Acoustic Weapons
Memorandum For Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) Delegates
16 December 1999
TO: Delegates to First Annual Conference on CCW Amended Protocol II
FROM: Arms Division of Human Rights Watch
RE: Acoustic Weapons
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; (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.
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