THE warnings on the perimeter wire were unequivocal: 鈥淧hotography
Prohibited鈥擫ethal Force Authorized鈥�.
My bag was stuffed with cameras as I headed into the headquarters of the
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate in Quantico, Virginia. Thankfully, nobody
searched me at the door.
I was there for an arms fair in May known as the US Force Protection
Equipment Demonstration, the biggest annual showcase for the latest in
鈥渘on-lethal鈥� weaponry.
Advertisement
The exhibition hall was crammed with weapons of all kinds. The overwhelming
majority were designed to control people without killing them. Glancing around,
I could see plastic bullets and soft bags filled with lead shot. There were
lasers for dazzling people, and 鈥渋ncapacitants鈥�: pepper sprays, tear gas and
other chemical weapons. At stalls bristling with cartridges, grenades and
hand-held aerosols, companies competed for custom from the world鈥檚 armies,
prison services and police forces.
I visited Quantico as a European Union consultant. Everyone was unfailingly
polite. Most of the sales reps were even happy to talk to my video camera,
confident they are doing a 鈥済ood thing鈥� by arming the world鈥檚 law enforcers with
non-lethal weapons.
Demand for the weapons is certainly rising. No one wants to see the police
shoot people dead when a demonstration gets out of hand or when a suspect is
acting unpredictably. And this year alone, the US government will spend more
than $23 million on non-lethal weapons research.
But there鈥檚 a hidden downside to this happy picture. The label 鈥渘on-lethal鈥�
doesn鈥檛 mean quite what it seems. NATO policy says that 鈥渘on-lethal weapons
shall not be required to have zero probability of causing fatalities鈥�. The reps
in Quantico freely admit that there鈥檚 no such thing as 鈥渘on-lethal鈥� weapons.
They are 鈥渓ess-lethal鈥濃�攜ou won鈥檛 necessarily survive.
So just how safe are non-lethal weapons? In many cases, someone does check
how much less lethal these weapons are before they鈥檙e used on the streets. But
most of the checking is carried out by governments, often in secret and without
open publication.
The British authorities, for example, are refusing to release information
about the ricochet properties of the lightweight plastic bullet that was
introduced in Northern Ireland in June. Sometimes no independent research is
carried out before a weapon is deployed.
There is also no way of ensuring some weapons marketed as non-lethal stay
that way. Many can be turned into deadly weapons simply by loading a different
ammunition. Pepper gas, for instance, can be fired from an M-16 rifle. So does
this mean the M-16 could be classed as a non-lethal weapon?
The point sinks in as reps at Quantico demonstrate what they call
鈥渧ictim-activated ordnance鈥�. This is a system of sensors designed to detect
human motion and infrared body heat, rigged up to a gun-toting robotic arm that
can fire automatically or on command. More than 500 kinds of remote-controlled
robot will be available in the next two or three years, and just about any law
enforcement, security or military agency will be able to buy them. The idea is
that you load them with non-lethal weapons鈥攖ear-gas canisters, plastic
bullets, pepper sprays. But some of the robots can also carry deadlier
ammunition. One I saw at Quantico could have its plastic bullets supplemented by
rocket grenades when the going gets tough.
It鈥檚 unlikely that these robots will know much about safeguarding human
rights. How will they tell if the target is a child or a pregnant woman, or when
a victim has received too much of an irritant chemical? Sometimes, especially in
the heat of a riot, it鈥檚 a hard enough judgement for a human to make.
And how much is too much anyway? With pepper gas, for example, it鈥檚 hard to
say. One pepper gas salesman I spoke to at Quantico admitted there were
difficulties with getting the dosage right. 鈥淎s a natural extract you鈥檙e always
going to have some variation,鈥� he said. The FBI gave pepper gas safety approval
in 1989. But the agent responsible for the evaluation was later convicted of
taking a $57,000 bribe from a pepper-spray manufacturing company.
However, on the back of the FBI鈥檚 initial approval, the use of pepper gas has
now spread worldwide.
In April 2000, the British government said it was against using pepper spray
and advocated the continuing use of CS tear gas. But that decision is not
binding on police forces. In Sussex, the police are taking a different tack.
Officers there don鈥檛 use CS on safety grounds, and the Sussex force is carrying
out trials on Pava, a synthetic version of pepper spray. Sussex police
commissioned their own medical research into the product and say they are happy
with the results. Police forces in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and the
Netherlands are already using Pava. Although they consider Pava to be safe, we
may only know for sure after several decades.
At Quantico, I was struck by how suspicious the manufacturers were of each
other鈥檚 safety claims. Over 300 companies are manufacturing and marketing
chemical incapacitants in cartridges, grenades and hand-held aerosols. They are
under pressure to get their product accepted as the safest and most effective,
and they are all quick to point out their competitors鈥� faults.
Pepper-gas salesmen often deflect criticisms with scathing comments about CS
gas. British police, for example, use a version of CS dissolved in a chemical
known as MIBK (methyl iso-butyl ketone). At Quantico, one pepper-gas
salesman told me he 鈥渨ouldn鈥檛 spray a dog with MIBK鈥�.
Even if he鈥檚 exaggerating, CS gas has a past every bit as chequered as pepper
spray鈥檚. When it was first used, in 1969, it was said to be harmless to people
with breathing ailments. The claim rested solely on a study of two bronchitic
rabbits. Possible effects on the unborn child were tested on chicken embryos.
And experiments to test its carcinogenicity were not completed until two years
after it was introduced in Northern Ireland.
When these questionable scientific methods were revealed, the British
government set up an inquiry. It concluded that no chemical should be authorised
as a weapon unless it has been independently assessed and the results
published.
Yet that is still not happening. Even when the government does carry out the
necessary testing of non-lethal weapons, the results don鈥檛 always surface
easily. Earlier this year, the MP Kevin McNamara uncovered an internal Ministry
of Defence report on the ballistic properties of the new lightweight plastic
bullet.
The report says 鈥渢here is a risk that the projectile will be retained in the
head.鈥� It also reveals that it hits you with an energy of 244 joules when fired
from 20 metres.
Yet according to American military scientists, anything with a kinetic energy
more than 122 joules range can cause 鈥渟evere damage鈥� and kill. British officials
say the new bullets are meant to be fired with an accurate sighting system that
will prevent accidental head injuries.
At Quantico, the companies touting 鈥渒inetic energy weapons鈥濃�攊tems such
as plastic bullets and flying socks filled with lead shot鈥攚ere certainly
warning that these products should not be fired at short ranges or above chest
height. But a few weeks after the new plastic bullet was introduced,
British newspapers carried reports of teenagers receiving head shots in Northern
Ireland. When assurances of non-lethality are based on law enforcers sticking to
the manufacturer鈥檚 instructions, there is a lot of room for lethality.
Quantico was about 鈥渞eady鈥� technologies. And there are plenty more in the
pipeline, including the 鈥渁rea denial system鈥�, a weapon designed to zap people
with microwaves. Anyone straying into an irradiated area gets heated up to 55
掳C in just two seconds. The sensation is reportedly similar to 鈥渢ouching a
light bulb鈥�. The US Marine Corps is developing the technology, and hopes to have
a truck-mounted prototype, with a range of 750 metres, available this summer.
Later versions are planned for aircraft, allowing areas to be 鈥渟wept clean鈥� from
above.
It鈥檚 a chilling vision of the future of policing. But is this kind of
technological fix inevitable? In South Korea they don鈥檛 think so. A corps of
lightly armed and unprotected women police officers has had great success in
peacefully policing public demonstrations. Since their introduction, the
country鈥檚 CS gas factory has gone out of business. It鈥檚 the kind of solution the
Inspectorate of Constabulary has suggested for Britain鈥檚 police forces. 鈥淪ome
officers forget that the best weapons they鈥檝e got to deal with potential
violence are their brains and the ability to talk,鈥� it said in a report last
year.
Maybe we do need a radical new way to keep the peace. If non-lethal weapons
are the way we go, they should be subject to independent testing and licensing.
But the best solution of all might be to find an alternative to force, whether
it鈥檚 鈥渘on-lethal鈥� or not.
