Brain Brinksmanship - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 122

(Clancy 2006; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 2008; Hearns 2008; Huang and Kosal 2008).
Obviously, if Western nations within NATO (e.g., the United States and its allies) are
committed to neuroscience research, it is reasonable that People's Republic of China,
Russia, Iran, and North Korea would be similarly invested in such work. It should be
expected that other nations will also develop new technologies that apply biotechnology
to anticipate, find, fix, track, identify, and characterize human intent and physiological
status. For example, research involving transcranial pulsed ultrasound technology that
could be fitted to troops' battle helmets would allow soldiers to manipulate brain func-
tions to boost alertness, relieve stress, or perhaps even reduce the effects of brain insult.
Manipulating the brain to enhance warfighting capabilities and maintain mental acuity
on the battlefield has long been a field of interest for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) and various military research labs (Hoag 2003; Adams 2005;
Smith and Bigelow 2006; Boyle 2010), but this remains relatively limited in scope.
It is not unrealistic to expect that certain technologies, packaged in a warfighter's
equipment array, could allow soldiers to stimulate different regions of the brain, helping
to relieve battle stress or to enhance alertness during long periods without sleep. Soldiers
might relieve pain from injuries or wounds without resorting to pharmaceuticals. Such
ends could be seen as a benign and legitimate pursuit of advanced technology.
To a great extent, this research and development is largely defensive in nature,
designed to enhance protective options for individual soldiers. Its undeniable bene-
its, however, deserve to be weighed against its long-term offensive potential. Turning
to psychological warfare experiences and precepts may be somewhat helpful, albeit
to a limited extent. Looking at the immediate and long-term effect of neuroweapons
and their foundations in brain science, Giordano and Wurzman (Chapter 7) note:
Given the relative nascence of neuroscience and much of neurotechnology development
and use of neuroweapons are incipient, and in some cases, their utility is speculative.
But speculation must acknowledge that neurotechnological progress is real, and there-
fore consideration of neurotechnologies-as-weapons is both important and necessary.
So, like most scientific research, there is an inherent dual-use devil embedded in all
aspects of neuroscientific advancement. Opportunities for benefits, well-being, and
tools to improve human life abound, but so does the darker side of escalating use,
misuse, and abuse that arises from weaponization. Brain science progresses at a pace
that may outstrip the time needed for ethical reflection, the formulation of ground-
rules and guidelines, and mechanisms for governance (Giordano and Benedikter
2011). Regrettably, this may allow malevolent diversion and misuse to flourish along-
side benevolent achievement and application. One could speculate that deliberate
manipulation of news items, editorials, media tautologies, and ongoing perceptual
warfare campaigns—like a psychological operations (PSYOPs) program—could
subtly steer a point of view driven by economic and/or geopolitical interests.
NEUROWEAPONRY AND THE GLOBAL BATTLESPACE
The Department of Defense defines a “battlespace” as “. . . the environment, factors,
and conditions which must be understood to successfully apply combat power, pro-
tect the force, or complete the mission. This includes the air, land, sea, space, and the