In their search for ways to combat enemy forces while not necessarily causing them lasting harm, the US military has had some “creative” ideas over the decades. But there was one project temporarily entertained by the US Air Force during the 1990s that really took things in a novel and somewhat problematic direction.
The plan, which was brought to public attention in 2005 by the NGO, the Sunshine Project, via a Freedom of Information Act request, proposed to develop a non-lethal chemical weapon that would make enemy combatants “gay”. This may sound like the stuff of a conspiracy theory, but it really was something the US military entertained. The documents released to the Sunshine Project had the title “Harassing, Annoying and Bad Guy Identifying Chemicals”, and detailed ideas for multiple spray weapons that were considered for their ability to cause chaos among enemy ranks.
The so-called “gay bomb”, as it became known in the press, was first proposed in 1994 by the Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, and was intended to serve as an aphrodisiac that made enemy soldiers “sexually irresistible” to one another. This would, so the idea went, promote “homosexual behaviour” to break out among enemy ranks, resulting in a “distasteful but completely non-lethal” strike to morale.
Of course, the whole idea was based on deeply flawed science and generally prejudicial assumptions. “Distasteful” consequences in this context referred to contemporary views about homosexuality as being innately disruptive and causing rampant and debilitating shame. In many ways, it reflected anxieties at the heart of American military culture concerning homosexuality, which were weirdly repackaged and turned into something to inflict on others. But aside from this faulty social belief, the whole idea of a sexuality-changing bomb presupposes the idea that sexuality is mutable and can be changed dramatically if the right chemicals are introduced at the right time.
In addition to the so-called gay bomb, the same document contained details on other absurd ideas. They included the concept of a “sting me/attack me” chemical that would attract swarms of angry insects or rats that would attack the enemy. There was a chemical that would make combatants’ skin so sensitive to sunlight that it would become unbearable for them. There were even suggestions for chemicals that would give the enemy lasting and obvious halitosis (bad breath), so they could be easily identified while trying to hide within civilian populations.
In the end, none of these ideas were developed beyond their initial ideation, but they were originally proposed as six-year projects that would cost $7.5 million. According to Captain Dan McSweeney, at the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate at the Pentagon in 2005, when the story broke, the defense department received “literally hundreds” of project ideas, but none of the ideas proposed in 1994 were taken any further.
He explained to the BBC that “It’s important to point out that only those proposals which are deemed appropriate, based on stringent human effects, legal, and international treaty reviews are considered for development or acquisition.”
On the face of it, the gay bomb proposal could be seen as just an embarrassing footnote in military history, but it actually highlights a few serious interconnected points. Firstly, it demonstrates just how blurry the line between scientific thinking and absurdity can be, when even ridiculous ideas can be taken seriously if they can potentially offer a strategic edge. Secondly, the emergence of these “non-lethal” ideas in the 1990s is not random. In fact, they are arguably the logical outcome of decades of paranoid Cold War thinking – which itself was characterized by some pretty “out there” ideas – and the shift into a new international era that demanded new ways of approaching conflict.
A new era “needs” new weapons
In the early days of the 1990s, America and other Western powers found themselves in a strange new world. The collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 not only signaled the end of the Cold War, but also the start of a new geopolitical order. Rather than needing to fight an ongoing, seemingly existential ideological war, America and its allies were now the victors on the world stage. Such a dramatic change had implications for the future of warfare, so it was believed. Rather than fighting to protect their values, conflict in this initial new era would be characterized by a need to maintain peace and oversee power transitions in ex-Soviet states and others experiencing hardships.
The US quickly found itself under increased pressure to develop tools for conflict de-escalation as it took on the role of guardian and peacekeeper of this new order. This prompted research into what are referred to as non-lethal weapons, which are meant to be weapons that incapacitate rather than kill. In practical terms, this translates to weapons that produce the “minimal” chance of causing fatalities and significant or permanent injuries.
The idea of non-lethal weapons wasn’t new. Their potential value was explored from the 1960s into the 1980s, where they were considered for both military and policing operations that had few acceptable options for de-escalation. However, the need for effective non-lethal options was really brought home due to tactical issues during US operations in Somalia between 1992 and 1995.
During this civil war, the US deployed troops to create secure environments for humanitarian relief work in what was known as Operation Restore Hope. It was a joint program with the United Nations aimed at restoring order after the Somalian central government collapsed in 1991. The conflict had been fueled by clan rivalries that led to violence that hindered aid efforts.
Armed with equipment and operational experience gained during the Cold War, the US military was not able to effectively deal with resistance from the population. Verbal warnings followed by lethal force were not sufficient to deal with people throwing rocks and improvised weapons, or looting aid and equipment. Lethal force was reserved only for self-defense, so this offered a means for people to get around the US forces. At the same time, civilians became embroiled in the conflict in ways that blurred the lines between combatant and non-combatant status, as children and women worked with armed operatives.
It was a messy, complex, and unfortunately bloody experience, which brought to light many ethical dilemmas that foreshadowed many issues that would be present in America’s and the UK’s overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s. Nevertheless, the struggles in Somalia underlined the need for alternative weapon options for military forces.
So, in 1996, the US Department of Defense and institutions like the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate amped up developing tools for waging different types of conflicts. Now, this isn’t to say the military abandoned its need for lethal weapons. As David A. Koplow, a specialist in public international law and national security law, once said, the military remains committed to “kill people and break things”. This means that if combat involves an enemy that is still shooting live munitions, then that will require a similar response. Nevertheless, for more than 20 years, the US and many other countries have explored alternative weapons that are meant to be less lethal, have shorter term impacts, and are safer for the environment.
“A [gun] by any other name still [kills]”
Today, there are a variety of non-lethal weapons being used by military, police, and security forces across the world. Notable examples include tasers, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, water cannons, pepper spray, flash grenades, batons, and tear gas, just to name a few. As mentioned above, the aim of these weapons is to be non-lethal, but several controversies have revealed this label to be a misnomer at best. For instance, during the 2020 George Floyd protests, law enforcement officers fired non-lethal projectiles into the crowds, causing brain injuries and even partially blinding some people.
Rather than regarding these as non-lethal weapons, some have suggested they should be called “less-lethal weapons”, but this itself belies the long-term impacts that injuries from such weapons can have. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have documented their excessive use and misuse during various protests, which have resulted in serious injuries and even deaths.
In addition to projectiles, there is also a whole range of more technologically sophisticated options in use and in development. These include Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADS), which use sound to incapacitate opponents and have been used by both military and police forces across the world. There are also plans to develop so-called “dazzlers”, weapons that use intense radiation to temporarily disorient combatants with blinding flashes. These weapons grew out of earlier research by the American military to create lasers that could essentially cook someone’s eyes so they were blinded from a distance.
As you can imagine, these early efforts at harnessing lasers for combat received significant criticism and were not developed due to their obvious human rights violations. Intentionally and permanently blinding someone is as ethically dubious as burning someone with napalm or maiming them with explosives or mines. And herein lies the issue with non-lethal weapons: they are still open to unethical exploitation. In fact, common criticisms against the development of non-lethal weapons include the concerns that they blur the lines between human control and abuse.
Another example of this is the so-called Active Denial System that is being developed by the US military. This technology uses extremely high-frequency millimeter-wavelength electromagnetic rays to heat skin on contact. Anyone hit by them will experience pain and a burning sensation on their skin. They are intended for use against crowds and protestors and are in active development. But these weapons have received little independent, peer-reviewed safety testing.
What little data there is seems to suggest that the Active Denial System tested on military volunteers has led to skin burns, blistering, and prolonged pain. Moreover, the electromagnetic waves are potentially capable of penetrating the skin’s dermal layer (middle layer), where blood vessels, nerves, and glands are. At this intensity, thin layers of skin, such as those on the face or around the eyes, could easily be penetrated and injured more severely.
This lack of scientific transparency means that their long-term health implications are still not known. And this raises another issue for the development of non-lethal weapons. Aside from potentially violating international laws around human rights or even legal weapons or warfare, the development of such weapons takes place in secret and could well generate further distrust in scientific practice. At the same time, as technologies progress and become cheaper and easier to produce, we see weapons that were once reserved for the battlefield (such as LRADs) passing into the hands of the police, further militarizing law enforcement.
So, on the face of it, non-lethal weapons may sound like a positive step in military and police activity, but the whole category is riddled with issues that present a murky legal and ethical space. They may promise to reduce fatalities, but poor oversight and ambiguous definitions, coupled with misuse, have caused them to fall short of their humane ideals. Increasingly, these weapons raise questions about the correct balance between security and civil rights as well as what role science should play in their development.
Source Link: The “Gay Bomb” And Beyond: The US Military’s Wildest Non-Lethal Weapons Schemes
