Director
The Omega Foundation
Bridge 5 Mill
22a Beswick Street
Ancoats
Manchester M4 7HR
United Kingdom
 

Proposed contribution:

New Paralysing andIncapacitating Technologies for SubState Conflict Control

NEW SUB-LETHAL,INCAPACITATING & PARALYSING TECHNOLOGIES -
THEIR COMING ROLEIN THE MASS PRODUCTION OF TORTURE, CRUEL, INHUMANE & DEGRADING TREATMENT

Steve Wright
Director of theOmega Foundation

ABSTRACT
 

 The currentcrisis rebranded as a war against terror has not emerged in an historicvacuum. The official version is that it is the only logical response thatcan be made in the ‘war against terror’ following events of September 11,2001. However the casualty impact that day was roughly comparable to thedeath count for civilians in crossfire when the US puppet Noriega was removedby force from Panama. So it is not the scale of this crime that is mosttelling, it is after all much less than the number of people killed bythe criminal negligence of the US company Union carbide in Bhopal, convictedof corporate murder and despite an US extradition agreement with India,remains free to collect his pension.

 With Bin Ladenof Al Quaida and President Sadam Hussein we have two monsters originallyfunded and sustained by the US for other political purposes who must nowbe put down. Such contexts must give us pause for thought when we thinkof countermeasures to assymetrical warfare. What seems like a good shortterm fix at the time can prove costly in both human and political termslater on.

 This presentationdeals with the rebranding of new weapons as non-lethal technologies forhumanely fighting missed wars where it might not be possible to distinguishcivilian from combatant, terrorists from refugees. In the last five yearsthe non-lethal warfare doctrine has moved from being a tactical optionto a strategic mainframe on which policy holds. The longer report arguesthat such a technical fix approach will bring with it a raft of unforseenpolitical, legal and human rights abuse which may make future war zoneseven more lethal for civilians.

 The war businessin a recession is a lucrative past time and it should not surprise us thatthe second and third generations of ‘non-lethal weapons’ were spawned bythe US Nuclewar Laboratories at the end of the cold war when their futurecareer prospects looked dire. Nor should we be surprised if such equipmentproliferates to tyrannical regimes who may support ‘the war against terror’only because it provides a convenient way of disposing of their politicalenemies and human rights defenders. Globalisation will further increasethe pace of deployment of such technologies of political control. The dangeris that they bring an approach which can bypass international humanitarianlaw and provide a tempting fix to a raft of problems which politiciansdo not have the wisdom to solve without passing them on to their police,military and state security forces.

 An argumentpresented in this paper is that we will move with this technology awayfrom torture like sex being usually a one on one activity to an orgy ofmass torture and punishment delivered at a street level of one operativeto many targets. Like nuclear weapons, the introduction of such technologieshave far reaching consequences and should not be left to the somewhat selfishvision of just one superstate in crisis.
 
 
 

NEW SUB-LETHAL,INCAPACITATING & PARALYSING TECHNOLOGIES -
THEIR COMING ROLEIN THE MASS PRODUCTION OF TORTURE, CRUEL, INHUMANE & DEGRADING TREATMENT*
 

Dr Steve Wright
Director of theOmega Foundation
 
 

A Draft Paper PresentedTo The 16th ISODARCO Winter Course On
"The Surge in Non-StateViolence: Roots Impacts & Countermeasures"
 
 

9 - 16 February,2003, Andalo, Trento, Italy.
 
 
 

FUTURE SUB-LETHAL,INCAPACITATING & PARALYSING TECHNOLOGIES -
Dr Steve Wright
Director of theOmega Foundation
 
 

1. INTRODUCTION

  This papercovers the emergence of new sub-lethal, incapacitating and paralysing technologiesand their coming role in the mass production of torture, cruel, inhumaneand degrading treatment. It grew out of the work the Omega Foundation hasundertaken for Amnesty International (on electroshock, restraining andtorture technologies),1 the European Commission,2 the European Parliament3and Landmine Action4. Throughout its’ existence, Omega has tracked technologies,particularly less-lethal weapons) deployed by the police, military andsecurity services to create human rights violations, including weaponsused in torture.5 However, such technologies have always been seen by usas multi-functional, weapons of flexible response rather than specificallydesigned just for a role in torture.6

 Thus in manysenses, to look for specially designed implements of torture is a rabbithole, since very few manufacturers would deem such a role for their products.There are of course exceptions, for example, the ‘House of Fun’ electronictorture chamber designed for the Dubai Special Branch by a company herein London.7 Standard operating procedures become routinely used in tortureand should be considered as a form of torture software8, with the teachingof the torturers as a live-ware capable of being exported and replicated.9Some of these devices and techniques are bespoke. For example, the ‘Apollomachine’ devised by Savak, the Shah’s secret police in Iran (it deliveredan electric shock to sensitive parts of the body whilst a steel helmetcovered prisoners heads to amplify their screams) was also used by thesucceeding regimes religious police.10 Others, such as the sensory deprivationtechniques evolved by the British Army in Northern Ireland, now form partof the interrogation procedures by Special forces throughout the world.11

 The term speciallydesigned implements of torture as an official term originated with theUS Export Administration Regulations of June 15, 1984. Regulation 5999Brequired that a valid licence for such equipment was not required for Australia,Japan, New Zealand and NATO(which of course includes Turkey). Subsequentcommerce department descriptions of electroshock shields categorized themas shields used for torture and many of the destinations for export werecongruent with Amnesty’s map of the torturing states. However these officialdesignations are the exception and if we are looking to control futuretechnologies used to create cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, wewill most likely  find that they have other designated roles. Thesewill include prisoner control, peacekeeping, area denial and less-lethalcrowd control.

 In the sectionswhich follow, the paper looks at some of the most worrying human controlsystems emerging on the horizon including alternative landmine and bordercontrol systems as well as new chemical, biological and directed energyweapons for controlling and harassing civilians and combatants together.
 

2. THE EMERGENCEOF A U.S.  LESS-LETHAL WEAPONS DOCTRINE

 Much of thefuture incapacitating and paralysing technologies will originate from theembryonic work currently being undertaken in the United States as partof their less-lethal weapons doctrine - a doctrine now adopted by NATO12. It began  in the early 1990's, when futurologists  (Alvin &Heidi Toffler)13, joined forces with two well meaning but naive AmericanQuakers (Chris and Janet Morris),14 and a former Green Beret’s commander(Lt. Col John Alexander) to advocate that the US military adopt so called‘non-lethal warfare15. In the wake of humiliating US military debaclesin Somalia and the disastrous Waco incident, this lobbying for ‘bloodlesswarfare’ found a willing ear as a public relations gift.16 The possibilitieswere especially welcomed in the US Nuclear Laboratories of Los Alamos,Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore who were casting around for new work atthe end of the Cold War. The consequences were a series of super secretblack box programmes ostensibly aimed at creating weapons capable of subduing,soldiers, rioters and prisoners without killing them.17  The laudablegoal is of course reinforced by America’s horrific civilian death tollfrom firearms and the real needs of the police to be able to deal witharmed, drugged and deranged citizens in a less terminal way.18  Othercommentators pointed out that military and police violence is a continuumand it was not either non-lethal, or lethal violence, but both & more.Such CNN-friendly weapons whilst designed to offer a flexible public relationsresponse, will in practice make the battlefield more not less-lethal.19

 Yet throughthe Nineties, it became obvious that although the United States would stillhave to plan for major wars with sovereign states, an increasing role forcounter-terror and counter revolutionary operations would require thisnew kind of  weaponry.
Even before September11th 2001, this doctrine was asserting that it is unrealistic to assumeaway civilians and non-combatants, taking the view that the US must beable to execute its missions in spite of and/or operating in the midstof civilians.Bitter experiences both in the Horn of Africa and in the formerYugoslavia persuaded military planners that in future, non-lethal weaponsshould have a strategic rather than just a tactical role.

 Thereforethe US Army non-lethal warfare requirement assumes a ‘dirty battlefield’meaning civilians and non-combatants will be mixed with combatants andtherefore targeted together.US and NATO doctrine were changed accordingly.20They are now presented as part of a more effective and humanitarian missionorientation of the US and NATO in the 21st Century, ‘expanding the rangeof options available to commanders; to discourage, delay or prevent hostileactions; limit escalation; take military action in situations where lethalforce is not the preferred option; better protect our forces; temporarilydisable equipment, facilities and personnel.’21

 Of course,for many years the US used so called ‘non-lethal weapons’ in its prisons,for crowd control and often in conjunction with lethal force during warsuch as the massive use of CS in Vietnam against combatants and non-combatantsalike. A key strand of such work involved the creation of non-lethal weaponsfor interrogation or as Peter Watson has put it, ‘war on the mind.’22 After World War II, many countries examined the use of chemicals for themanipulation of human behaviour and a rich seam of pharmacological workopened up to facilitate these needs and the creation of mechanisms to induce,‘debilitation, dependence and dread23.’ One of the best documented chronologieson such disabling chemicals was prepared by Julian Perry Robinson for thePugwash conferences.24

 Much of theearlier US work on the use of psycho-chemicals such as LSD concerned theholy grail of  one to one targeting for both punishment and informationextraction. Robinson’s work provides some of the best documentation detailingAmerican research into a wide range of agents being to induce incapacitationand its efforts to re-categorise these chemicals within the terms of theChemical Weapons convention as merely riot control agents. Further empiricalevidence on the human testing of psychedelic chemicals in the past at PortonDown was recently reported by Rob Evans25

 Current USmilitary policy is to think of such allegedly non-lethal weapons as providinga force continuum, a force multiplier and a flexible response. Much ofthe public relations side of this work is now entering the public domainin the guise of benign warfare.26 Such weapons are advocated for the taskof full spectrum dominance and senior personnel like Major General JohnBarry identify a range of technologies relevant to that role includingobscurants, chemicals, super-caustics, super lubricants; foam, pulsinglights, infra-sound, high power microwave and entanglements.

 An early insightinto the potential tactics to be used in new wars using these weapons wasprovided by Russell Glenn of The Rand Corporation in a presentation wherehe outlined their role in taking out super cities of more than ten millionthrough selective dominance. Non combatant control was envisaged throughusing non-lethals such as calmatives to remove combatants out of areaswhere they could be used as human shields and the potential use of robotsand foam guns to seal off selected parts of a megapolis.27

 The profferedsolution is to use non-lethal technologies to deny access of enemy troopsand noncombatants into proscribed areas using ‘sector and seal capabilities.’ These ‘hyper-controlled engagements’ would involve ‘Robotic delivery offoams to seal passageways, use of acoustic or microwave non-lethal systems,and remotely delivered lethal or non-lethal obstacles would act to fixcanalize, turn or block forces that could then be targeted via the co-ordinateduse of enhanced ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] capabilitiesand accurate engagement systems.28"

 The risk inthese weapons is both political and literal since considerable persuasivepower must be inherent if they are to be effective. According to the doctrine,‘Non-Lethal Weapons must achieve an appropriate balance between the competinggoals of causing death, permanent injury and collateral material damage,and a high probability of having the desired anti-personnel or anti-materieleffects.29 What follows is a brief evaluation of some of the these andother mass incapacitating & disabling technologies from a human rightsrather than a force multiplying PR enhancing perspective30.
 

3. FRONT RUNNERINCAPACITATION & DISABLING TECHNOLOGIES

 Most commentatorson the small arms and light weapons industry have rather neglected theemergence of sub-lethal weapons, regarding them as merely riot controltechnologies. Indeed many of the kinetic energy weapons, chemical deliverydevices, water canon, electrical stun devices, tasers, capture nets anddisorientation devices have been around for over 30 years. 31 Many Europeanpolice forces continue to research variants of these weapons to upgradetheir crowd control arsenals. However, it is the second generation technologieswe are principally concerned with here.
 

 For example,the US Army has identified a range of technologies used to facilitate suchoptions which include anti-traction devices(eg liquid ball bearings beingresearched b y SouthWest Research Institute in Texas), acoustic weapons(including Vortex ring Guns being researched by ICT in Germany32), entanglementsand nets(produced by Foster-Miller in Mass ), malodourous munitions (producedthe Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia), obscurant and stickyfoams, directed energy systems ,isotropic radiators and radio frequencyweapons(such as the vehicle mounted $40 million VMAD system which useshigh power microwaves to heat up a human target to induce an artificialfever), expected to be in the field by 2009.33.

 The presentationto the seminar will cover some of these new paralysing technologies ingreater depth. Here it is sufficient on the basis of Omega’s previous workfor Landmine Action and for the Swiss Small Arms Survey to briefly outlinenotes on some of the key technologies being pursued, together with an indicationof the estimated timescale before prototype or deployment stages. Manyof these technologies have the capacity to be automatically triggered byvictims as booby traps or victim activated area denial and  borderalert systems which can inflict either wounds or other forms of punishmentwhich require medical treatment. Several other technologies earmarked forfurther research are capable of creating mass or multiple paralysis effects.Instead of ‘benign intervention’ existing less-lethal weapons such as chemicalriot control agents and plastic bullets have already been reported to befacilitating gross human rights violations including torture34 It has beensuggested that emergent less-lethal weapons by acting as force multipliers,will used to enact mass punishment. After all, immobilisation increasestargetability and what the US are now calling neutralisation.35

 By 2001, thesearch for second generation less-lethal weapons was moving into a newphase. The JNLWD was examining three technology investment programmes including"thermobaric technology for non-lethal incapacitation; front end analysisof potential non-lethal chemical materiels for further testing that haveminimal side effects for immobilising adversaries in military and law enforcementscenarios; and veiling glare effects of violet laser exposure to humans"(seebelow).(A summary of technology types, mechanisms, negative health impacts,and legal and human rights hazards is provided as Table 1)
 

 3.1 Less-LethalAnti-Personnel Landmines

 One of thekey technologies being considered for border exclusion is the Taser Anti-personnelMunition(TAPM). This device shoots multiple darts carrying 50,000 voltsinto a person to interrupt their brain’s control of the part of the nervoussystem and paralysing the muscle-skeletal system. The target collapseswhilst remaining fully conscious for as long as the batteries keep working.Little research is available on how this might effect someone in the longterm from post traumatic stress syndrome. There is a further hazard ina mixed combatant/ non-combatant or ‘dirty battlefield’ of such devicesbeing used to facilitate rape or selective culling.36 Progress on thistechnology has been prioritised since Omega came across the first prototypeat the Force Protection Equipment Demonstrtion in 2001, at the Marine HQin Quantico.37

 The Pentagonis know to be searching for a wireless version of such devices. One optionbeing researched by HSV Technologies uses an tentanizing ultraviolet laserwhich ionizes the air and can then conduct more than 100,000 volts to ahuman target. Operational prototypes are being tested but smaller handheld versions of this wireless taser are being sought and may have somerelevance to the JNLWP priorities in 2001 mentioned above.
 

3.2 Malodourous& Calmative Munitions

 ProfessorMalcolm Dando at Bradford University’s Peace Studies department was oneof the first academics to warn of the risks associated with new chemicaland biological incapacitating  weapons in as series of well arguedtechnical articles about the possible malign use of knowledge being gainedbecause of the ongoing revolution in genomics.38 Work on the cloning ofendiothelin and the bio-regulatory peptides such as substance P are alreadybeing examined as warfare agents.39

 By 1999, theJNLWD was looking at dispersal mechanisms for malodourous substances basedon mebraneous balls which break when trodden on. Scientific Applicationsand Research Associates of Huntington Beach California are already weaponizingprototype malodourants which are intended to warn, annoy, disgust or nauseate.Some smells are more disgusting to particular cultures. A number of syntheticmalodourants exist. For example DeNovo makes Dragonbreath and others arein development including concentrates of natural odours such as rottingmeat, faeces, skunk and BO.40

 The micro-enscapsulationprogramme will work for other incapacitating materiels as well. In thelast few years, small arms have appeared which use this technology suchas the pepper ball gun. The Belgian small arms company FN Herstal for example,were one of the first European small arms companies to market a gun withmalodourous munition options based on cadaver scent.41

 Further evidenceof ongoing US work on chemical incapacitating weapons for the US non-lethalprogramme has been diligently collated by the Texas based Sunshine Project.42
  One sucharea is the US military search for calmatives for mass tranquillizationand work identifying potential agents has been increasing at a pace. Theseinclude the benzodiazepines, alpha2 adrenoreceptor antagonists, dopamineD3 receptor agonists, serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors, serotonin5-Ht receptor agonists, opioid receptors and mu agonists, neurolept anaesthetics,corticotrophin-releasing factor receptor antagonists and cholecystokininB receptor antagonists as well as a range of convulsants, illegal clubdrugs and what are charmingly called orphan phamaceuticals43  - essentiallydrugs too dangerous to get past Medical Councils but with a potential weaponsrole if civilians can be regarded as expendable.

 A report tothe EU Parliament in 2000 warned of such developments and recommended thatall EU countries adopt the  UK standard known as the Himmsworth Committeerecommendations, namely that all chemicals being considered for riot controland law enforcement should be considered as drugs and subject to the samesafety checks and that this research should be openly published in scientificjournals in advance of any authorisation of usage.44 In the case of calmatives,such caveats are vital since one persons tranquillization is another person’slethal dose.
 

3.3 Bio-weaponsFor Racially Selective Mass Control

As a result of breakthroughsin the Human Genome and the Human Diversity Projects and the revolutionin neuroscience, the way has opened up using blood proteins to attack aparticular racial group using selected engineered viruses or toxins. Arecent report to the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA)Committee of the European Parliament has suggested that whilst such a possibilityof genetic weapons was dismissed in the past because human beings are sogenetically similar, recent scientific breakthroughs biotechnology includinggene therapy now make them feasible. The differences in blood group proteinsare now thought to be sufficiently stable and large for them to be targetedby using genetically modified organisms or toxins which select for a particulargenetic marker.45The report warns that as the data on human receptor sitesaccumulates, the risk of breakthroughs in malign targeting of suitablemicro organisms at either cell membrane level or via viral vector, growsaccordingly.46

 Given theheterogeneous nature of many populations including those in Europe andthe US, only certain areas and borders could be targeted without the riskof so called ‘friendly fire.’ Unfortunately, this has not deterred certaingovernments from undertaking preliminary research to potentially targetspecific ethnic groups either within their own state or on their borders.In 1997, in a confidential Pentagon Report, US Defence Secretary WilliamCohen, warned that he had received reports of countries working to ‘createtypes of pathogens that would be ethnic specific.’ This warning was givencredence a year later when the Sunday Times reported that Israeli scientistsworking at the biological institute in Nes Tziyona47 were exploiting medicaladvances to identify genes carried by some arabs and to engineer organismswhich would attack only those bearing these distinctive genes.
 

  The workmirrored that of Daan Goosen, the Head of a South African biological warfareplant who has alleged in hearings to the Truth Commission that his teamwas ordered to create a ‘pigmentation weapon’ which targeted only blackpeople. That work failed but the Israeli team according to the Sunday Times‘have succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genericprofile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people48.’The disease could be spread either by air spraying the organisms of insertingthem into the water supply. However the newest dispersion mechanisms forCBW agents is micro-encapsulation which is being advanced in the US for‘anti-materiel and anti-personnel Non-lethal weapons related to area denialand vessel stopping.’ The technology consists of micro balls of the activeagent surrounded by a thin shell wall whose properties are specific tothe application and are designed to release the agent upon ‘pressure, contactwith water, or at a specific temperature.’49

 All such productswould be illegal under the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. However,unlike the CWC, there are no agreed verification procedures. The BTWC hasthe status of a gentleman’s agreement - the review conference in 2001 waseffectively sabotaged by the US. Consequently, research on this area isaccelerating  as drug companies race towards mapping out human receptorsites in the brain to bio-engineer specific drug effects. This work willbe examined most meticulously by the worlds CBW laboratories and unlessvery effective measures are put in place it is likely that malign applicationswill emerge. 50
 

3.4 Entanglements

 Otherwiseknow as stickum’ and slickem’. They are now available commercially. Weare collating data on three varieties, namely slippery substances knownas instant banana peel51, expanding sticky foam guns and barrier devicesand nets which come with options for including sticky adhesive, chemicalirritant, electroshock and razor blades.
 

3.5 Directed EnergyWeapons

 Directed weaponsoffer what is known as a tuneable munition and such a capability now goeshand in hand with the Pentagon’s notions of ‘layered defence.’52 Essentiallythis means attacking civilians and combatants together assuming an onionapproach where each progressive layer becomes more lethal with combatantsat the centre of the onion being targeted with old fashioned lethal force.

 These areperhaps the most controversial and potentially illegal (viz EU directive,SiRUS laser ban etc) variants of alternative APM’s. Directed Energy orRadio frequency Weapons using the microwave part of the electromagneticspectrum are probably the most controversial area of development. Theyare discussed in Non-Lethal Weapon circles but little in the way of harddata is provided given their sensitivity. They are seen as offering a potentialrheostatic or tunable response from less-lethal; to lethal. Already demonstratedis the ability to induce a heating effect up to 107 degrees F to inducean artificial fever.  There has been much speculation but a dearthof hard data about such psychotronic weapons which are already worryingthose concerned about bioethics. Such electronic neuro-influence weaponswould be in breach of the recent EU resolution regarding technologies whichinteract directly with the human nervous system. Voice to skull technologyhas already been discussed in the literature.
 

3.6 Acoustic WeaponsAcoustic weapons again might be accurately thought of in terms of a directedenergy weapon and again surrounded in controversy. They are allegedly ableto   vibrate the inside of humans to stun, nauseate or accordingto one Pentagon official to "liquify their bowels and reduce them to quiveringdiarrhoreic messes."53 Other writers argue that this is nonsense becausethe physics doesn’t add up.54  We know that explosive devices deployedin Russia created damage to hearing and it is likely that any workabledevice would be based on controlled explosions.

 One US basedcorporate research group. Scientific Applications and Research Associates(Sara) reported to be building an acoustic device to make internal organsresonate. Reported to be undergoing trials in 1998 by US Marines, supposedlyprotects buildings by inducing sea sickness in would be intruders.55 SARA’sacoustic devices have reportedly been tested at the Camp Pendeleton MarineCorps Base, near the company’s Huntington Beach office. This system allegedlyworks on the Vortex ring concept and the final report will discuss in muchgreater detail the physics behind this development and its associated healthconsequences. Altman believes such devices breech the SirUS criteria byattacking one specific part of human anatomy and making requisite treatmentdifficult if not impossible in field conditions.56
 

3.7 Laser Systems

 Some Laserdazzler systems  are already commercially available and sold as anoptical shield, for example those made by LE Systems57and others are currentlyunder investigation by the United States Air Force   ResearchLaboratory at the Phillips Research site for so called non-lethal pointdefence.58A recent development has been to use a Ultra-Violet laser whichcan ionise the air sufficiently for it to conduct an electric charge. Thisenables an electric shock to be delivered over some distance to createmuscle paralysis or tentanization.59A fully working prototype is stillsome way off but the principle has been successfully tested using a LumonicsHyper X-400 excimer laser at the University of California at San Diego.60
 

3.8 Robotic AreaDenial Systems

 The use ofrobots in bomb disposal or explosive ordnance operations has become routineover the past 20 years. Their use in clearing landmines is now receivingmuch attention and research activity. A number of companies offer suchsystems for example OAO Robotics of Ijamsville, USA and Engineering ServicesInc, Toronto, Canada61although their efficacy is strongly disputed by someresearchers.62

 Conversely,however, there are a number of companies and organisations that are researchingthe possibilities of autonomous security robots or robots as weapons platforms,which opens the possibility of them acting in an area denial function.
Robots activatedby surveillance and used to undertake selective attacks with less-lethaldevices are now being actively pursued. Already, Robot Defense Systemsof Colorado have created the Prowler - an armed 2 ton wheeled vehicle designedfor sentry duties. ‘Non-lethal’ weapon advocates Alvin and Heidi Tofflerinform  us that the US firm Bechtel International has proposed itsuse for security installations in the Middle East.63
 The originsof many of these developments can be traced back to the US’s aversion tocasualties and a recognition that autonomous robotic ground vehicles mightreduce such risks.64Thus, although most robots, and unmanned vehicles ingeneral, have been designed for surveillance functions, increasingly militarydoctrine is looking to this technology to remove the soldier from hazardoussituations. Advances in ‘augmented reality’ (which has replaced failedattempts to give robots artificial intelligence) will in future enable"computer and operator to co-operate to achieve what neither could alone".65

 In the late1990's the US Marines became even more interested in the potential of roboticvehicles for ‘military operations in urban terrain’ (MOUT) and identifiedfuture requirements for 2000 onwards that include advanced delivery robotsand unmanned vehicles carrying less-lethal weapons.66 In 1998, US DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) planned to spend $40 millionover a four year period on a Tactical Mobile Robotics Programme. DARPA’sthird phase of its Robotics for Urban Terrain initiative began in 1999(at a cost of some $15 million) designed to produce a robot ‘pointman’.67Recently,DARPA selected NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory to lead a consortium tocreate a miniature tactical mobile robot for urban operations. 68

 Already awide  variety of  mobile security robots including MDARS - interior;CYBERGUARD; ROBART III and MDARS - exterior have emerged on the market.69Someof these robots are armed, e.g. the weaponized Andros robot produced byEMOTEC, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumen.70The Tucson Police Departmentare already using a Remotec Andros 6A robot, which has been in servicesince 1997. They have developed a range of non lethal weapons for SpecialWeapons and Tactics (SWAT) operations including robot deployment of a12gauge bean bag, Sage riot gun, a grab net, chemical munition deployment- plus a door and window breaching capability.71

 A number of‘concept demonstration’ robots exist which envisage armed autonomous robotsindependently identifying and engaging targets, the most advanced exampleis the Robart 3, developed by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Centre(Spawar) in San Diego. It includes a Gatling gun-type weapon that firesdarts or rubber bullets. Sandia and ARL are also reported to be involvedin the create a lethal robotic pointman.72

 We are nowat the cusp of seeing patrolling autonomous robots. DARPA have a programmeon self deciding vehicles (SHARC program).73Toffler was exploring the ideaof inter communicating robot gangs which begs the question can robots accepta surrender or are ‘Punishment Park’ scenarios  inevitable?. Theserobot gangs are now a reality. Sandia National Laboratories in the US hasdeveloped and fielded a  robotic perimeter detection system that relieson gangs of small RATLER, robotic, ‘all terrain vehicles,’ to protect theperimeters of large bases or installations.74The Mobile Detection Assessmentand Response System Exterior (MDARS-E) is a similar system for warehousesand other flat areas.75
 
 

4.  NEW INCAPACITATIONTECHNOLOGIES & HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE

 The US militaryis far from naive in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of Non-lethalWeapons. It is the first to admit that the role of these technologies isthat of force supplementation rather than replacement and that their remainand outstanding set of problems in regard to existing international conventionsand treaties. Whilst the public relations presentation of this policy isbenign intervention, the Omega Foundation sees the ever present risk ofcreating a wide range of unanticipated consequences, particularly giventhat even one of the original proponents of the doctrine see attacks onrefugees as a legitimate role.76

 The difficultyfor those attempting to control these weapons is likely to be that thefirst purpose and presentation of these technologies will be as alternativesto lethal firepower. Many of the weapons discussed below offer what isknown as a tuneable munition and such a capability now goes hand in handwith the Pentagon’s notions of ‘layered defence.’77  Essentially thismeans attacking civilians and combatants together assuming an onion approachwhere each progressive layer becomes more lethal with combatants at thecentre of the onion being targeted with old fashioned lethal force.

 NATO policyis quite explicit on this:

 -  ‘Theavailability of Non-Lethal Weapons shall in no way limit a commander’sor  individual’s inherent right and obligation to use all necessarymeans and to take  all appropriate action in self defence.’
 

-  ‘Neitherthe existence, the presence nor the potential effect of Non-lethal Weapons shall constitute an obligation to use non-lethal weapons or imposea  higher standard for, or additional restriction on, the use of force.In all cases  NATO forces shall retain the option of immediate useof lethal weapons consistent  with applicable national and internationallaw and approved ‘Rules of  Engagement’

-  ‘Non-lethalweapons should not be required to have zero probability of causing fatalities or permanent injuries. However, while complete avoidance ofthese  effects is not guaranteed or expected, Non-Lethal Weapons shouldsignificantly  reduce such effects when compared to the employmentof conventional lethal  weapons under the same circumstances.’

-  ‘Non-LethalWeapons may be used in conjunction with lethal weapons to enhance the latter’s effectiveness and efficiency across the full spectrum of military operations.’78

  We are supposedto believe that the major role of these disabling and incapacitating technologiesis in creating harmless warfare. Work by the Omega Foundation in the pastfor the European Parliament reveals a pattern of such less-lethal weaponsbeing used both for punishment and for softening up dissenters before deployinglethal force79. There is every expectation that the second generation ofthese technologies will find similar roles, especially if the companiesmaking such weapons seek wider markets.

  Without adequateinternational controls, we may end up with weapons of mass punishment,and gross human rights violation - taking torture out of the present traditionof 1 (or more) to 1; to a capacity where one person or group can tortureor deliberately debilitate and punish 1-to many.

  Amnesty forexample found pepper-gas being against peaceful protestors in the US ina manner they deemed ‘tantamount to torture.’ It is not difficult to imaginefuture chemicals with pain, vomit or hallucination inducing qualities tobe used in ways which are similarly abusive. Similarly with microwave weaponsalleged to create an artificial fever by raising body temperature whichis said to be self-limiting because people will
 move outof range because of the pain. But what if the option of going backwardsis to fall into the hands of a state security service offering a more lethalfate or worse. The danger then is that people will be forced to endurea much higher doseage.

  The positionwith chemical calmatives is worse, since there is no way of ensuring auniform dose and any drug capable of having a measurable impact is likleyto have associated toxicity not to mention longer term hazards of mutagenicity,carcinogenicity and tertragenicity. These may take many yeasr to emerge.For example in Northern Ireland, people allegedly gassed with the riotincapacitant CR in the Maze prison are now coming forward to say they havea rare form of cancer80.

  Similarlywith Taser munitions. Anyone targeted is expected to endure excruciatinglevels of pulsed electroshock which even in the best of outcomes is likelyto leave sever psychological scars through induced post traumatic stresssyndrome.
 
 

 5. LEGAL ISSUES& INTERNATIONAL LAW

  Some of theearliest assessments of the emergent non-lethal arsenals recognised thatmany of these weapons could violate international conventions and humanitarianlaw  - especially the biological and chemical paralysis systems81.

  The InternationalCommittee of the International Red Cross (ICRC) has undertaken some ofthe first critical assessments of these weapons and concluded that theyare not outside the fundamental humanitarian principles of the existinglaws of war. Eg the Hague conventions of 1899 and the additional protocolswhich outline:
 

-   theprinciple of unnecessary suffering

 "It is prohibitedto employ weapons, projectiles and materiel and methods of warfare of anature to cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering"

-  The principleof distinction

 "The Partiesto a conflict shall at all time distinguish between the civilian populationand combatants and between civilian objectives and military objectivesand accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives"

-  The MartensClause

 This clausestates that even when neither treaty nor customary law clearly applies,civilians and combatants remain ‘under the protection and authority ofthe principles of international law derived from established custom, fromthe principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience."82
 

  The debateon International Law and ‘Non-Lethal Weapons’ is vitally important, ifwe are to establish the continuance of basic principles of what is andwhat is not beyond the limits of permissibility in the face of US attemptsto define these weapons  as lying outside such restrictions. Theyare not.83 What we have got is necessary but not sufficient and a moredetailed examination of these issues is required if existing internationalhumanitarian law is not to be eroded for the sake of an emergent militarydoctrine, largely in the possession of a tiny minority of states.
 
 

 6. CONCLUSIONS

  Some of thedevices discussed above will find a future role in mass producing torture,cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Other technologies will followas governments find ever new mechanisms to quell dissenters, punish civilianstransiting their territory, as well force multiplying tools or as surprisedevices to immobilise combatants. At both the UN and the EU levels, weshould attempt to enhance controls on such technologies which are anticipatoryin that they can be applied to new devices and inventions on the horizonrather than just the single function torture weapons of old.
 

   Thispaper will have served its purpose if it begins critical thinking on thatprocess. Not many researchers are actively working in this area and thosethat are, are often severely pushed because of conflicting demands. Ifpolitical agreement is reached on what should be further controlled inthe future, a greater sharing of expertise must be sought since like alltechnologies, these systems will continuously change and proliferate. Itis more probable that since the bulk of this technology is being promotedby the Big Five on the UN security Council that progress will be unbelievablyslow.

  Alas, goodlaws, export controls and regulations do not guarantee good practice. Whatevercontrols are eventually agreed, it is sensible to assume that loopholeswill be found accompanied by traditional denials of government and corporatecollusion. Taking this as a starting point, it would be prudent for theresponsible authorities to re-examine the resources needed both by customsand intelligence agencies to adequately prioritize tracking of malfactorsin the future. It would also seem prudent to put in place further fieldresearch and audit procedures to ensure that the information required tomonitor the torture trail enables a more prophylactic approach.
 
 
 

   NOTES & REFERENCES

 * This paperwas originally prepared for an Expert Seminar On Security Equipment &The Prevention Of Torture, held in London under the auspices of AmnestyInternational & the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, 25-26 October,2002.
 

1. Summarised ina variety of Amnesty documents including ‘Arming the Torturers: Electroshocktorture and the spread of stun technology, New York, AI, 1997; Wright,S., ‘The New Trade In Technologies of Restraint and Electroshock’ in Forest,D.(ed) ‘A Glimpse of Hell’, Amnesty International UK, Cassell, 1996; reportsin the Amnesty tabloid newspaper ‘The Terror Trade Times’ and in the varietyof publications associated with Amnesty’s ‘Stop The torture Trade’ campaign.
2. Omega is involvedin direct field research ‘Tracking the Armourers of the Torturers’ on behalfof the EC.
3.In the form oftwo contracted reports for the European Parliament’s Scientific and TechnologicalOptions Assessment panel, (STOA), namely: ‘An Appraisal of the Technologiesof Political Control (PE 166.49) December 1997: http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.comand Crowd Control technologies: An Assessment of Crowd Control TechnologyOptions For the European Union (EP/1/1V/B/STOA/99/14/01): http://www.europarl.eu.int.dg4/stoa/en/publi/default.htm)
4. Written up aschapter 3 in ‘Alternative anti-personnel mines - the next generations.’,Landmine Action, March 2001. The analysis of emergent less-lethal areadenial technologies is particularly pertinent to the discussions of thisseminar.
5. For a summary,see ‘Wright S., ‘The Role of Sub-Lethal Weapons in Human Rights Abuse,’in Medicine Conflict & Survival, Vol 17, 2001,Frank Cassell, p221-233.
6.See discussionin Rappert, B. and Wright S., ‘A flexible Response? Assessing Non-lethalWeapons,’ Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 12, No.4,2000, pp.477-492
7.The London basedcompany Electronic Intelligence - See Observer, 13 January 1991.
8.See chapter onmethods of torture and its effects in Glimpse of Hell, op. cit,
pp104-121 Whilstmuch of this methodology remains basic in the form of beatings as softeningup treatments, patterns of standard operating procedures have been documentedby torture rehabilitation centres. See for example, Rassmussen O.V.(1990)Medical Aspects of Torture, Copenhagen: Laegeforeningens Forlag; and RasmussenO.V. and Skylv, G (1993) ‘Signs of falanga torture’. Torture 3 (1),p16-17.
9. The work ofMichael McClintock has seen some of the most exhaustive tracking of USCounter-insurgency training  manuals, especially in regard to interrogationand the spread of associated human rights abuse - See his magisterial book‘Instruments of Statecraft - US Guerilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency, Counter-Terrorism1940-1990, Pantheon, 1992.
10. Mather I (1982)‘religious torturers use Shah’s police techniques.’ Observer, 14 November.
11. For a detailedaccount of the evolution of the techniques, see John McGuffi’s account‘The Guineapigs, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1974.  McGuffin diedearlier this year.
12. In the late1990's US ‘non-lethal doctrine was assimilated into NATO policy beginningwith the first NATO-sponsored seminar on ‘Non Lethal Weapons in 1996 with148 participants from 12 Nato nations and Sweden and Switzerland.
13.Summarised inToffler A & Toffler H., ‘War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn ofthe 21st Century’, Little Brown , Boston, esp Chp 15: War Without Blood.’
14.Outlined inMorris C, Morris J and Baines,T., ‘Weapons of Mass Protection: Non-lethality,Information Warfare and Airpower in the Age of Chaos’, Airpower Journal,Spring 1995, pp.15-29.
15.Alexander, J.‘Non-Lethal Weapons and Limited Force Options’, Paper Presented to US,Council on Foreign Relations, New York, October, 1993. Alexanders argumentshave since been updated in Alexander J. ‘Future War - Non-Lethal Weaponsin Twenty first Century Warfare,’ Thomas Dunne Books, USA, 1999
16.For a usefulhistory, see Lewer N., & Schofield S., ‘Non-Lethal Weapons - A FatalAttrcation, Zed Press, UK, 1997
17.See KiernanV, ‘War over weapons that can’t kill’, New Scientist 11 December 1993,pp14-16
18. For a discussionof the policing problems associated with reducing police-citizen killingsamidst an armed US populace, see Bailey, W.C. (1996) ‘Less-than-LethalWeapons and Police-Citizen Killings in U.S. Urban Areas, Crime & Delinquency,Vol 42, No 4, October pp.535-552
19. A point takenup by Rappert B And Wright S., in ‘A Flexible Response? Assessing Non-LethalWeapons, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 12, No. 4,2000,pp478-492
20.See NATO Policyon Non-Lethal Weapons, NATO, 13 October 1999, or http://www.natoint/docu/pr1999/p991013e.htm
21.From an overviewprovided by Mr. Charles Swett, Office of the Secretary of Defense(OASD(SO/LIC)Policy Planning, in ‘Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Policy’,presentation to Jane’s first non-lethal weapons confernces, London, 20-21November 1997.
22. See Watson,P.,(1980) ‘War on the Mind - Military Uses and Abuses of Psychology, HarmondsworthPenguin, Middlesex, UK,’
23. For an earlyexamination of this work, see Biderman A.D and Zimmer, H.,(1961) ‘The Manipulationof Human Behaviour’ Wiley, New York.
24. Appendix toPugwash paper prepared by J.P.P Robinson, ‘Disabling Chemicals: A DocumentedChronology’, 24 May 1994.
25. PredominantlyLSD but the use of so called ‘truth drugs in interrogation by MI5 in theUK was also reported. However the main body of work on this area of behaviourmodification was undertaken by the US in a series of controversial mindcontrol programmes codenamed MKDELTA, MKULTRA, Bluebird and Artichoke.See Evans, R, ‘Gassed - British Chemical Warfare Experiments on Humansat Porton Down’, House of Stratus, 2000, London, p249-51
26. See for examplethe presentation by Major General John Barry, ‘beyond the Rubber Bullet- Non-Lethal Military Force at the Strategic and Operational level, HQUS Air force, 26 March 2002.
27.Glenn, R., 1999‘Non-Lethal Weapons and Urban Operations’, Presentation to the Jane’s Non-LethalWeapon conference, ‘’Fielding Non-Lethal Weapons In the New Millenium,London 1-2 November.
28. Glenn R, (1999)Ibid.
29Ibid
30 For furtherbackground on the early presentation of non-lethal warfare as benign technology,see Dando, M 1996, ‘A New Form of Warfare’, Brasseys, London and LewerN. And Schofield S, 1997: ‘Non-Lethal Weapons - A Fatal Attraction’, ZedPress.
31The 1972 NationalScience Foundation Report, ‘Non-Lethal Weapons for Law Enforcement -ResearchNeeds and Priorities’, The Security Planning Corporation report to theNSF, described 34 variants which still comprise the bulk of such off theshelf weapons currently used today.
32For details ofVortex ring research, see ICT, Non-lethal Weapons- New Options facing theFuture, 1st Symposium on Non-lethal Weapons, September 25-26, 2001, ICT,Ettinglen Germany, 2001
33For a brief description,see Grossman L, ‘Beyond the Rubber Bullet’ Time, July 21, 2002.
34See appendixto ‘Crowd Control Technologies:cit 37 above.http://www.europarl.eu.int/dg4/stoa/en/publi/endefault.htm
35Wright S., ‘TheRole of Sub-Lethal Weapons in Human Rights Abuse’, Medicine, Conflict &Survival, Vol 17, 221-233, Frank Cass, London, 2001.
36General Dynamicscompleted a contract with ARDEC in June 2000 for taser mines with anti-personneland security functions For details see Murphy D.,’Taser Anti-PersonnelMunition (TAPM) &.Willey, M. & Resnick B., ‘Sentinel:A Non-LethalPersonnel Incapacitation Physical Security System’, Papers presented toNDIA 2002 ‘Mines Demolition and Non-Lethal Conference & Exhibition,3-5 June listed in http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/index.html
37 See Steve Wright,2001, ‘Killing me Softly’ New Scientist, 11 August pp.10-13
38Dando M., ‘Genomics,Bioregulators, Cell Receptor Research and Potential Biological Weapons:Considerations Regarding the Scope of Article I of the Biological and ToxinWeapons Convention (BTWC), Pugwash Meting No 258, Geneva Switzerland 18-19November 2000
39Eg. Dando quotesKoch B.L et al. ‘Inhalation of Substance P and thiorphan:Acute toxicityand effects of respiration in conscious guinea pigs’, Journal of AppliedToxicology 19, 1999, 19-23 where the authors state "The aim of the studyis to determine the acute toxicity and effects on respiration of SubstanceP(SP) a possible future warfare agent, in guinea pigs when the substancewas inhaled as an aerosol." Such work has potential implications for the chemical induction of heart attacks and the future attack of human bio-regulatorysystems.
40.See SARA Inc,(2000)MSDD (Multi-Sensory Distraction Devices)Non-Lethal Defence IV, March 20-22.
41 On display atthe MILIPOL police and security exhibition in Paris, autumn 2001.
42 Available togetherwith excellent background comment and related materials via www.sunshine-project.org(++001 512 494 0545)
43Lakoski J.M.,Murray WB, Kenny, J.M., ‘The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives ForUse as a Non-Lethal Technique, College of Medicine, Applied Research Laboratory,Pennsylvania State University, October 3, 2000.
44See Crowd Controltechnologies:An Assessment of Crowd Control Technology Options for theEuropean Union (EP/i?IV/B/STOA/99/14/01): http://www.europarl.eu.int/dg4/stoa/en/publi/default.htm
45. The Omega Foundation,(2000) Crowd Control Technologies: An Assessment of Crowd Control TechnologyOptions For the European Union, (EP/1/IV/B/STOA/99/14/01), Presented tothe LIBE Committee of the European Parliament, August 29.
46. For a detaileddiscussion of the prospects of genetic warfare following recent breakthroughsin bio-technology, see Dando     M., (1998) ‘Benefitsand Threats of Developments in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering,’Appendix 13A, SIPRI Year Book, World Armament and Disarmament, Stockholm,Sweden.
47.Nes Tziona isthought to be the main research facility for Israel’s clandestine arsenalof chemical and biological weapons and which according to the Times is‘one of the most advanced germ warfare institutions in the Middle East.The El Al Airliner which crashed eight years ago in Amsterdam, was carrying190 litres of a chemical known as dimethylphosphonate (DMMP) destined forthis biological institute. DMMP  is used to make Sarin and three ofthe main for ingredients of Sarin were on board at the time of the crash- enough to make an estimated 270 Kg. of sarin, Christopher Walker (1998)Crashed Israeli jet carried cargo of nerve gas agent, Times, October 2.
48.Mahnaimi U.,& Colvin M., (1998) ‘Israel planning ‘ethnic’ bomb as Saddam cavesin,’ Sunday Times, November 15.
49.JNLWD (2000)
50. For a discussionsee, The Omega Foundation (2000) "Crowd Control Technologies: An Assessmentof Crowd Control Technology Options For the European Union", (An Appraisalof The Technologies of Political Control - EP/1/1V/B/STOA/99/14/01) May,Section 6.4
51. A wide rangeof aqueous and non-aqueous anti-traction materials have already been identified.See Mathis R et. al (2000) ‘Non-Lethal Applicants of Slippery Substances,Non-Lethal Defence IV, March 20-22.
52For a descriptionof how such weapons fit into the wider US strategic doctrine, see MajorGeneral John Barry, ‘Beyond the rubber bullet: Non-lethal Military Forceat the Strategic and Operational level, HQ US Airforce, 26 March 2002 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/index.html
53.(Quoted in PasternakD (1997)Wonder weapons: the Pentagon's quest for nonlethal arms is amazing.But is it smart? U.S. News & World Report, July 7,  v123 n1 p38(6)
54. See AltmanJ., (1999) ‘Acoustic Weapons - A Prospective Assessment: Sources, Propagation,and Effects of Strong Sound, Cornell University Peace Studies Program,Occasional Papers, May.
55..(Observer 2.8.98)
56  For acritical discussion by Altman of the independence of scientific assessmentsin regard to these weapons, see Altmann Jurgen, 2000, ‘Non-Lethal Weapons- The Case for Independent Scientific Analysis, ‘Medicine, Conflict andSurvival, Vol 17, No 3, July-Sept, pp234-238
57.Kehoe J., (1998)‘Laser dazzler, Paper presented to the Non-Lethal Fence Conference III,25-26 February.
58. See Cooley,W.T., Davis, T., and Kelly, J. (1998) ‘Battlefield Optical SurveillanceSystem - A HMMWV Mounted System for Non-lethal Point Defense’, ARFL andBoeing Co, Alburque, USA. Paper presented at the Non-Lethal Defense IIIconference held at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. February 25and 26, 1998
59. See PatentNo 5675103, Non-Lethal tentanizing laser filed July 17 1997. The Uk DefenceMinistry’s defence Evaluation Research Agency has looked at this ‘freezerray’ already. (See ‘Raygun freezes victims without causing injuries, SundayTimes 9 May 1999.
60. See TechnologyNews (1999) UV Lasers stop people in Their Tracks, January.
61. Www.ing.unibs.it/~cassinis/minerobots_archive/index.htm1/8/2000
62.See www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/info/why-not.html‘Robots are not a solution to the global landmine problem’
63. Toffler A.,and Toffler H., (1994) ‘War & Anti-War - Survival at the Dawn of the21st Century, Little Brown and Co., London, UK
64. Knoth A., (1994)‘March of the Isectoids’, Jane’s International Defense review, 27/11 November.,pp.55-58
65.Reuters (1999),‘War without bloodshed? Researcher says robots could fight future battles."17th September.
66.See Presentationof Colonel Mazarra, United States Marine Co., ‘A View To the Future’,JanesNon-Lethal Weapons - Development & Doctrine conference, 1-2 December1998.
67. Hewish, M.& Pengelley, R. (1998) ‘Warfare in the global city,’ Janes InternationalDefense Review, Vol. No.31, June, pp.32-43.
68.Http://www.robotbooks.com/war-robots.htm‘JPL to develop miniature robots for tomorrows soldiers’, 31/7/2000
69. See Everett,HR ‘A brief history of robotics in physical security’. http://www.nosc.mil/robots/land/robart/history.html
70. Hewish, M.& Pengelley, R. (1998) Ibid.
71. See http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/police/departments/swat/robot.htmRemotec offer a range of robots which can be weaponized for SWAT operations.
72.Discussed inGlenn R.,1999.
73. See for examplePerimeter Detection web page. Sandia National Laboratories.  http://www.sandia.gov/isrc
74. Http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/capabilitie...ter_detection/perimeter_detection.html14/6/2000
75. Jane’s Policeand Security Equipment Catalog 1999-2000, p514
76See AlexanderJB, 1999, Future War - Non-Lethal Weapons in 21st century Warfare, ThomasDunne Books, USA.
77For a descriptionof how such weapons fit into the wider US strategic doctrine, see MajorGeneral John Barry, ‘Beyond the rubber bullet: Non-lethal Military Forceat the Strategic and Operational level, HQ US Airforce, 26 March 2002 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/index.htmlhttp://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/index.html
78NATO Policy onNon-Lethal Weapons, NATO, 13 October 1999, or http://www.natoint/docu/pr1999/p991013e.htm
79Crowd Controltechnologies: An Assessment of Crowd Control Technology Options For theEuropean Union (EP/1/1V/B/STOA/99/14/01): http://www.europarl.eu.int.dg4/stoa/en/publi/default.htm
80See Neeson A,‘Gassing the Truth’, Andersons Town News, 14 October 2000
81 An insightfulanalysis of this aspect is provided by Malcolm Dando in ‘A New Form ofWarfare - the Rise of Non-Lethal Weapons, Brasseys, London 1996. Dandowas one of the first academics to highlight the threat to the Chemicaland Biological Weapons Conventions emerging from the search for chemicalsand toxins acting on specific human receptor sites to promote disablingeffects such as anxiety, panic or interference with human bioregulation.
82 ICRC staff suchas Dominique Loye and Robin Coupland has accomplished sterling work inreviewing the effects of these new weapons in the light of the rules ofwar. See for example, Coupland R., & Loye D., "Non-Lethal weapons:medical tactical and legal issues,’ Janes Non-Lethal Weapons conference,London 1-2 November 1999.
83 For an excellentdetailed discussion of these points, see Fiddler, D.P, 2001, ‘Non-LethalWeapons and International Law’, Medicine Conflict & Survival, Vol 17No.3 July-\Sept, pp194-206