yes / The length of this Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project Report No.7 again reflects the interest related to non-lethal weapons from academics, research institutes, policy makers, the police and the military. A number of reports, particularly concerning the Taser electro-shock weapon, have been published from these sectors since our last BNLWRP Report No.6 in October 2004. Some, such as the Amnesty International (U.S. and Canada) have again raised, and stressed, the concerns about the safety of the weapon and the number of deaths associated with its use. Others, such as the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence (HECOE), Human Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular Incapacitation Device ¿ A Limited Analysis of the TASER. (March 2005) concluded that the Taser was relatively safe, but that further research was needed into potential bio-effects, and for continual development into a safer weapon. Reaction to these reports was mixed. Some US legislators called for limitations on the use of Tasers, more accountability, and the detailed recording of incidents in which they were used.1 Others called for a ban on their use until more testing was carried out regarding their potentially harmful effects. A number of US police forces stopped the use of Taser, slowed down the deployment and ordering of the weapons, reviewed their rules of engagement and reporting, and revisited their operational guidelines. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published the Electro- Muscular Disruption Technology (EMDT). A Nine-Step Strategy For Effective Deployment. (April 2005) as a response to these growing concerns. Certain elements of the media, especially The Arizona Republic2 and others, took a hostile view of what they considered the scandal of the number of deaths and associated serious injuries caused by the Taser. Taser International challenged allegations that their weapon was directly responsible for these deaths and quoted reports, such as the Madison Police Department report (February 2005), the study by McDaniel, W & Stratbucker, R & Nerheim, M & Brewer, J. Cardiac Safety of Neuromuscular Incapacitating Defensive Devices (January 2005), and the U.K. DOMILL Statement (March 2005) to support their view. The controversy continues. Other than Tasers, there are still few reports of the newer non-lethal technologies actually being deployed in operations. The exception to this is the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), which is now in widespread use in Iraq. Little additional information has appeared regarding the `active denial¿ weapon we have described in previous reports.

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited / This thesis will address the planned configuration of Lockheed Martin's Flight Zero, Module Spiral Alpha Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the ongoing development of the SPARTAN SCOUT, one of the Navy's Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV). Technology currently available as well as developmental technologies will be recommended for implementation in order to make the LCS and SCOUT assets to Information Operations (IO) objectives. Specific technology will include Outboard, TARBS, HPM, Loudspeakers, LRAD and Air Magnet. This thesis will include an evaluation of the current policy for authorizing Information Operations missions, specifically in the areas of Psychological Operations (PSYOP) and Electronic Warfare (EW). / Lieutenant, United States Navy

yes / New non-lethal technologies (weapons and delivery systems) continue to make the news, both for their civil and military applications. Technologies which were considered to be in the realm of science fiction a few years ago, are now beginning to undergo field trials or, in some cases, are being deployed with police and soldiers on active service. As this, and our previous reports have highlighted, the development of acoustic weapons (Long Range Acoustic Device) and microwave weapons (Active Denial System) have proceeded rapidly as have advances in robotic, unmanned vehicles for the delivery of both lethal and non-lethal weapons. We repeat our concern that there is a danger of these new non-lethal technologies being `rushed¿ into service (1) without thorough testing for harmful health effects, (2) without a deeper consideration of civil and human rights, (3) without full discussion of their impact on arms control treaties and conventions, and (4) without further study of their social and cultural impact. Since many such weapons will have a rheostatic capacity along the non-lethal to lethal continuum, it is important that weapons developers and manufacturers, and those charged with the responsibility of using them, are held clearly accountable and have transparent rules of engagement. Of particular concern are a new generation of biological and chemical weapons. With respect to the health impact, NATO has a panel working on NLW human effects, the Human Factors and Medicine (HFM) Panel 073, which is due to report later this year (2004) on the Human Effects of Non-Lethal Technologies.1