“NEURINT” and Neuroweapons - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 81

the ability to efficiently handle amassed, complex data, and human tactical or strategic
efforts. The objectives for neuroweapons in a traditional defense context (e.g., combat)
may be achieved by altering (i.e., either augmenting or degrading) functions of the ner-
vous system, so as to affect cognitive, emotional and/or motor activity, and capability (e.g.,
perception, judgment, morale, pain tolerance, or physical abilities and stamina). Many
technologies (e.g., neurotropic drugs; interventional neurostimulatory devices) can be
employed to produce these effects. As both “nonkinetic” (i.e., providing means of con-
tending) and “kinetic” weapons (i.e., providing means to injure, [physically] defeat, or
destroy), there is particularly great utility for neuroweapons in irregular warfare, where
threat environments are “asymmetric, amorphous, complex, rapidly changing, and uncer-
tain” and require greater “speed and flexibility in US intelligence gathering and decision-
making” (Canna and Popp 2011, 1).
As implements that target, measure, interact with, or simulate nervous system structure,
function and processes, the use of neurotechnologies as weapons are by no means a new
innovation, per se . Historically, such weapons have included nerve gas and various drugs.
Weaponized gas has taken several forms: lachrymatory agents (aka. tear gases), toxic
irritants (e.g., phosgene, chlorine), vesicants (blistering agents; e.g., mustard gas), and
paralytics (e.g., sarin). The escalation of the 2013 conflict in Syria involving the use of
weaponized gas demonstrated the ongoing relevance of nervous system targets. Yet these
may seem crude when compared to the capabilities of the more sophisticated approaches
that can be used today—or in the near future, as novel targets and more powerful deliv-
ery mechanisms are discovered (Romano et al. 2007). Pharmacologic stimulants (e.g.,
amphetamines) and various ergogenics (e.g., anabolic steroids) have been used to augment
combatant vigilance, and sedatives (e.g., barbiturates) have been employed to alter cogni-
tive inhibition and facilitate cooperation during interrogation (Goldstein 1996; Abu-Qare
et al. 2002; Moreno 2006; McCoy 2006; Romano et al. 2007). Sensory stimuli have
been applied as neuroweapons: some to directly transmit excessively intense amounts of
energy to be transduced by a sensory modality (e.g., sonic weaponry to incapacitate the
enemy), while others cause harm by exceeding the thresholds and limits of tolerable expe-
rience by acting at the level of conscious perception (e.g., prolonged flashing lights, irritat-
ing music, and sleep deprivation to decrease resistance to interrogation) (McCoy 2006).
Even the distribution of emotionally provocative propaganda as psychological warfare
could be considered to be an indirect form of neuroweapon (Black 2009).
While such an expansive consideration may be important to evaluate the
historicity, operational utility, and practical (and ethical) implications of
neurotechnology-as-weapons, in this chapter we primarily seek to provide a con-
cise overview of neuroweapons and therefore restrict discussion to applications of
emergent technologies of cognitive neuroscience, computational neuroscience, neu-
ropharmacology, neurotoxicology, and neuromicrobiology. The former approaches
(e.g., cognitive and computational neuroscience;) could be used for more indirect
(yet still neurofocal) applications, including the enablement and/or enhancing of
human efforts by simulating brain functions, and the classification and detection
of human cognitive, emotional, and motivational states to augment intelligence,
counterintelligence, or human terrain deployment strategies. The latter methods
(e.g., neuropharmacology, neurotoxicology, and neuromicrobiology) have potential
utility in more combat-related or special operations' scenarios.