The Pentagon's Secret Scream: Sonic devices that can inflict pain--or even
permanent deafness-are being deployed.

(Source: Los Angeles Times; published March 7, 2004)

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.