The Challenge of Exotic Weapons

Current and Emerging Technologies

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)

Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons (EMP)

These weapons technologies have been considered the “Holy Grail” of directed energy (DE). The general principle of EMP weapons is to generate one or more very intense pulses of electromagnetic power that penetrate equipment and degrade or destroy electronic circuitry, causing electrical surges, leaving equipment burned out and computer terminals overloaded with the similar result as if there were a lighting strike.¹⁴ Electromagnetic pulses have for some time been associated as byproducts of energy produced by detonated high altitude nuclear weapons. Research in past decades has concentrated on producing non-nuclear EMP. Work by specialists like Max Fowler at Los Alamos, developed flux generators, which through continuous development were capable of producing pulses with peak power on the order of terawatts, with a single pulse having as much condensed power as 1000 nuclear reactors. Major programs were developed and sustained decades ago by the former Soviet Union and the United States. Interest in such weapons has also included NATO countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany.¹⁵ The Chinese are also said to be interested in EMP technology. EMP can be broadly broken down into two categories-those aimed at the environment and those aimed at living systems.¹⁶

EMP technology is on the cusp of reality, possibly to be utilized operationally in a future U.S. and coalition war with Iraq in 2003. Testing efforts in the United States are centered in New Mexico at Kirtland Air Force Base.¹⁷ One major weapon system that was described recently is known as an “e bomb.” An e bomb uses EMP technology that can be mounted in cruise missiles and is meant to destroy or disrupt command and control functions of adversaries when the missile flies over installations such as bunkers.¹⁸ Some critics have questioned the weapon’s reliability when assessing test samples and the mixed record. Another limitation with this technology is fratricide. It has been argued that EM pulses do not discriminate between friend and foe. Therefore, choices on delivery systems focus on missiles to carry the warhead away from friendly forces. Other non-lethal research with EMP has been explored for potential crowd control situations using electromagnetic waves to put human targets to sleep or to heat them up, on the microwave principle.¹⁹

The United States Marine Corps has been tasked with the direction of the joint non-lethal technology program headquartered at Quantico, Virginia. One of the latest developments is a weapon specializing in “active denial technology.” It is designed to stop people by firing millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy in a beam that quickly heats up the surface of the victim’s skin, activating pain sensors, with effects similar to touching a hot light bulb. These weapons will initially be mounted on Marine and Army Humvees.²⁰

High Powered Microwave

High Powered Microwave (HPM) is another component of directed energy weapons that utilizes microwave energy. Some of the technological concepts on which EMP weapons are based on technology such as flux compression generators are restricted to frequency bands below 1MHz. Several targets will be difficult to attack with very high power levels at high frequencies and challenges with focusing energy output will cause difficulties for that range of technology. HPM devices overcome these problems because its power output is more tightly focused.²¹ Devices such as Klystrons, Magnetrons and Vircators are some of the technology bases for HPM. Raytheon, a prime American contractor for this technology has stated that some of the high-powered microwave systems “were on the verge of use today,” with several systems being in the field within three to four years.²²

Radio Frequency Weapons

Considered to be another class of weapons, Radio Frequency (RF) weapons are an increasing concern to the point of being the subject of a national intelligence estimate (NIE) by the National Intelligence Council in the United States. This concern is based on the perceived danger of low energy RF weapons directed at unprotected electronics, particularly computer systems. This danger has increasingly changed the focus of security and defence analysts dealing with domestic threats.²³ Compounding the risk was the belief that toward the end of the 1990’s, the threat of RF weapons (along with other exotic weapons) was missing from political consideration.²⁴ Since September 11^th, the degree to which such risks are being assessed and dealt with in relation to other threats is a critical question that should be examined by national governments. To provide some insight into possible threats to civilian targets, the analysis of one expert is helpful.

According to a former KGB major Victor Sheymov, such low-tech weapons could be “devastating and highly indiscriminate.” He pointed out that a shoebox-sized weapon could be constructed in less than three hours using store-bought electrical components.²⁵ One assessment suggested that the necessary components could be obtained from a local Radio Shack for as little as $800 U.S. A popular scenario depicts a van being used to house the components which would then drive around a selected target such as a government building or private corporation and emit low power pulses, which can pass through concrete walls and disable or burn out electronics and computer equipment.²⁶ Although information warfare is not the central focus of this paper, the possible threat of these types of weapons on societies so dependent on computers and information technology warrants some discussion below.²⁷

Recently, there has been formal recognition in some countries of the vulnerability of national infrastructure to terrorist attacks with non-traditional weapons and targets. For example, initiatives by the Clinton Administration in 1998 to deal with threats to national infrastructure have resulted in the formation of a National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter terrorism.²⁸ Analysts are concerned with the lack of preparedness with civilian infrastructure in comparison to military technology, which ironically in the case of the latter, is also a source for concern because of increasing reliance for civilian off the shelf technology (COST) being used by the military. Projects aimed at “hardening” systems for protection have been advocated. Most of the individuals and groups that are highlighting the dangers are worried about the technology being used by terrorist organizations and more sophisticated or powerful capabilities being obtained by other states. Suggestions for finding national and international methods for non-proliferation have been advocated, with the hope of countries like the United States maintaining its lead in research and development.

Acoustic Weapons

Employing acoustic frequencies from infrasound, audible sound and ultrasound wavelengths could be used in law enforcement and peace support operations with the objective of not creating untenable sound, but rather, to vibrate the targeted people physically. In these particular operations the need to gain control of a violent situation with minimal force may be required. One scenario would be to use acoustic weapons to drive people away from a selected area or to enforce a safety zone between troops or police and potential attackers, with no contamination to the area or cleanup being required.²⁹ Audible sound in the range of 20 to 20 000 hertz can be used to influence behaviour. According to Alexander, “at low frequencies it is possible to cause internal vibrations that generate a number of effects, depending on the frequency and power levels employed.” At the low range, no countermeasure or protection can be taken and care is needed to avoid injury or death.³⁰ Some examples include acoustic bullets of high power; very low frequency emitted from one to two metre antenna dishes. Effects can be categorized as blunt object trauma with effects ranging from injury to death.³¹ Another familiar concept is the use of a device incorporated into a sound system, known as a “curdler unit,” it produces shrills, shrieking and blatting noise. The objective is to irritate and disperse rioters with a decibel level below the dangerous range to the human ear. Used at night, the curdler unit can produce a voodoo effect used to break up chanting, singing and clapping. The “Squak Box” is a device used by the British Army in Northern Ireland for crowd dispersal. The device emitted two ultrasonic frequencies that became intolerable when mixed in the human ear, often causing giddiness, nausea and fainting.³²

Research in the acoustic area has spanned over decades with great attention paid by the superpowers during the Cold War. The former Soviet Union experimented with acoustic weapons in efforts to determine the physiological and psychological effects.³³ Current research conducted in the United States by Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) in California, built upon research carried out in Nazi Germany and examined the application of a vortex generator using repetitive detonation. A medium such as propane gas or combination of methane and oxygen is combusted to generate pressure waves greater than 130dB, sufficient to incapacitate anyone in the targeted area.³⁴ Swedish experiments with High Energy Whirls (HEW) have been conducted using similar principles. An attempt to replicate the Swedish experiment, generated ring vortices two feet in diameter traveling the length of a football field at 70 metres per second. Such power potential has raised concerns that the there is the capacity to cause more physical damage to humans than would be acceptable.³⁵ It is argued that acoustic weapons run the risk of being an indiscriminate weapon. The release of high intensity sound could impose the same degree of damage on the noncombatant as the combatant.³⁶ As with all of the above directed energy weapons, the range of effectiveness is from nonlethal to lethal and could be adjusted accordingly. What rules or conventions detail what is acceptable in terms of the design and capability of such technologies, particularly if they have a range of lethality?

There is also the added complexity of research which involves more than one scientific principle or medium and what the impact of such combined technologies would be on non-proliferation, arms control or disarmament treaties already in place. During the Cold War, the Soviets experimented with acoustic systems used in conjunction with chemicals to enhance their affects. It was stated that, “while some of the reported effects were intentionally fatal by initiation of anaphylactic shock in test animals, non-lethal approaches could also be considered.” The same author cites “that it may be feasible to apply sub critical doses of a substance to one or more people, then later induce hypersensitivity with an infrasound device.”³⁷ What should be a greater concern to policy makers is the preoccupation with what is not covered by arms control or disarmament treaties and the attempts to find the loopholes or exploit weaknesses. This rationalization is made in Colonel Alexander’s book and may be reflective of those civilian and military leaders who are advocates of non-lethal technologies, not wary of the unintended consequences caused by their development. With regard to the abovementioned combination of acoustic technology with “chemicals,” Alexander states, “while this technique would surely come under extensive criticism, its application by those not constrained by international treaties makes the possibility worth exploring from a defensive posture.”³⁸ This has often been exactly the type of logic that has been accused of as being a veil for an offensive, lethal program and arms race.

Lasers

In response to the inclusion of a protocol on lasers in the Geneva Convention in 1995, supporters of non-lethal weapons have endeavored to advocate the use of “eye friendly” lasers. Lasers were the first fielded tactical directed (DE) systems-weapons that shoot photons, not bullets. Use of “red” and “green” lasers as a non-lethal weapon in a humanitarian or peace enforcement mission has received high praise from military ground commanders. The lasers can be used for multiple military purposes, including target detection, target designation, and deterrence. Employment of this technology was in part credited for the highly successful extraction mission of UN forces from Somalia in 1995 with no casualties to any side. For example, lasers were used to deter Somali snipers and mortar crews preparing to engage US Marines conducting the mission.³⁹

Concerns expressed about use of lasers that cause blindness in individuals has been a serious issue internationally for some time. Laser pointers have swept the marketplace globally and are readily accessible. Countries apart from the United States have developed blinding lasers. The Chinese have developed the ZM-87 Portable Laser Disturber that is designed to dazzle and blind up to ranges of 3,000 metres. The serious impediments to controlling non-eye-safe laser technology that is already so widespread, presents challenges to the international community. According to Alexander:

Despite calls for [totally] banning lasers, this is not likely to happen. Their use as range finders and as guidance for precision munitions makes them far too valuable to give up. Both of those attributes were key to [the] success in Desert Storm. Eye-safe laser weapons will provide additional operational capability.⁴⁰

¹⁴ Alexander, 65.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Rob Green, “Are Electromagnetic Weapons Being Used in Yugoslavia?” 31 March 1999. Yorkshire CND. Online. February 11, 2003. Available: http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/kosovo/elmag.htm

¹⁷ “Come Fry with me.” The Economist. February 20, 2003.

¹⁸ Jim Wilson, “E-Bomb.” Popular Mechanics, September 2001.

¹⁹ Pasternak, 1.

²⁰ Robert Burns, “Pentagon unveils “non-lethal” weapon.” Associated Press. March 2, 2001.

²¹ Carlo Kopp, The Electromagnetic Bomb- a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction. Online. February 8, 2003. Available: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/kopp/apjemp.html, 6.

²² George Edmonson, “Potent Microwave Weapons’ Impact Could Be Felt In Future Conflicts.” Cox News Service. August 14, 2002. Online. February 10, 2002. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020814-hpm.htm

²³ Alexander, 216.

²⁴ Opening Statement of Lieutenant General Robert L. Schweitzer, United States Army (Ret) to the Joint Economic Committee of the One Hundred Fifth Congress: From “Economic Espionage, Technology Transfers and National Security,” June 17, 1997, 1.

²⁵ Alexander, 216.

²⁶ Statement of General Schweitzer, 3-4.

²⁷ See: James F. Dunningan, Digital Soldiers: The Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrow’s Brave New Battlefield. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996

²⁸ Alexander, 215.

²⁹ Ibid, 97.

³⁰ Alexander, 98.

³¹ “When Killing Just Won’t Do.” Harpers. February 2003,17.

³² Ibid.

³³ Alexander, 100.

³⁴ Ibid, 99.

³⁵ Ibid, 100.

³⁶ Unknown author, US Military Non-Lethal Weapons. Submitted by MCCLOSL@towers.com. Online February 25, 2003. Available: http://ourworld.cs.com/soundweapon, 12.

³⁷ Alexander, 102.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Ibid, 60.

⁴⁰ Ibid, 61.

Previous     Table of Contents     Next