Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

If You Build It, They Will Kill

By Nicholas Turse, Tomdispatch.com. Posted April 4, 2005.


However bad the times may be for American tanks or troops, it's springtime for ever-conglomerating American munitions makers.
Advertisement

Lets face it, making war is fast superceding sports as the American national pastime. Since 1980, overtly or covertly, the United States has been involved in military actions in Grenada, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sudan, the Philippines, Colombia, Haiti (again), Afghanistan (again) and Iraq (again) and that's not even the full list. It stands to reason when the voracious appetites of the military-corporate complex are in constant need of feeding.

As representatives of a superpower devoted to (and enamored with) war, it's hardly surprising that the Pentagon and allied corporations are forever planning more effective ways to kill, maim, and inflict pain -- or that they plan to keep it that way. Whatever the wars of the present, elaborate weapons systems for future wars are already on the drawing boards. Planning for the projected fighter-bombers and laser weapons of the decades from 2030 to 2050 is underway. Meanwhile, at the Department of Defense's (DoD's) blue-skies research outfit, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), even wilder projects -- from futuristic exoskeletons to Brain/Machine Interface initiatives -- are being explored.

Such projects, as flashy as they are frightening, are magnets for reporters (and writers like yours truly), but it's important not to lose sight of the many more mundane weapons currently being produced that will be pressed into service in the nearer term in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other locale the U.S. decides to add to the list of nations where it will turn people into casualties or "collateral damage" in the next few years. These projects aren't as sexy as building future robotic warriors, but they're at least as dangerous and deadly, so lets take a quick look at a few of the weapons our tax dollars are supporting today, before they hurt, maim, and kill tomorrow.

Set Phasers on Extreme Pain

Recently, the Air Force Research Laboratory called for "research in support of the Directed Energy Bioeffects Division of the Human Effectiveness Directorate." The researchers were to "conduct innovative research on the effects of directed energy technologies" on people and animals. What types of innovative research? One area involved identifying "biological tissue thresholds (minimum visible lesion) and damage mechanisms from laser and non-laser sources." In other words, how excruciating can you make it without leaving telltale thermal burns? And a prime area of study? "Pain thresholds." Further, there was a call for work to: "Determine the effects of electromagnetic and biomechanical insults on the human-body." Sounds like something out of Star Trek, right? Weaponry of the distant future? Think again.

In a Tomdispatch piece last spring, I mentioned a "painful energy beam" weapon, the Active Denial System, that was about to be field-tested by the military. Recent reports indicate that military Humvees will be outfitted with exactly this weapon by the end of the year.

I'm sad to report that the Active Denial System isn't the only futuristic weapon set to be deployed in the near-term. Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) are also barreling down the weaponry-testing turnpike. They are part of a whole new generation of weapons systems that the Pentagon promotes under the label "non-lethal." The term conveniently obscures the fact that such weapons are meant to cause intense physical agony without any of the normal physical signs of trauma. (This, by the way, should make them -- or their miniaturized descendents -- excellent devices for clandestine torture).

PEPs utilize bursts of electrically-charged gas (plasma) that yield an electromagnetic pulse on impact with a solid object. Such pulses affect nerve cells in humans (and animals) causing searing pain. PEPs are designed to inflict "excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometers away" No one knows the long-term physical or psychological effects of this weapon, which is set to roll-out in 2007 and is designed specifically to be employed against unruly civilians. But let's remember, the Pentagon isn't the Food and Drug Administration. No need to test for future effects when it comes to weapons aimed at someone else.


Digg!

Nick Turse is a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History & Ethics of Public Health in the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. He writes for the Los Angeles Times, the Village Voice and regularly for Tomdispatch on the military-corporate complex and the homeland security state.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The wrong kind of ammunition
Posted by: madkalak on Apr 4, 2005 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author seeks to make a point that the general citizen can buy 400 7.62mm rounds for $40 dollars, like the government buys millions of rounds for its 240B machine gun. Unfortunately, his hyperlink was to 7.62 x 39mm, a different round than the 240B uses, which uses 7.62 x 51mm. The point you might ask? If the author is ignorant of this fact, what else did he screw up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so
Posted by: ronangw on Apr 4, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dude loosen the woman's underwear you have on. We need to create better and better weapons. China is arming to the teeth. They have over a billion people. we have around 250 million. We need new weapons that are "force multipliers" so each individual soldier has increased lethality. that means that each soldier can kill many more and miss less.

God bless the USA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: so Posted by: Wacre
Fear and Loathing In America
Posted by: nakis on Apr 4, 2005 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a great article. Our government in the name of fear and loathing has and is devising great new weapons for which the rest of mankind, including all of us blessed Americans have no resistance to. Spaced based weapons platforms. It only needs a few seriously disturbed people to ransom the world. Our right to dissent is dissolving faster that our glaciers. Already we are sheep against the potential. Imagine thousands of chemically regulated soldiers with armour and highly lethal weapons. Grab your musket and fight the colonial oppressors? Nope, grab your ankles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weapons systems being cut
Posted by: Severian on Apr 4, 2005 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the article fails to mention is that a lot of weapons systems are actually being cut or cancelled as part of the Bush-Rumsfeld "transformation of the military".

They're cutting way back on naval and air, since the U.S. has such an unchallengable "over-dominance" in those areas, yet that advantage is of little use in counter-insurgency and other wars they expect to be fighting. Even in the Army, the Comanche helicopter and Crusader artillery systems have been canceled, since they won't be needed to fight wars against the USSR.

This is behind a lot of the "establishment" opposition to the Bush administration, including the Democratic Party opposition: its injured the interests of a lot of military contractors. And sections of the military and "national security" bureaucracy.

So, contrary to the headline, just because the contractors can build something doesn't mean "they" will kill people with it. Or, as the contractors ar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]