山頓，這個紅色箭頭表示的，

"Yes, this is where we're going to give 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 O.C. spray."

“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”

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, of course, 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? Wasn't Port Arthur, no.

誰知道這是哪裡？ 不， 不是 阿瑟港

Victoria? Yes, correct.

維多利亞？ 對了。

That spike was all Victoria.

這裡的猛增多來源於維多利亞。

So it wasn't that Queensland had a particular problem

所以，不是只有昆士兰州有這些問題

with deaths from police shootings and so on.

，問題像警察射殺所導致的死亡之類的。

So six shootings across the whole country,

在全國有六個射殺事件。

fairly consistently over the years before.

在前幾年，這個數字相當的穩定

So 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,

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

given how they've introduced this,