Los Angeles Times, March 7, 2004

WEAPONS
The Pentagon's Secret Scream
Sonic devices that can inflict pain--or even permanent deafness--are
being deployed.

By William M. Arkin

SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. - Marines arriving in Iraq this month as part of a
massive troop rotation will bring with them a high-tech weapon never
before used in combat - or in peacekeeping. The device is a powerful
megaphone the size of a satellite dish that can deliver recorded
warnings in Arabic and, on command, emit a piercing tone so excruciating
to humans, its boosters say, that it causes crowds to disperse, clears
buildings and repels intruders.

"[For] most people, even if they plug their ears, [the device] will
produce the equivalent of an instant migraine," says Woody Norris,
chairman of American Technology Corp., the San Diego firm that produces
the weapon. "It will knock [some people] on their knees."

American Technology says its new product "is designed to determine
intent, change behavior and support various rules of engagement." The
company is careful in its public relations not to refer to the megaphone
as a weapon, or to dwell on the debilitating pain American forces will
be able to deliver with it. The military has been equally reticent on
the subject.

And that's a problem. The new sound weapon might, in some scenarios,
save lives. It might provide a good alternative to lethal force in riot
situations, as its proponents assert. But the U.S. is making a huge
mistake by trying to quietly deploy a new pain-inducing weapon without
first airing all of the legal, policy and human rights issues associated
with it.

This is a weapon unlike any other used by the military, and it is
certain to provoke public outcry and the conspiracy theories that often
greet new U.S. military technology. If the military feels that its
new-style weaponry brings something important to the battlefield, and if
testing has shown it to be safe, then why not make our reasoning - and
research - transparent to the world?

Nonlethal weapons have been promoted by a small circle of boosters for
nearly 15 years as something increasingly necessary for the U.S.
military in its growing peacekeeping, urban-combat and force-protection
missions. Some of the weaponry championed by the group, like rubber
bullets, flash-bang grenades and, more recently, electromuscular
disruptive devices, or Tasers, has already been deployed.

But the more exotic weapons - including acoustic, laser, and
high-powered microwave devices - have not until now been fielded, held
up by legal and ethical questions. Despite intense lobbying, over the
years the Pentagon leadership has been skeptical of such "wonder
weapons." In 1995, then-Secretary of Defense William Perry decided to
ban Pentagon development of nonlethal laser weapons intended to
permanently blind. His decision led to a subsequent international ban.

So shouldn't we have a similar discussion about high-intensity sound,
which can cause permanent hearing loss or even cellular damage? The new
megaphone being deployed to Iraq can operate at 145 decibels at 300
yards, according to American Technology, well above the normal threshold
for pain. The company posits a scenario in which Al Qaeda terrorists
would run screaming from caves after being subjected to a blast of
high-decibel sound from the devices, their hands covering their ears.
But in Baghdad or other Iraqi towns, where there are crowds and
buildings, the sick and elderly, as well as children, are likely to be
in the weapon's range.

Proponents of nonlethal weapons argue that pain and hearing loss, if
they were to occur, are certainly preferable to death, which is always
possible when lethal force is applied. But this argument ignores
realities on the ground. Last week, as I watched televised images of
angry Iraqis pelting U.S. soldiers with rocks when they arrived to
assist those injured in suicide bombings at mosques, I couldn't help but
wonder whether the presence of a sound weapon to disperse those crowds
would just escalate hostilities.

Last month, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a task force report
on nonlethal weapons, arguing that their widespread availability might
have helped in the immediate post-combat period in Iraq to reduce
looting and sabotage. The council threw its weight behind greater
investment in these technologies partly based on a Joint Chiefs of Staff
"mission needs statement" signed last December. "U.S. military forces
lack the ability to engage targets located where the application of
lethal [weapon fire] would be counterproductive to overall campaign
objectives," the Joint Chiefs concluded.

The Council on Foreign Relations recognized that the effect of nonlethal
weapons is mostly "psychological - persuading people that they would
much rather be someplace else, or on our side rather than opposing U.S.
military forces." It warned that "television coverage of encounters
involving [nonlethal weapons] can still be repugnant, and it would be
desirable to provide reliable information to minimize unwarranted
criticism."

Yet after paying lip service to the very psychological and political
fallout that could result from the employment of novel technologies like
acoustic weapons or high-powered microwaves, the council task force
urged that prototype nonlethal weapons - that is, weapons just like
American Technology's new sound weapon - "be placed with our operating
forces" to test their efficacy and create greater demand among combat
commanders.

Is actual combat in a foreign country the appropriate place to test a
new weapon? Apparently, we are about to find out.


William M. Arkin
groups.yahoo.com/groups/arkin