Pulsed Energy Projectiles -keep those protesters quiet!

More from HSUS (Humane Society of U.S.)

E. The HSUS Expresses Concern over Testing of Pulsed Energy Projectiles

March 21, 2005

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

As practicing physicians and as board members of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which represents more than eight million members and constituents, we are writing to express our serious concerns with the development of pulsed energy projectiles (PEPs). We are concerned about the suffering and harm these weapons will cause not only to the animals used in the testing but to the people who will be the ultimate targets of PEPs. We are also concerned about the scientific relevance and need for such testing.

The Office of Naval Research has funded and continues to fund projects aimed at developing and testing PEPs ("Maximum Pain is Aim of New US Weapon," New Scientist, March 5, 2005). A 2003 review indicated that a number of PEP tests conducted on animals were found to cause pain and temporary paralysis. It is our understanding from the report of the New Scientist that one PEP weapon, currently being tested at the University of Central Florida, is meant to deliver a "bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away." The study aims to maximize the pain delivered by the weapon without damaging tissue.

We believe that subjecting animals to such severe pain for the purpose of testing these weapons is unacceptable, and we are confident that the American public would similarly disapprove. A recent opinion poll indicates that 75% of the public opposes research that causes severe animal pain and/or distress even when it is health-related. We suspect that public opposition would only increase when the research in question was weapons-related.

The human welfare issues raised by this research are also significant. Already, pain researchers, psychologists and others have raised a variety of ethical concerns, such as the potential use of these weapons by the military for torture purposes and the long-term psychological impact on victims.

It is also highly relevant that data gathered from the use of animals for such testing does not adequately predict what will happen when the weapons are used on humans. As physicians, we have witnessed the difficulty of directly applying the results of animal research to humans and the negative consequences of relying on such animal tests. Misleading results could lead to the waste of lives, both human and nonhuman, as well as the dissipation of millions of taxpayer dollars. The PEP project at the University of Central Florida alone will cost a minimum of $500,000.

We urge the Office of Naval Research to end the use of animals for the testing of PEP and similar energy-directed weapons. We would be happy to elaborate upon our concerns if you or one of your designees would like to meet.

Sincerely,

David Wiebers, M.D.
Chairman of the Board

Jennifer Leaning, M.D.
Member, Board of Directors


The HSUS Expresses Concern to Pentagon About Painful Weapons Tests on Animals

Anyone know that status of this weapon? I'm sure HSUS' plea just went straight to where Rummy's heart should be.

Paralysis? That's perfect!

The only reason that I could possibly see why you're against this is because it inflicts pain on people...would you rather they died?

I would rather humans did not inflict pain on other humans. Wouldn't you?

To 'practice' on innocent animals who rely on humans for protection is despicable. Why don't they test it on the child killers on death row in prisons? Against their civil rights? Do they have rights? I don't consider them human, but perhaps you do. I guess Hannibal the Cannibal was human, too, eh? But I like the idea of testing on politicians, too!!

The propensity for using this weapon against 'enemies' of the US, including its own people for controlling protests, is frightening and a reality.

Too bad the US doesn't spend more time/money on health concerns for its people. The worst in the world, unless you're rich. Pretty sad. Millions w/o health care.

This IS the 21 century, is it not? Or is it still the Dark Ages in the US?

How about using brains rather than bombs to solve problems in the world. We all know (India, Pakistan, Israel, US, etc) can annihilate everything on the planet, so what?

Haven't human beings evolved enough by now to begin utilizing other methods to solve problems, rather than 'my bomb is bigger than your bomb". Rather childish.

I realize the US military would not like THAT idea, I mean, military defense is a big budget item there, gotta have weapons and keep the Carlyle Group in the money, not to mention Halliburton (Cheney).

True, I would rather we didn't inflict unnatural pain on each other. However, that doesn't mean that I disapprove the use of pain when it is necessary.

You mentioned a protest as an example. Protests occur all the time without a need for any force, but when a protest turns into a riot, peacekeeping force becomes a necessity or else you'll have a large group of people hurting each other rather than a few skilled police quelling the riot with minimal pain. Yes, it's just the lesser of two evils, but if you can create and implement an efficient plan to stop a riot without causing any pain then I'm sure you would have a much stronger argument against the use of pain as a tool. Until then, it's our best option.

As for testing, I'm not entirely certain that I would trust the idea that testing on animals is immoral from a person that thinks that animals are better than (at least some) humans. However, I will concede that animals are, at least, on the same level as humans. So let me ask you a question: Given an even choice between testing on a chicken and testing on a human, would you choose the one in which the chance of a mistake leads to dinner or the one that leads to a murder trial?

Finally, you ask, "Haven't human beings evolved enough by now to begin utilizing other methods to solve problems, rather than 'my bomb is bigger than your bomb?" You already know that the answer is obviously a very blunt "No." Human beings (and every other animal, for that matter) haven't evolved very much during the span of recorded history. The tactics to keep us alive back then are still being used to keep us alive right now. It simply isn't childish -- it's survival.

If you don't learn from the past, you're condemned to repeat it. I guess humans are just too stupid or have very short memories.

Pain has been used to control riots for centuries. It has not stopped riots. What needs to be addressed is why the riots are happening, still, in the 21 C.

It's the same old story: a few people want to control the many and will do so by any means possible.

But, why not use rubber bullets instead of something that can cause paralysis and severe pain, possibly death to an older person?

I distrust anything that the Pentagon develops. Protests in America are not going to be allowed to happen like they did in the 60's. This new toy is just a forerunner of the toys to come to control the population, and I will be watching with interest to see what happens.

Your question about a chicken vs man will need to be restated. Don't quite understand what you're getting at. But then, it's getting late.

Why not use rubber bullets? Keep in mind that a rubber bullet has the potential to break bones, cause hemorrhaging and permanent organ damage, and kill if medical aid is not given quickly to those with serious wounds or if a person is hit in the head. Because of this coupled with the fact that a bullets destination is often unreliable, I would have to go with the PEP which deals no permanent physical damage whatsoever.

And, contrary to your own opinion, pain has stopped riots. Tear gas, for example, is used to disperse large groups of people -- it is a well known fact that if you take away or disable the mob, you cannot have a mob mentality. Thus, there have been many instances of police using the pain of tear gas to control, contain, and quell a riot.

But let's get off the subject of riots. According to reports that I've read, this technology was developed with the intent of being used against hostile enemy forces -- not American civilians -- in order to distract, disorient, and suppress snipers, soldiers in a crowd of civilians (without harming the civilians!), and riots not unlike those in Somalia while keeping our armed forces completely safe. Would you really like to tell our soldiers that you want to deprive them of a piece of technology that could help save many of them from death because it causes pain to their attackers?

Yes Individual,
Englishmajor would.
I have dealt with this person in the past,and they seem to be in favor of anything that would hurt American soldiers.
If this weapon were developed by the Chinese,or the North Koreans,then EM would be in favor of it.

It seems he left the discussion anyway. Oh well...