Experimental Weapons Deployed by U.S. Forces in Iraq

War crimes galore!

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes87.html

The Pentagon’s Secret Scream Sonic devices that can
inflict pain—or even permanent deafness—are being
deployed. By William M. Arkin William M. Arkin is a
military affairs analyst who writes regularly for
Opinion.

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.