Acoustic Weapons Source: Arms Division of Human Rights Watch December 16, 1999
TO: Delegates to First Annual Conference on CCW Amended
Protocol II Acoustic weapons are close to becoming a reality, both
on the battlefield and elsewhere. The United States is building two
prototype acoustic weapons, is field testing weapons of at least two
companies, and may move from research and development to production
soon. Other nations reported to be (or to have been) involved in
research on acoustic weapons include Russia, China, France, United
Kingdom, and Israel. Sweden, Japan, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Denmark
are reported to
have acoustic weapons effects research programs.
Human Rights Watch has been investigating acoustic
weapons for four years as part of a program to evaluate new weapons
technologies and their consistency with international humanitarian
law. Human Rights Watch is also closely monitoring other directed
energy antipersonnel weapons under development, including blinding and
dazzling lasers, high-power microwaves and radio frequency weapons.
Human Rights Watch does not oppose development of
non-lethal weapons as a class. Acoustic weapons deserve special
scrutiny because they represent introduction of a completely new
weapons mode based on a novel physical principle. Human Rights Watch
is concerned that an insufficient assessment has been made of these
weapons, and that some or all may not be consistent with international
humanitarian or human rights law.
Despite the name, acoustic weapons are not intended to
cause deafness per se. The existing military literature indicates that
acoustic weapons--across the entire frequency spectrum, from
infrasound to ultrasound--have the ability to cause severe pain, loss
of bodily functions, and bodily injury. Depending on the frequencies,
intensities (decibel level), and modulations employed, acoustic
weapons could cause permanent or temporary physical damage, including
damage to internal organs, interference with the workings of the
central nervous system, and thermal injuries (burns). Other effects
noted by the U.S. military, acoustic contractors, and experts include
tissue destruction, hemorrhaging, spasms, acoustic fever, vomiting,
choking respiration, "intolerable sensations mainly in the chest,"
"significant decrement in visual acuity," incontinence, postexposure
fatigue, and diffuse psychological effects.
Though not the primary intent, acoustic weapons could
cause hearing loss, including total hearing loss, from even short
exposures to very high sound levels. Indeed, even though acoustic
weapons are often assumed to be by definition non-lethal, they could
also be developed and used for lethal warfare.
A host of military and civilian missions are being
considered for acoustic weapons, including both battlefield combat and
so-called military operations other than war -- urban combat, crowd
control, hostage rescue, perimeter defense and physical security.
There are indications that acoustic weapons are also being developed
for secret "special" missions and covert operations such as
counter-terrorism. Acoustic weapons are also being developed with
commercialization in mind, for civil law enforcement, border control,
and internal prison use.
Human Rights Watch has the following primary concerns
with regard to the development of acoustic weapons:
. Some or all acoustic weapons may be inconsistent with
current standards and obligations of international humanitarian law.
. There has been a lack of public policy, military,
legal, arms control, or humanitarian discussion regarding development
and use of this new mode of weaponry.
* Acoustic weapons programs have been shrouded in
excessive secrecy, making meaningful assessment, evaluation and review
very difficult.
. There has been insufficient research into human
effects, even as the weapons are pursued in latter stages of
development.
Given the current paucity of information available, it
is an open question if some or all acoustic weapons (or acoustic
weapons' uses) could be considered inhumane and illegal under
international humanitarian law, due to:
(1) their potential to cause unnecessary suffering to
combatants and non-combatants; With the banning of blinding laser weapons by the
international community in 1995, acoustic weapons are the next new
antipersonnel weapon to emerge based upon novel and/or unconventional
physical principles. Such a completely new technology demands the
closest scrutiny to ensure compliance with domestic and international
law, as well as societal acceptability. Yet there has been almost no
debate about research into acoustic weapons. Human Rights Watch is
concerned
that development moves forward without any realistic appreciation of
the military dimensions of acoustic weapons, without a full
understanding of the human effects, and with a deficient appreciation
of social, policy and legal questions.
It may be technically possible to develop acoustic
antipersonnel weapons that are consistent with the requirements of
international humanitarian law, and are acceptable to the public
conscience. However, to make that determination requires greater
transparency, more probing research into human effects, and high-level
political and legal review.
The international community is at a propitious moment to
evaluate thoroughly and critically acoustic weapons before their
deployment and widespread proliferation. This must be done now in
order to ensure that acoustic weapons do not become a humanitarian
disaster in the future.
Any nation involved in acoustic weapons development
efforts should suspend such efforts until all appropriate legal and
humanitarian reviews have been completed. Bioeffects research should
be peer-reviewed in the open scientific literature. Nations should
abandon the excessive secrecy surrounding acoustic weapons programs.
It is obvious that there is still not sufficient
scientific study to understand either the military effectiveness or
human effects of acoustic weapons. Because we do not yet know the
military utility or the full human effects of prospective acoustic
weapons, their legality remains in question. Governments should, as a
matter of priority, determine the criteria for what would constitute
an effective and legal acoustic weapon, and what would constitute an
illegal acoustic
weapon.
Consideration should be given to adding a new protocol
dealing with acoustic weapons to the Convention on Conventional
Weapons. Such a protocol should prohibit those acoustic weapons and
uses of acoustic weapons that violate international humanitarian law,
and establish rules, restrictions and criteria for legal weapons and
uses. Such a
protocol could result in a substantially reduced risk of widespread
development, proliferation and use of acoustic weapons that may prove
indiscriminate, inhumane or cruel. It could also help to continue to
clarify the legitimacy of new weapons technologies. As with the
adoption in 1995 of Protocol IV banning blinding laser weapons, a new
protocol could address the risks in a timely way, before acoustic
weapons become a humanitarian menace.
FROM: Arms Division of Human Rights Watch
RE: Acoustic Weapons
(2) their potentially excessively injurious character;
(3) their potential for indiscriminateness, that is, inability to be
restricted to military targets; and
(4) their potentially disproportionate impact on civilians compared to
their military utility.