A few weeks ago, news agencies reported the debut of a non-lethal heat-beaming weapon. Presumably, this Active Denial System (as it is called) is designed to disperse rioters or others causing problems without the occasional nasty problem of a rubber bullet to an eye. It can also be effective at long distances.
As I've been slacking on my news intake lately, I discovered this through my roommates. There seems to have been a unanimous "that's cool!" reaction to the technology that can inflict a severe burning sensation to anyone unfortunate enough to be in front of the ray. The pacifist in me even rejoices at the possible implementation of a "much-needed alternative to just going from 'shouting' to 'shooting.'"
However, something about the heat ray unsettled me, and I have been unable to discern the reason until today when I read an article on Slate. In addition to containing more information about the device, the story concludes with the following paragraphs that aptly summarize my unease:
But the ability to inflict pain without injury doesn't just make injury less necessary. It makes pain more essential to military operations—and easier to inflict. To achieve the desired "repel effect," I have to make you suffer. Knowing that your agony will be brief and leave no physical damage makes the weapon easier to fire. [ . . . ]That's the metaphysical gap nonlethal energy weapons exploit. The rain of pain falls mainly in the brain. [ . . . ] Four months ago, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation to prosecute torture, defined as intentional infliction of "serious physical or mental pain or suffering." But that rule applies only in captivity. On the street, pain administration won't be a crime. It'll be a policy.
Two weeks from now, military leaders will convene in London to discuss the pain beam and the next generation of directed-energy weapons, including microwaves and lasers. Law enforcement agencies are interested. Raytheon is already advertising the technology for commercial applications. We're even developing a "personnel halting and stimulation response" system—yes, a PHaSR—to stun targets instead of killing them. But don't worry, nobody will get hurt. Sort of.
(emphasis mine)
While I believe non-lethal force is undoubtedly better than the alternative, I find the infliction of pain as a "policy" to be rather disturbing and ripe for potential abuse.
Posted by Randy at February 20, 2007 05:42 PM | TrackBackWhile a part of me certainly understands what you're saying here, I do have something of a question. If we wish to avoid using lethal force, i.e. causing serious injury, and wish to use less-than-lethal force, which typically doesn't cause injury, about the only thing left that will really stop someone is discomfort. Unfortunately, we don't have something like the wonderful stun-setting phaser/blaster guns of science fiction. My understanding of things that could simply knock a human out, is that they would likely be more dangerous to health than these other items. I'm all for not getting stuck on things that cause pain as weapons, but there is nonetheless the fact that our best less-than-lethal options right now tend to cause a fair amount of pain/discomfort (there are things that smell really, really, really bad, but they're not as wide-range applicable). My basic point really isn't much of a point, other than that we don't have many options, technically speaking right now, even though your concern certainly has merit.
Posted by: Knight's Disciple at February 20, 2007 10:18 PMWow, I remember reading about these being in development YEARS ago on howstuffworks.com. The idea of their implementation is both exciting and disquieting at the same time. I do have one question . . . everyone keeps talking about how great it is that there's no lasting damage. I don't know, but I figured there'd be some sort of lasting mental trauma associated with that kind of pain . . . potentially very severe depending on the individual and the circumstance. Is this not being considered by anyone?
Posted by: Blame Jared at February 21, 2007 02:19 PMSpeaking as someone who abhors torture in any form ... I don't see the problem you see.
Do you know of any military operation that does not involve a threat of pain? More specifically, do you know of any way for a soldier to fend off determined rioters without causing pain?
Perhaps it is true that a soldier will be more likely to cause non-lethal pain than lethal pain. But soldiers have been firing on crowds for centuries now, and neither soldiers nor crowds show any sign of stopping. Failure to disperse a crowd can still be lethal to the soldier, and firing on the crowd is still lethal to the crowd and innocent people nearby.
The difference between this weapon and torture? Exactly the same difference between shooting someone in the street and shooting him in jail. The article tries to obscure that distinction; I think the attempt fails.
Posted by: Wilson at February 21, 2007 09:49 PMI love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com
If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.
Thanks,
David