- Dear Jeff
-
- I attach some snippets from a new report
entitled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control"
written by Mr. Steve Wright of the Omega Project (Manchester) for the Scientific
Technological Options Assessment (STOA) of the European Parliament.
-
- I think you'll agree that this is pretty
disturbing - it occurs to me that there may well be a link with aspects
of MILAB here...let's hope not for everyone's sake.
-
- ____________
-
- "5.6 Second Generation Incapacitation
Weapons
-
- In the Nineties, the revolution in so
called 'non-lethal weapons' was given fresh impetus by new US programmes
to fight internal conflicts - ostensibly without casualties. The US Government
was driven towards finding a universal panacea because of a series of embarrassing
and widely publicised debacles including the Rodney King beating, the Waco
siege and their unfortunate experiences in Somalia, where they failed in
crowd control operations with only lethal technology. The new policy was
avidly pushed in the States by the likes of Col. John Alexander (who made
his name as part of the Phoenix Assassination programmes during the Vietnam
war) and science fiction writers such as Alvin Toffler (Toffler, 1994)
and Janet and Chris Morris, (Morris & Morris, 1990, 1994) and picked
up by the
-
- 36
-
- DoD and Justice Department
-
- Thus a second generation of kinetic,
chemical, optico-acoustic, microwave, disabling and paralysing technologies
is on the horizon, to join the existing arsenal of weapons designed for
public order control. Much of the initial new work has been undertaken
in US nuclear laboratories such as Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore and Los
Alamos. Many cynics see the work as a rice bowl initiative with scientists
looking for new weapons projects to justify their future careers as the
cold war made their old skill redundant. Already they have come up with
a pandora's box of new technologies. These include:
-
- * Ultra-sound generators, which cause
disorientation, vomiting and involuntary defecation, disturbing the ear
system which controls balance and inducing nausea. The system which uses
two speakers can target individuals in a crowd.
-
- * Visual stimulus and illusion techniques
such as high intensity strobes which pulse in the critical epileptic fit-inducing
flashing frequency and holograms used to project active camouflage.
-
- * Reduced energy kinetic weapons. Variants
on the bean bag philosophy which ostensibly will result in no damage (
similar claims were once made about plastic bullets). (See Fig. 32)
-
- * New disabling, calmative, sleep inducing
agents mixed with DMSO which enables the agent to quickly cross the skin
barrier and an extensive range of pain causing, paralysing and foul-smelling
area-denial chemicals. Some of these are chemically engineered variants
of the heroin molecule. They work extremely rapidly, one touch and disablement
follows. Yet one person's tranquillization may be another's lethal dose.
(See Fig. 33)
-
- * Microwave and acoustic disabling systems.
(see Fig. 34)
-
- * Human capture nets which can be laced
with chemical irritant or electrified to pack an extra disabling punch.
(See Fig. 34)
-
- * Lick 'em and stick 'em technology such
as the Sandia National Laboratory's foam gun which expands to between 35-50
times its original volume. Its extremely sticky, gluing together any target's
feet and hands to the pavement. (See Fig. 35)
-
- * Aqueous barrier foam which can be laced
with pepper spray.
-
- * Blinding laser weapons and Isotrophic
radiator shells which use superheated gaseous plasma to produce a dazzling
burst of laser like light. (See Fig. 36)
-
- * Thermal guns which incapacitate through
a wall by raising body temperature to 107 degrees.
-
- * Magnetosphere gun which delivers what
feels like a blow to the head.
-
- We are no longer at a theoretical stage
with these weapons. US companies are already piloting new systems, lobbying
hard and where possible, laying down potentially lucrative patents. For
example, last year New Scientist reported that the American Technology
Corporation (ATC) of Poway California has used what it calls acoustical
heterodyning technology to target individuals in a crowd with infra-sound
to pinpoint an individual 200-300
-
- 37 _______________
-
- ...metres away. The system can also project
sonic holograms which can conjure audio messages out of thin air so just
one person hears.79 Meanwhile, Jane's reported that the US Army Research
Laboratory has produced a variable velocity rifle for lethal or non lethal
use a new twist to flexible response.80 Other companies are promoting robots
for use in riot and prison control.
-
- The National Institute of Justice in
the US is now actively soliciting new ideas for such weapons from corporate
bodies,81 and corporate US has responded with bodies like SPIE (The International
Society For Optical Engineering), which have enthusiastically responded
with a special conference on 'Enabling Technologies for Law Enforcement
and Security' at the Hynes Convention centre in Boston, Nov 19-21, 1996.
The panel on less than lethal technologies has experts talking on subjects
such as: The non-lethal laser baton; design of a variable velocity gun
system for law enforcement applications; sticky shocker; definition of
lethality thresholds for KE less-lethal projectiles; violence reduction
and assailant control with laser sighted police pistols; directed energy
technologies: weaponisation and barrier applications; pepper spray projectile
for countering hostage and barricade situations; aqueous foam as a less
than lethal technology for prison applications etc. A formal Pentagon policy
on the use of non-lethal weapons was prepared last year in response to
Congressional instructions to initiate a joint acquisitions programme.
Whilst there are practical problems regarding whether it is preferable
to leave an enemy or a citizen dead rather than permanently maimed, and
whether or not hallucinogenic or other psychotropic 'calmative' agents
fall foul of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the spending call was for
$15 million annually over the next three years, to fund new and existing
projects.82
-
- Critics of such projects suggest that
non-lethal war is a contradiction in terms. Many of the so called non-lethal
weapons are in reality are far from non-lethal. They can and have killed,
maimed, blinded and scalped innocent bystanders. There is a real danger
that they will make conflicts more lethal by enraging crowds and by paralysing
people making them more vulnerable to other operations by the military
and security forces. In that sense these weapons could be considered pre-lethal
and actually lead to higher casualty rates. (See above) In fact the US
proponents of these weapons are under no illusions. Their focus is 'not
to replace lethal munitions but to augment existing and future capabilities
which will provide a spectrum of force response options.'83 The area most
commentators have not addressed is the extent that such weapons will help
the military create new roles for themselves as part of internal policing
operations.
-
- Most of the debate has been about their
role in war. We know from the proceedings of the Non Lethal Defence II
conference, (organised by The American Defence Preparedness Association
held in March last year), that the that the Joint Program Office of Special
Technology Countermeasures (JPO-STC) have developed a multi-service co-ordination
strategy that incorporates both the HQ Allied Forces of Southern Europe
and the 'Doctrine & Training HQ' of the United Kingdom.84 Other formal
liaison links between the USA non-lethal research community and Member
States are anticipated but little public information has emerged.
-
- The work done so far has led to dubious
weapons based on dubious research, strongly influenced by commercial rather
than humanitarian considerations. There is a pressing need for a wide ranging
debate in the European Parliament of the humanitarian and civil liberties
implications of allowing these weapons on to European soil to become part
of the technology of political control in the EU. Much of the work that
has been undertaken in secret, but part of the bibliography of the present
report covers a representative sample of the available literature. What
is required is a much more detailed assessment of these weapons than space
permits here and it is recommended that a new study be commissioned to
achieve this work.
|
