The recent announcement that previously unarmed police would start carrying guns in certain Chinese cities should come as no surprise. Terrorism has made the world a dangerous place. However, the Chinese law enforcement authorities need to recognize that the benefits of arming police with lethal weapons carry risks that need to be addressed from the outset. In many cases less lethal weapons such as chemicals and stun guns are both more appropriate and enable suspects to be questioned and investigated.

Chinese police are usually armed with batons and tear gas. Now some of them will be issued the "05 Chinese police revolver" using 9mm nonstandard metal and rubber bullets. This is a smart move from a law enforcement perspective since standard bullets cannot be used should a gun fall into the wrong hands.

The police have received psychological training and have been instructed in how and when to use their weapons. They are limited to using lethal force only after issuing repeated warnings and then only in 15 specific instances including hijackings and violent attacks.

Although a needed tool for law enforcement, lethal force should be seen a last resort. There are other weapons that incapacitate most suspects immediately, such as a variety of sprays and projectiles that go far beyond simple tear gas. For example there are pepperspray pellets that can be fired from pistols or shotguns that would have been well suited to the attack that took place in crowded Kunming railway station because of their longrange and good accuracy. There are also conducted electrical weapons such as Tasers that work by temporarily disrupting brainmuscle communication through the use of electrical pulses. These CEWs only work at closerange however.

The use of lethal force weapons frequently results in death, although sometimes there is no alternative to their use. If suspects die, however, they obviously can't be questioned in the hopes of preventing further violent acts as the dead don't talk. While use of lesslethal weapons does occasionally result in injury or death, most suspects survive. This is a powerful argument for their use in appropriate circumstances.

Use of lethal weapons and even lesslethal weapons have been a source of significant friction in the United States and elsewhere. There have been numerous incidents where triggerhappy police have shot first and asked questions later, or abused their authority or ignored the rules of engagement. Such incidents have caused community unrest and interracial tensions to flare up into full-scale rioting. It is imperative that every use of lethal force should be investigated to ensure that established procedures were followed, and if not that appropriate discipline is enforced.

It is also essential that armed police officers are psychologically cleared, vetted, and instructed in the use of a range of weapons.

So what might have happened if police routinely armed with both lethal and lessthanlethal weapons had been patrolling Kunming railway station on the day of the terrorist attack? The police would likely have used the weapons they had. The incident could have ended more quickly. In all likelihood fewer people would have been killed or maimed. Likely more of the terrorists would have been captured alive. Questioning them might help prevent another outrage in the future.

It's a pity that we can't use the perfect weapon invented almost a half century ago that instantly renders the target unconscious without any collateral damage, or at the turn of a knob would instantly vaporize any threat. Unfortunately the Star Trek phaser doesn't exist yet. Until then, the use of guns by Chinese police is a necessary step in our modern world. But it is just as necessary to have use of the latest technologies of lesslethal weaponry as well, as to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

The author is a senior adviser to Tsinghua University and former director and vice-president of ABC Television in New York.