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

The Deadly Nature of "Non-Lethal" Weapons

By Silja J.A. Talvi, In These Times. Posted February 3, 2007.


The next generation of "non-lethal" weapons pose human rights threats that their benign title hides.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Silja J.A. Talvi

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Plasma clouds, microwave beams, electrified bullets -- military contractors have been developing futuristic new combat technologies under the public radar. Already, the TASER stun gun has emerged from the pages of speculative fiction, and into the hands of military, corrections, and law enforcement personnel (See "Stunning Revelations," November 2006). But stun technology is just one tool in the arsenal for developers of proposed "non-lethal" weapons.

Guard that perimeter

For the past several years, Taser International, Inc. has been testing products with the military market in mind. Most recently it has been working on Tasernet, a weapon it describes as a "non-lethal area denial and force protection system." In October, the Taser Remote Area Denial (T-RAD) concept was officially unveiled at the annual United States Army meeting in Washington, D.C.

When used in tandem with what Taser bills as the "companion computer networking system," Tasernet, the defensive weaponry amounts to a "Star Trek"-style forcefield, stunning uninvited guests. Tasernet can capture digital facial scans, allowing authorized users through the forcefield. According to Taser's press release, the T-RAD, based on the Taser X26 core technology, is "designed to be deployed at checkpoints, facility perimeters, embassies, airports, and other critical infrastructures." The weapon is expected to be ready for deployment in 2008.

Projectiles with a zing

In July, three inventors applied for a U.S. patent on research that would enable the creation of wire-free, "piezoelectric" stun guns. (Piezoelectric crystals generate voltage in response to mechanical vibrations--"piezo" means "push" in Greek.) In their patent application, the inventors explain that their invention would create darts containing an explosive charge, which detonate upon contact with pierced skin. The guns could be used from a distance of nearly 500 feet.

In September 2005, the U.S. Correctional Special Operations Group (U.S. C-SOG) and the Australia-based Harrington Group also announced an agreement to develop weapons capable of introducing a piezoelectric charge to "traditional ammunition and other projectiles such as rubber bullets," according to a jointly issued press release. With a patent pending, the two companies have trademarked the weapon technology under the name "ShockRounds."

U.S. C-SOG is a corrections training firm specializing in emergency tactical operations for penal institutions; it boasts of having relationships with more than 4,000 correctional institutions in 14 countries. The companies describe ShockRounds as a "safe, less-lethal" product designed to provide correctional employees with a new way to subdue inmates and to quell "serious crowd disturbances and threat situations."

Set phaser to stun

Raytheon, based in Palo Alto, Calif., is also testing numerous "non-lethal" weapons for military use, with funding from the National Institute of Justice. According to FOIA documents obtained by the U.S. Sunshine Project, Raytheon's Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) fire a laser burst of expanding plasma--a collection of charged particles containing equal parts positive ions and electrons. (In science fiction terms, this could best be described as a "raygun.")

PEPs can be used from as far as two kilometers away, and are designed to create severe and debilitating pain resulting in temporary paralysis. Of particular concern is the fact that PEPs, apparently ready for use as early as 2007, are being investigated for use against "rioters," according to the British science magazine New Scientist.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: technology, weapons, military, human rights

Silja J.A. Talvi is a senior editor at In These Times. Her work appears in the anthology, "Prison Nation" (Routledge, 2003).

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:
Human rights violations?
Posted by: freedomhawk on Feb 3, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For many years, individuals have been decrying the necessity of such "murderous" devices as handguns from the arsenal of law enforcement, prompting the development of these non-lethal alternatives. The idea of these devices violating a person's rights in some way strikes me as ludicrous. These devices are meant to aid the personnel who enforce law and order upon the masses; throughout the given descriptions, I saw how these devices are meant to incapacitate a threat without killing the person.
Law enforcement personnel, as well as military personnel, will greatly profit from these tremendous inventions. Law enforcement was created with the purpose of bringing criminals, who have violated another person's rights, to justice. Using devices that will incapacitate these criminals allows the officers to apprehend the suspects before the officer or innocent bystanders receive injury. The military can also use such technology to win wars and conflicts without much collateral damage. In the new face of war with militants conducting urban, guerilla warfare while hiding among the population-- military personnel do not face the dilemma of killing non-combatants when non-lethal munitions are used, preserving the human rights of the innocents.
Common ballistic munition will always be needed in war; however, these alternatives give the ability to stop a threat without killing.

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

» RE: Human rights violations? Posted by: Ian MacLeod
well
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 3, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"PEPs can be used from as far as two kilometers away, and are designed to create severe and debilitating pain resulting in temporary paralysis. Of particular concern is the fact that PEPs, apparently ready for use as early as 2007, are being investigated for use against "rioters," according to the British science magazine New Scientist"

And anyone who doesn't know that when they say "rioters" they really mean two things... protesters.. and riots caused by police cracking down on protesters.

For the most part these are not battlefield weapons or law enforcement weapons meant as an alternative to deadly force (just look at the situations in which such can be used in the first place). These are yet another weapon for police to use to strike at those they don't like (see the student at a Cali. university repeatedly tazed by campus pigs.. because he wouldn't get up after being tazed the first time.. tazing being meant to incapacitate. All this from his not having his school ID... yeah, those assault rifles for the Kent State pigs sound better and better every day, don't they?). Dissent and protest are being cracked down on by a government that brooks less and less dissent every day.. esp. the Bush admin... because their policies are less and less democratic and concerned with the will and welfare of the people of this nation rather than corporate interests (just look at the way economics is talked about. The wealthy are the ONLY ones taken into consideration in most instances.). They see with the WTO protests, the DNC and RNC protests, etc... that they are going to be having a hard time in the future getting us to put up with what they do and how they ignore us.

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

Unfortunately the Democrats will take away the 2nd Amendment
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 3, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so the people will have no options to counter the so-called 'less than leathal' force of the soon coming fasicst police state or the common criminals and organised gangs that, no doubt, will be acquiring these weapons. I'm sure these new weapons will be prohibitively costly so that no honest citizen could buy them for home defence. So the only people who will have them are the criminal gangs, the paramilitary shock troops, and the offical armed forces. Buy guns (and plenty of ammo) now. I'm not saying its coming, but its always wise to be prepared especially the Democrats will 'complete the plan' and take away 2nd Amendment (the Repubs were charged with taking away Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus first.)

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

» A beautiful country Posted by: eddie torres
» obviously, you don't know us! Posted by: freedomhawk
» evidence? Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: evidence? Posted by: eddie torres
» Thank you for the info Posted by: freedomhawk
» Posse Comitatus is gone Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Already deployed: LRAD
Posted by: eddie torres on Feb 3, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) were deployed in Iraq and New York (GOP convention) in 2004. LRADs can incapacitate anyone within 300 metres using a narrow beam of sound at 150 decibels. It is also used to protect ships from suicide bombers and pirates. The LRAD leads to permanent hearing loss if exposed for more than a few seconds. (The future of crowd control and wikipedia)

Here's the trick: when non-lethal weapons are in use by trained government employees, the US public at least has some measure of protection from abuse through internal affairs systems, FOIA, and the courts. When those trained government employees jump over to the private sector, however, they go to work for corporate security and policing operations without oversight and safeguards. Eventually, those non-lethal weapons and the experts on their use make it into the corporate arsenal.

And after 10 or 15 years doing things the government way, they're just itching to show those dirty hippies who's really in charge.

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

» RE: Already deployed: LRAD Posted by: Ian MacLeod
I said this last time
Posted by: Boomerang on Feb 3, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These weapons are not called non-lethal, they are called "less than lethal" or "less-lethal" because under average conditions they are usually not lethal and certainly less lethal than the alternative in the situation: shooting someone.

We should applaud the development of these weapons that are much more humane than the water cannons and batons of yesteryear. Or would you prefer that police go back to being forced to resort to deadly force in these situations? The ability to disperse a mob or otherwise stop violence with technology like this should be applauded, not derided.

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

» Orwell Spins Posted by: lessbread
» RE: I said this last time Posted by: Ian MacLeod
The Right to Assemble
Posted by: benzene on Feb 3, 2007 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Topic:
This sickens me.

American society supposedly leads the rest of the world in the ideals of justice and human rights, yet we still, civilized as we purport to be, dedicate a significant amount of our time and energy to the development of more methods with which to inflict pain and suffering upon our fellow human beings.

In many of the other posts here, it has been argued that these new weapons are a good thing because they will lead to substantially less collateral damage in combat zones. This may be so, and is rightfully lauded, however, the simplest and most effective way to eradicate collateral damage is to stop waging war.

Digression:
Naive it may seem, but I sincerely believe that when enough education (to eliminate ignorance and fundamentalism) and intelligent distribution of resources (to eliminate competition) come to fore, war will cease because there will no longer be incentives for violence.

Return:
What effect would the deployment of these new "non-lethal" weapons have on the right to assemble peacefully? Already protestors are routinely jailed on contrived charges and offenses. There is already fear to speak one's mind openly, for persecution is becoming more prevalent. Will the deployment of these ultimately lead to an ultra-conformist society unwilling to deviate from the majority opinion for fear of "non-lethal" punishment?

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

» What would the effect be? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The Right to Assemble Posted by: harris
Battle tested...
Posted by: lessbread on Feb 3, 2007 5:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
News items from a few years back related that some of these new "less lethal" weapons were likely to be deployed in Iraq.

U.S. Could Use Energy Weapons in Iraq Next Year
Microwave gun to be used by US troops on Iraq rioters
Super-secret microwave weapons may be used in Iraq
Directed Energy Weapons Face Hurdles

Guerre stellari in Iraq (Italian text, English video). English transcript and video can also be found here and here.

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

Excited Delirium
Posted by: zmesberg on Feb 6, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In illustrating the point that tasers have been involved in the deaths of a number of individuals since their introduction, the author states that these deaths are often attributed to excited delirium. However by placing the aforementioned phrase in quotations it is suggested that this is somehow a made up condition designed to acquit the tasers of responsibility in the deaths. I would like to point out that excited delirium is a real, documented medical phenomenon which is often fatal and often occurs without the involvement of stun weapons. The author would do well to research this condition before summarily dismissing it as an invention. While I do not doubt that tasers have probably killed some of the individuals that they have been used on, some of the deaths probably are actually attributable to excited delirium. I’d also like to point out that a traditional firearm is much more likely to kill an individual on which it is used then a taser.

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