28-29 November, 1998
THE EMERGENCE OF NEW SUB-LETHAL ALTERNATIVES TO LANDMINES
Presentation of Dr. Steve Wright,
To the Third NGO Tokyo Conference on Anti-Personnel Landmines,
Tokyo, 28-29th. November, 1998.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Romeo and Juliet, II:2
1. INTRODUCTION
Ladies and gentlemen, Konichiwa. First of all let me say a big thank you to AAR for hosting this meeting and inviting me to speak to you.
What's in a name? This seemingly innocent question from Shakespeare underlines much of what concerns us after the conclusion of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines, which will go into effect on March 1, 1999. Since there is so much at stake, it is not just a question of semantics but a matter of setting the parameters of what is deemed permissable and what is excluded, when dealing with ordnance designed to achieve area denial or perimeter exclusion.
Companies which have directly profited from the manufacture, sale and use of landmines will not let them go into the dustbin of history just because of a convention. Shareholders demand profit before principle and the clamour for alternatives has already began, largely masterminded by the United States.
Indeed, the USA has refused to ratify the Ottawa treaty. President Clinton has stated that he will sign the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006, if efforts succeed to identify and deploy suitable alternatives to US anti-personnel landmines and mixed-mine systems. The purpose of this presentation is to explore what shape such alternatives might take, their political and military utility and their likely impacts on the fate of refugees fleeing the conflict zones of the future. What I will present today represents the beginning of a revolution in victim initiated devices designed to immobilize, incapacitate and maim.
If what I am about to tell you sounds like science fiction, that is no co-incidence. The emergence of a second generation of less than lethal weapons technologies in the early 1990's grew out of collaboration between U.S. science fiction writers such as Chris and Janet Morris and futurologists such as Alvin Toffler (better know for his work on 'Futureshock.' ) and US Departments of Defense(DoD) and Justice (NIJ). The Morrises teamed up with former CIA deputy Director Ray Cline and Col John Alexander (formerly involved in the more lethal US Army Special Phoenix assassination programme in Vietnam) to suggest 'Non-lethal war' and new 'soft-kill technologies' to the US military. This collaboration opened doors into the US national nuclear weapon laboratories at Los Alamos, Oakridge and Lawrence Livermore. Laboratories desperate for a new role at the end of the cold war. Whilst the public face of the new doctrine was a humane one of 'war without blood', in many senses this was a self-interested rice bowls initiative.
In the presentation which follows, I intend to examine the current technical status of emerging replacement mine technologies, including weapons based on kinetic energy, blunt impact munitions; radio frequency weapons (which interfere with the brains own electrical activity); chemical irritants; calmative anaesthetic devices; stick 'em and slick 'em; optical and acoustic energy weapons; razor bladed capture nets and other entanglements; electroshock stun, area denial and border protection units including devices which can induce paralysing electroshock at a distance. These weapons will be examined in the context of the scope of proposed new US Army Missions and the flaws in the assumptions underlying their rationale for deployment - including the unanticipated social and political consequences. For the sake of authenticity, where possible, I will illustrate these developments by reference to the published comments of senior US officials and military commanders.
2. DEFINITIONS
Firstly a word about definitions. To paraphrase Orwell, all weapons are non-lethal but some weapons are more non-lethal than others. Definitions are going to become increasingly important in the battle to totally eliminate land mines.
The International Committee of the Red Cross for example, in its SIRUS project found that land mines and machine gun bullets whilst always considered as lethal weapons more often main than kill and yet no change in terminology has emerged there. So called non-lethal crowd control weapons such as tear gas and plastic bullets have been around for a long time but because of their propensity to kill in certain circumstances, weapons designers have come up with another name, less-lethal weapons! And because some of these weapons can be changed instantly from producing a force that immobilizes people to one that kills them, the lethal/less-lethal flexibility puts special forces a flick of a switch away from administering field level executions.
The Nobel Peace prize winning organisation Pugwash recently concluded that the term 'non-lethal' should be abandoned, not only because it covers a variety of very different weapons, but also because it can be dangerously misleading. "In combat situations, 'sub-lethal' weapons are likely to be used in co-ordination with other weapons and could increase overall lethality. Weapons purportedly developed for conventional military or peacekeeping use are also likely to be used in civil wars or for oppression by brutal governments. Weapons designed to replace lethal force are used to augment it. Weapons developed for police use may encourage the militarization of police forces or be used for torture. If a generic term is needed, 'less-lethal' or pre-lethal weapons might be preferable."
In short, such definitions are more likely to be political than scientific, particularly where efforts are being made to 'technically fix' the social and political problems that flow from other policies, for example refugees.
3. THE NEW US NON-LETHAL WEAPONS DOCTRINE
In the past, during for example the undeclared war on Laos between 1964-73, the USA used the country as a laboratory to field test a new generation of air dropped munitions such as cluster bomb-sub-munitions. We can anticipate that so called 'peace-keeping operations' in the South will become the future laboratory for this next generation of sub-lethal munitions. Before examining in further detail some of the innovations produced under the auspices of the United States Non-Lethal Weapons Programme, it is worth briefly summarising the US Non-lethal Weapons Policy. According to Mr. Charles Swett of the US DoD Low Intensity Conflict Department,
* Non-lethal Weapons will not be required to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries;
* Availability of Non-Lethal Weapons will not limit a commanders authority and obligation to use all necessary means and take all appropriate action in self defense;
*No obligation for their employment; U.S. retains the option for immediate use of lethal weapons where appropriate.
US doctrine says it is unrealistic to 'assume away' civilians and non-combatants on today's battlefield and the army must be able to execute its missions in spite of, and/or operating in the midst of civilian personnel. The following illustrations show the range of tactical missions envisaged which are relevant to the theme of this conference, including blocking an area; controlling crowds; seizing individuals, stopping vehicles. The potential tools for achieving these objectives include blunt impact munitions; riot agent dispensers; calmatives; pyrotechnic stun; electric stun; anti-traction; acoustics; entanglements/nets; foams; barriers; directed energy; isotropic radiators, super-polymers; and non-lethal mines.
It comes as no surprise that companies such as Alliant Tech which are well known as manufacturers of anti-personnel mines are also at the forefront of developing weapons which look the same; will attack innocent civilians long after a conflict has ended and yet may be able to undermine the intentions of a total land mine ban. Let us look at some of these alternatives in more detail and how civilians, refugees and other non-combatants might get caught up in their future deployment.
4. NEW ALTERNATIVES TO LAND MINES.
Progress in this area of innovation has been swift. By 1995, the US Joint Non-lethal weapons Working Group had tested various blunt impact devices; chemical irritants; disorientating technologies; entanglements and aqueous foam barriers. By 1996, this group had evaluated entanglements and sticky foam; modular non-lethal claymore mines; riot control agents; slippery barriers and CALTROPS/ Volcano (mine dispensed concertinas and an acoustic weapon.
At the 1997 Non-lethal Weapons Conference held in London and sponsored by Janes, a much clearer idea emerged of progress todate. For example, Hildi S. Libby, Systems Manager for the US Army's Non-lethal Material Program advocated the development of advanced technologies to 'insert into existing weapons platforms. Here are some of her presentations which include:-
Acoustic bio effects - a weapon which according to US expert William Arkin can be 'merely annoying' or 'can be turned up to produce 170 decibels and rupture organs, create cavities in human tissue and cause potentially lethal blastwave trauma.'
Non-Lethal Claymore - Based on the design of the M18A1 little in the way of hard data exists to determine how much of a 'sting' this device produces. Riot munitions based on kinetic impact rounds have caused internal organ damage, blindness and death.
66mm vehicle Launched Payload - a flexible response weapon which might be used in conjunction with other systems to corral or punish a crowd.
Bounding NL Munition - a bounding anti-personnel net mine which entangles the victim. So called improvements already tested include the incorporation of adhesive, pain delivering chemical irritant or electroshock or in the larger versions, razor bladed additions which mean that all those targeted must remain completely still to avoid further lacerating injuries.
Canister Launched Area Denial System - a system for mass delivering so called non-lethal mines, malodorous devices or kinetic systems for attacking crowds;
Vortex Gun - advanced system for delivering shock waves to the human body.
What is significant about such initiatives is the way in which a variety of so called less-lethal concepts have been weaponised. Much of this work has been conducted in the strictest secrecy and what does emerge is often insufficient to evaluate claims of safety. We know that the US military is developing microwave weapons for use against human beings but little else apart from the fact that a strong enough dose of them can cook flesh. Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists has commented that high-powered microwave weapons are almost uniquely intrusive. "They do not simply attack a person's body. Rather they reach all the way into a person's mind...they are meant to be disorientating or upset mental stability."
Such devices heat up and interfere with human body temperature - including so called bio-regulators; radio-frequency weapons that interfere with the brain and the bodies own electrical circuitry; and laser systems which can either be used optically to semi-blind or to induce so called tentanazing or paralysing electrical shocks to human tissue at a distance. Also under research are systems to destabilise soil structure to make it impassable, adding to the range of so called 'slick'em and stick'em’ products which have resulted from this research programme.
At the Jane's NLW conference, Mr Broden of Alliant techsystems gave the following range of so called mission capabilities and time frames: (SLIDE) Some of these systems will be robotized and plans for such usage are already far advanced(SLIDE). A significant danger in such innovations is that many are designed from the outset to jump from less-than-lethal to lethal operation and some less-lethal systems can be easily integrated into plans for lethal weapon deployment to make the kill rate even more effective. For example, the daily rate of executions achieved in the Rwandan conflict was higher than in the holocaust because a paralysing tactic of cutting the achilles tendon (coup jarret) allowed the subsequent killing to be done at leisure. The sticky foam gun described above would enable rapid immobilisation of those caught in a control zone but would not protect them from lethal crossfire or deliberate execution.
A growing trend is to build in some intelligence into the killing system so that it is aware of the approach of the victim and is activated by approach or contact either at a perimeter fence or through entering a control zone.
5. EXISTING-'OFF-THE-SHELF' CANDIDATES
This phenomenon is best illustrated by a brief exploration of existing 'off-the shelf' alternatives to land mines. These are essentially current commercial less-lethal land holding and border protection devices. Their shape and form usefully illustrates both the typical configuration of such devices as alternatives to land mines and the difficulties future refugees will face in fleeing the sites of ongoing wars, famine and political conflict. These now include automated, semi-intelligent devices designed to create human rights free-fire zones. For example:-
* Electro-shock Stun And Kill Fencing such as this system from Microfence PTy in South Africa which incorporates computerised intelligent intruder detection technology and stun to kill options. Kill fences were used on the Mozambique and Zimbawean borders during the Apartheid era and forced refugees into the Kruger National Park, where the lions became man-eaters. Hundreds were killed. South Africa and Kuwait have been in negotiation for a similar electrified fence along the Kuwait -Iraq border.
* Alliant Tech's Fishhook Mine developed as a result of a 10 month contract in early August 1996 with ARDEC at their Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. The general idea is that the canister launched area denial system will shoot out thin wire with something like fish hook along in enough mass 'to cover a soccer-field sized area. "Its intended to snag. Its not going to kill you'" said marketing, manager Tom Bierman. Not unless your co-targets panic.
*Autauga Arms Automated Weapon System which is essentially a camera mounted concealed machine gun which can be set to automatically open fire if the boundaries of its control zone are infringed.
* Ruggieri DIPS Area Defence System Spider multiple grenade launcher system which can distribute a variety of disorientating, chemical irritant and wounding ammunition so that in a 240 degree arc there is a 60% of inflicting casualties within a 5500 square metre radius.
Other standard weapons can be modified to become victim activated anti-personnel devices. For example the Australian produced ADI fragmentation grenades can be adapted with 'pre-made' booby trap devices to transform them into effective mines. Another example of this kind is the Bear Trap anti-personnel device produced by Mark Three. The weapon is essentially a Jackhammer shotgun with a multi-cartridge cassette. The weapon is designed so that the cartridge cassette can be removed and pressure activated to fire all the cartridges together like a land mine.
Thus a mine is a mine if its actions and effects are more like a mine than like anything else. To paraphrase Shakespeare: What's in a name? That which we call a mine by any other name would stench as foul.
6. WHERE SHOULD WE GO FROM HERE?
The examples provided above show us how a variety of new semi-lethal and lethal devices are already on the horizon to replace landmines. The task ahead is to ensure that there is a total ban on any device which is more like a landmine than it is like anything else, whatever claims are made regarding relative lethality.
The genie of sub-lethal substitute victim activated munitions is already out of the bottle and because of the way in which the innovation process has been achieved, we can anticipate intense commercial activity around the future promotion of these weapons.
Some of these weapons have the potential to undermine the rights enshrined in the UN Charter and in other international treaties on human rights including the right to assembly, the right to life, freedom of movement of person and the right to due legal process.
A recent EU report assessing such technologies of political control seeks to limit the proliferation of emergent less-lethal weapons and calls for independent research to evaluate their biomedical effects, with a complete ban on the deployment of such weapons until this evaluation is complete. In the past, there have been numerous example of research surrounding less-lethal weapons such as riot gas and kinetic impact devices being flawed. For example an assessment in the EU report showed that nearly all kinetic weapons currently in use in Europe produced energy levels in 'the severe damage region' and that FBI allegations of safety for the new peppergas agent advocated for certain of the devices discussed in this presentation, were based on bribery.
In these circumstances how can we put into practice an appropriate version of the polluter pays principle? It seems appropriate to take up a call by Rae McGrath, the founder of MAG, who suggested mine clearance become a charge against military budgets rather that aid or refugee funds which are already over stretched.
Better still, If we are to prevent these devices harassing, paralysing and maiming ordinary people in the future, we need to explore the possibilities of putting legal and financial responsibility for any negative consequences which emerge, firmly on the shoulders of the producers.