WEAPONS U.S. looks at biotech advances for battle

The Pentagon must consider whether international treaties would be violated and how to protect the innocent.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
The use of poison gas to subdue Chechen rebels in Moscow, together with what the Bush administration says is the growing threat of Iraq's chemical weapons, comes as the United States itself investigates new substances that can be used to disable terrorists -- perhaps even battlefield opponents.
More profoundly, the opiate used to knock out the Chechen attackers (which killed 117 of 763 hostages) reflects a new era in weapons development: using biotech advances to degrade enemy forces while enhancing one's own troops. According to Pentagon documents, the Defense Department is studying the development and use of so-called "calmative" chemicals as well as "incapacitants, malodorants and possibly convulsants." The idea is to take the fight out of an attacker without inflicting mortal damage.
One report commissioned by the Marine Corps' Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate concluded after an "extensive review conducted on the medical literature and new developments in the pharmaceutical industry" that "the development and use of [incapacitating agents] is achievable and desirable."
Treaty violations
Critics say that by designing such weapons as an 81-millimeter mortar round that can carry a chemical payload a mile and a half, the United States may be violating international treaties.
As was true during the Moscow hostage crisis, the challenge will be minimizing harm to innocent civilians. Officials appear to recognize the sensitivity of this matter: A Defense Department review of legal requirements for nonlethal weapons development asks "whether the weapon causes unnecessary suffering ... whether the weapon is capable of being controlled in a discriminatory manner ... whether there is a specific rule of law prohibiting its use."
Three treaties
Chemical and biological weapons are controlled by three treaties dating back to 1925. In essence, nations may not develop, possess or use such weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 has been signed by 174 countries (including the United States) that pledged to destroy chemical arsenals.
The treaty defines a chemical agent as "any chemical, which ... can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals." That would seem to describe the opiate fentanyl used by Russian security forces.
But the treaty also allows the use of chemical agents for riot control and other law-enforcement activities -- a loophole that presumably could be interpreted to mean anything related to domestic terrorism, perhaps even "hot pursuit" of terrorists beyond national boundaries.
One major problem is the relative level of effect among combatants and civilians -- including children and the elderly, who may suffer much worse effects (including death) than stronger and fitter soldiers. Trying to incapacitate snipers in -- say -- downtown Baghdad makes it very difficult to discriminate between combatants and bystanders caught in the crossfire, as it was in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.
Performance enhancement
The concern about developing chemical and biological weapons has a broader context as well: the Pentagon's research into "performance-enhancing" drugs. U.S. Air Force pilots flying long-range missions regularly take amphetamines ("go pills") to fight fatigue and then sedatives ("no-go pills") to induce sleep.
But far more advanced means of enhancing performance are being studied by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and other Defense Department organizations. One example is quarter-sized body "monitors" that can be implanted under the skin of a soldier's neck and used to trigger the release of chemicals for "body regulation" and the release of "rejuvenating drugs."
"That research is very much alive and well," says retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, the Navy's former chief of operational testing and evaluation.
The danger is that it may be only a short step from developing chemical and biological agents that enhance U.S. soldier's performance from those that degrade enemy troops. In fact, the potential for overlap in the research leaves some experts worried.
"It would be difficult to argue that military performance enhancers violate any treaties," says Edward Hammond, director of the Sunshine Project in Austin, Tex., a research center that investigates biological and chemical weapons in the United States and Europe. "But their widespread use would lower the threshold for use of chemical weapons, particularly psychoactive substances, in conflict."
"If enhancing yourself is routine," Hammond asks, "how large a step would it be to chemically 'diminish' or 'de-enhance' your enemy?"
What seems likely is that the science of such advanced weaponry soon could outpace anything envisioned in arms control treaties -- if it hasn't already. "There is a profound revolution under way in biology," says Mark Wheelis, a microbiologist at the University of California, Davis. "The same tools that are revolutionizing drug discovery can be used to discover novel biochemical agents for the purpose of weaponization." This could even include genetically engineered biological weapons designed to attack things like camouflage paint, stealth coatings and electronic insulation -- an area of research sought by the Navy and the Air Force.