Send comments, corrections, andadditions to
Continuing in a long history ofoxymorons, the US military and lawenforcement agencies are developing anew series of additions to theirarsenal: nonlethal weapons, also calledless-than-lethal, soft kill, and limited effects weaponry. These space-agegadgets that promise to rid the world of lethality include:
All nonlethal, except if you happen to spray sticky foam over someone's mouth and nose (the stuff takes forever to remove, a lot longer than the four minutes it takes you to suffocate). Except if you breathe too much gas and get your lungs scorched and die (happens even with pepper spray). Except if immobilizing agents are use in a dangerous environment, like riots orthe middle of a battlefield (exactly the places they're designed for), or, let'ssay, a compound on fire being bombardedby tanks. Except if an EMP happens tohit a helicopter in flight, asdramatically demonstrated in the filmBroken Arrow.
Sure, nonlethal. Like infrasound that can cause epileptics to have seizures, along with 4% of the non-epileptics population. (1) But at least it won't kill you, unless you crank it up loud enough for the vibrations to cause internal organs to grind together and rupture, but for that you'll need a really big speaker (2).
Lasers that cause permanent blindness and can even cause eyeballs to explode are nonlethal, too, but evidently the US military doesn't find that especially cruel. Hey, it's better than shooting them. Even non-laser flash devices can cause permanent blind spots. (3) As for microwave and electromagnetic weapons - any weapon that changes brain waves hasthe potential to cause seizures.
Yep, nonlethal weapons. Nonlethal except that they can kill or maim. This kind of newspeak should come to no surprise to those accustomed to the Pentagon's brand of "peace". In fact, nonlethal weapons increase the odds of conflict because of their level of political acceptability, as evident by mace-happy cops spraying first andasking questions later. The preservation of human life doesn't seemto be high on the list of priorities for the military: cost-effectiveness andstrategic value are the main pluses forusing nonlethal tech, as well as theapplications for propaganda (now called"information warfare"). "We need toeliminate the notoriety associated withwar. If we use nonlethal technology toachieve paralysis, eliminate unintentional killing, and erase signsof visible destruction, then perhaps insome situations we can rid the news ofsensationalism. Without a riveting story to tell, the media may be silenced."(4)
No, nobody is trying to de-claw the war hawks in the Pentagon. "We need to stress how these weapons will be force multipliers and how they can work independently or in concert with conventional weapons." (5) In other words, zap 'em and move in for the kill.
Some proposals stretch the limits of credibility, such as our friend Ed Teller's suggestion to use miniature nuclear bombs to destroy a country's infrastructure (6). Teller must get a royalty for every one of his babiesthat go off. In case you're wondering, it's non-lethal because we could warn people ahead of time.
Indeed, the history of nonlethal applications is not the "flowers andsunshine" account eaten up by futuristsand even peace activists, who shouldhave learned by now. Other, lower-technonlethal weapons range from minesdesigned to destroy legs and genitaliato biological and chemical warfare,including the use of psychedelic drugs,studied by the military and CIA underMKULTRA and other projects. While thetales of covert experiments with LSD and BZ have been covered in detail elsewhere (7), little known or talked about arethe experiments with microwaves andelectromagnetic radiation, with orwithout the use of electronic implants. Some call it "nonlethal technology".Others call it mind control.
Footnotes:
1 New Scientist, 3/29/73, pg 726
2 Working Paper on Infrasound, Report to the United Nations, 8/4/78(excerpted in Amok Journal:Sensurround Edition, Amok Books,1995)
3 Cook, Maj Joseph W III, Fiely, MajDavid P, and McGowan, Maj Maura T,"Nonlethal Weapons: Technologies,Legalities, and Potential Policies",Airpower Journal, Special Edition1995
4 Klaaren, Maj Jonathan W USAF, andMitchell, Maj Ronald S USAF, "NonlethalTechnology and Airpower: A WinningCombination for Strategic Paralysis",Airpower Journal, Special Edition1995
5 ibid.
6 Russell, Dick, "Non-Lethal Weapons",Prevailing Winds, Premier Issue, pg28
7 Some good sources on MK-ULTRA include: Scheflin, Alan and Opton, Edward Jr.,The Mind Manipulators, Paddington Press Ltd, 1978; Lee, Martin andSchlain, Bruce, Acid Dreams,Grove Press, 1985; Marks, John, TheSearch for the Manchurian Candidate, Times Books, 1979; and the "official"story in the Final Report of theSelect Committee to Study GovernmentalOperations With Respect to IntelligenceActivities, Book I, US GovernmentPrinting Office, 4/26/76
5/15/96
Note: Feel free to spread these articles around, but remember that many of theseare drafts and are subject to correction and revision. If you plan to reprintanything in a format that costs money(newsletters, journals, zines, etc),even if you won't make any money at it,please Send comments, corrections, andadditions to