DOD v. peace

The US military is about to deploy in Iraq a new, untested weapon, says arms control expert William Arkin in the March 7 Los Angeles Times. It's never been used in combat or in peacekeeping. But here it comes anyway.

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. ...

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.

Certainly the company's description sounds like it was written by an apprentice PR flack. "Determine intent?" What the hell does that mean? If you don't run away screaming in pain you're proving you're an enemy to be killed? "Change behavior?" There's a good one. Gentle persuasion can change behavior. So can a nuclear explosion - that could permanently change the behavior of the residents a whole city. "Support rules of engagement?" That's ad-talk for "use it anywhere you want to." (I recall during the Gulf War that the Pentagon defended bombing bridges, telephone centers, and other seemingly civilian targets on the grounds that they actually were military targets because "they could help Iraq's military," a definition by which, I noted at the time, it became difficult to think of anything that was not a military target.)

The weapon - for there's nothing else to call it - can produce 145 decibels at 300 yards. That's more than four times louder than the threshold of pain, sufficient to cause not only severe pain but permanent hearing loss and possible cellular damage.

Proponents argue that pain, no matter how bad, and hearing loss, no matter how acute, are "humane" alternatives to death. But there are three flaws in that argument. One is that weapons whose primary effect is to maim are generally considered illegal under international law. Second is that it's indiscriminate: There's no way to just affect the people you want to affect. Third, as in the case of another "humane" weapon I mentioned recently, tasers, the very "humaneness" of the weapon can make it easier to use in situations were less violent methods might have been used previously.

Arkin mentions another flaw: The argument "ignores realities on the ground."

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." [But i]t 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."

In other words, it could just as well push people toward defiance as toward submission. Even so, this - and apparently other "nonlethal" weapons - are to become part of our ever-expanding arsenal of means to dominate.