The maximum pain

This article is just the latest in a series. For more than a decade now, the popular press has offered glimpses of research into non-lethal weaponry.

Not many years ago, the articles would emphasize such items as "sticky-foam" and tasers. Usually, the last few paragraphs would offer hints -- mere whispers -- of more ominous developments: Blinding lasers. Mood-altering electromagnetics. Riot control gear that could cause protestors to become violently ill. Weapons that could induce pain without frying the flesh.

Now the non-lethal researchers are taking off the petticoats to show what they have underneath. The new weaponry will involved Pulsed Energy Projectiles:

The new study, which runs until July and will be carried out with researchers at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, aims to optimize this effect. The idea is to work out how to generate a pulse which triggers pain neurons without damaging tissue.

The contract, heavily censored before release, asks researchers to look for "optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation" - in other words, cause the maximum pain possible. Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death

One can just guess how such a device would be used in a prison such as Abu Ghraib.

John Alexander, once the head of non-lethal research, used to justify the development of these weapons by asking: "Which would you rather be, shot or shocked?" That simplistic query avoids the real issue.

The problem with such weaponry is that the rulers of any given nation define which forms of protest are legitimate and which are not. "Well," a non-lethal proponent might argue, "if you think your right to protest is being diminished, simply vote for politicians who will restore your rights." But what about crooked politicians who achieve office through subterfuge or fraud? What if you live in a non-democratic nation?

Introduction of a pulsed energy weapon -- an utterly debilitating and agonizingly effective device, resistant to all countermeasures -- would lower the threshold for use. A cop ordered to quash a demonstration will use a "pain beam" far more readily than he will use a gun.

Democracy depends, in a strange way, on revolution. Of course, revolt is always an ugly thing, and must always remain the tool of final resort. Yet the possibility of rebellion is the only thing that has ever kept any government honest. Any technology which removes that possibility makes tyranny inevitable.

Ultimately, non-lethal weapons will prove far more dangerous than guns, or even bombs. A bullet kills a person. Non-lethal weaponry can kill the very concept of freedom.

The referenced article mentions one Brian Cooper, "an expert in dental pain at the University of Florida," who was apparently consulted as part of this research. He seems to have been embarrassed and flustered to learn that his name was listed in connection with such a weapon.

A question for Dr. Cooper: If the weapon you helped develop enters the American aresnal (if it has not done so already), will protest remain permissible? Will popular revolt remain possible, even in the case of outrageous corruption?

Only one thing can impede techno-tyranny: Technicians who can foresee the consequences, and who cannot condone, rationalize or participate. We need to make sure that more scientists like Dr. Cooper feel the pangs of conscience and the burden of responsibility.