 "Photo: Courtesy Photo")
 "Photo: John Wayne Ferguson")
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the second article in a three-part series on the non-lethal technology innovations center at UNH -- the hub of the U.S. military's program of research at university campuses across the country to develop weapons to control people without killing or seriously injuring them. This article places explores ethical issues posed by these new weapons.
On a rainy October day last year, Mark Garlasco stood at the end of a military firing range waiting to be shot.
Driving in, he had seen the unwieldy cannon - nicknamed the "Pain Gun" - atop a massive 18-wheeler. As an unrelenting drizzle cooled his face, he could not help but think how hot - how very hot - he was about to become. Garlasco was a volunteer test subject for a most peculiar gun. It did not shoot bullets, but an all-enveloping invisible ray of heat designed to cook the surface of its victim's skin without causing serious injury or permanent damage.
Garlasco was not just any test subject. He is the military analyst for Human Rights Watch, the primary watchdog organization responsible for ensuring that the U.S. military is following human rights laws outlined by international treaties such as the Geneva Convention.
On behalf of Human Rights Watch, Garlasco had been actively pressuring the military to be more transparent with the research around this new non-lethal heat ray. He received a phone call from a colonel inviting him to come down to the military base in Quantico, Va., for a live demonstration of the active denial system.
"And by the way," the colonel said to Garlasco, "If you want, you can be shot by it."
Garlasco immediately agreed. He knew that being shot by the new weapon would boost his credibility in his mission to press the military into going public with its research.
"Standing there, I was thinking that no matter how bad it was, I had to take it," Garlasco said. "All those military guys were just thinking, 'Here comes this human rights leftie, he won't last a second in there.'
"When it hit, I felt like it was Thanksgiving Day and I was in the oven with the turkey. The heat spread from my belt all the way up to my head. I lasted as long as anyone else did in there. Which is to say, three seconds."
As soon as Garlasco dove out of the way, the pain vanished without a mark on his body. The only evidence of his brush with the painful ray was a case of dry eyes, which he said was relieved by some eye drops given to him by the medics on the base.
ETHICAL QUESTIONS
The U.S. military has used non-lethal weapons, such as tear gas, for decades but a new trend is occurring. The 1990s marked an upsurge of interest on behalf of the military in pursuing groundbreaking non-lethal technology. Some of the research is conducted at corporate-owned laboratories, while other research is done at universities across the country - including the University of New Hampshire and Penn State University, which are the two main hubs of the U.S. military's university-based research.
Extensive interviews with military researchers and analysts, ethicists and human rights watchdogs reveal that while new non-lethal weapons technology could save lives, it also raises a host of ethical questions and logistical concerns with few easy answers.
"The nature of war has changed," said Susan LeVine, principal deputy for policy and strategy at the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate. "You used to be able to tell who the combatants were because it would be uniform versus uniform. If we look at the environment that these troops are in, it's hard to tell friend from foe and troops only have a split second to make a decision."
For supporters, these weapons represent a more humane approach to the business of keeping civil order and conducting war. For others, the tools present a darker reality: a tempting new set of means to assert power over people who would exercise their right to assemble and to speak freely. They warn of a host of unintended consequences for public safety and health and the potential, in the wrong hands, for these weapons to apply physical torture on a wide scale.
Garlasco said this is a big concern for him.
"Of course the military will say that if they hypothetically were to torture someone, they would use a $20 hammer before they used a $20 million dollar weapon," he said. "On the other hand, I say that, sure, you could use the hammer, but the active denial system or a light dazzler won't leave a mark."
One of the main problems with non-lethal weapon research is the level of secrecy and unwillingness of the military to engage in a public discussion, Garlasco said. While he said that they have gotten better in the last year, much of the research on non-lethal weapons has not been open to the public until recently.
The concern is that weapons like the active denial system will be given the stamp of approval for use by authorities before the public at large has any say in it. It may be used in the United States by police forces during large riots or abroad by soldiers before it even hits the news stations.
"For technical and operational reasons, clearly you don't want the enemy to know," Garlasco said. "But the kind of things we want to know will not help out the enemy. We want to know medical research, training, legal review and generic intentions."
Officials at the Pentagon, such as Levine, said that the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate is aware of the need for public support and acceptability and is working hard to inform people about this new technology.
John Keenan, a director of science and technology at the directorate, said that much of the information on the active denial system and other weapons being developed is on their website.
"We're considering how to reach people in order to educate them in communities where these weapons may be used," Keenan said. "We're not in a war with Africa now, for instance, but we could use the active denial system there if locals try to rush us because they wanted all of the Red Cross food. Now we have an option beyond shout or shoot."
He cites examples such as a "60 Minutes" special on the active denial system and participation in a NATO panel, which included a dialogue with the super-powers of the world, as evidence that the U.S. military is committed to public discussion around novel non-lethal technology.
TESTING AT ISSUE
Critics contend that safety tests on most of the non-lethal weapons have only been going on for a few years. Tests conducted a year or two ago cannot predict long-term effects, said Garlasco. Side effects from being blinded or blasted by an energy ray may not appear until decades down the line - by then it could be too late.
In one example, critics are challenging the military's use of a weapon called a Smart Dazzler - a laser designed to make its victim see spots but not receive permanent eye damage - because it may violate the international Blinding Laser Protocol that the United States has been party to since 1995, according to Garlasco.
The Protocol forbids weapons that "cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision." It all hinges on the whether or not the effects really are temporary. Garlasco said he is concerned that the military is just taking blinding lasers and repackaging them.
Researchers and military personnel say that light dazzlers and the active denial system are well within safety levels, not breaking any international treaties and passing scrupulous internal review boards. They say that a hallmark of these new non-lethal weapons is that if they are used correctly they will cause no lasting harm.
Schwaery said the current breed of light dazzler only causes the target to see spots for thirty seconds and that long-term testing has shown that it does not cause damage to the eye. UNH's Smart Dazzler has passed such safety tests.
Garlasco said many of the tests have been conducted in highly controlled environments where variables one might find in a real life situation are not accounted for. For example, light dazzlers and heat rays could be more harmful to elderly people, people with disabilities and children.
Garlasco added that these weapons could have many unintended consequences as well. A panicked crowd being blasted by a wall of heat may have no idea that the excruciating pain they are feeling is in fact, non-lethal. Weapons like blinding lasers, heat rays, gases, and acoustic guns could have the opposite of their intended effect, inciting people to trample one another or to spill out into oncoming traffic, Garlasco said.
Critics say a public debate about these weapons is needed before they are deployed.
Military officials note that long-term testing and public dialogue takes time that they cannot afford when troops, including those in Iraq, could use such potentially life-saving devices today on the frontlines.
In interviews, proponents and opponents of non-lethal weapons have both recognized the complexity of the situation and the need to tread carefully. Though both sides do not always agree on priorities.
"The bottom line is: you want a public discourse," said Garlasco. "The first time they used [the active denial system], someone is going to say they were exposed to an evil ray gun, and people are going to say 'We've got cancer.' And the only way to get beyond that is to show that this is not going to happen. The onus is on U.S. military to show that they are going to use these weapons properly."
Be the first to comment on this article!