by Emmy Tither*
The sun began to rise over the ancient city. Outside the city’s walls, an encircling army marched silently for the seventh day, their footsteps synchronized, their faces resolute.
On this final day, as the army’s priests blew their trumpets, a powerful, reverberating sound filled the air. Soldiers shouted in unison, the ground trembled, stones began to shift and crack. The sound waves collided with once impenetrable walls that now crumbled to the ground. The army surged forward, its path cleared.
As this retelling of the Biblical story of the fall of Jericho shows, sound as a weapon — in this case, used to bring down the city’s walls — has been a part of chronicles of war for thousands of years, even making its way into religious narratives. However, regulation to prevent or minimize the use of sound as a tool of destruction is lacking. This has potentially devastating consequences such as traumatic brain injuries, permanent hearing loss and psychological trauma. To begin to ameliorate this, the international community must treat dangerous or lethal acoustic devices legally as weapons, and international control regimes, primarily the Wassenaar Arrangement, must expand to include acoustic weaponry.
Acoustic weaponry is broadly defined in two parts. Firstly, the use of sound itself as the main component of a weapon, such as in Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs). Secondly, the use of sound as a fear-inducing component of a larger weapon, such as through drone noise or acoustic booms caused by aircraft. Acoustic weapons are also often termed “sonic weapons” and can involve sound within or the human hearing range.
Their use is widespread, yet regulation is disjointed. For example, LRADs are reportedly used in more than 100 countries — but have been subjected to few attempts at regulation. Exceptions do exist, however, such as Chile’s call for regulation of some acoustic weapons. As anything that can be weaponized can be used to violate human rights, the international community must create specific regulation to address sound’s capacity for violence — including the long history of the use of music as a weapon and its use in torture.
In contrast, the regulation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) — nuclear, chemical and biological — has a long history rooted in the devastating consequences of their possible use. This has led to the creation of a number of international control regimes which, despite shortcomings, have proved effective in limiting proliferation.
Unfortunately, there are no international treaties specifically addressing the use of acoustic weapons. Acoustic weaponry isn’t designated as a WMD, despite its effects on human and nonhuman animals and the surrounding environment. The regulation of acoustic weapons has, perhaps, much to learn from regimes developed to discourage the proliferation of other dangerous items.
The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), “primarily a transparency regime, meant to encourage restraint in the export of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies (items with both civilian and military applications)”, is insufficient on its own in the long term to regulate acoustic weaponry due to its nature both as a product and as a component of other forms of weaponry. It is a possible stepping stone, though. Including acoustic weaponry in the WA control lists would curtail its spread and use by forcing governments to consider military use and possible human rights implications before allowing its transfer.
There are drawbacks to the WA. It lacks an enforcement mechanism, for example. Still, including acoustic weaponry on the list would be an achievement in its own right by garnering international recognition that acoustic weaponry represents a threat to human lives.
But how can one limit the use of acoustic weapons appropriately? Firstly, governments should support a full ban on weaponization of sound itself, both within and beyond the range of human hearing, as the main component of a weapon. The impetus for this ban follows the logic behind the International Court of Justice’s decision on nuclear weapons; countries can’t attack civilians or use weapons that can’t discriminate between civilians and military targets, nor can they cause unnecessary suffering to adversaries. Sound cannot be contained in combat. It cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, just as WMDs cannot. It can also cause unnecessary and permanent suffering to combatants.
Therefore, it should never be the main component of a weapon.
At the same time, the use of sound as a fear-inducing component of a larger weapon needs to be regulated. Banned uses must safeguard people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). It is impossible to eliminate sound from warfare completely, but regulations should include limiting where sonic booms can occur and through which areas drones can fly on the way to battle. They should also include rules to limit the creation of new weapons that use sound as the main part of their design.
“The intensity of being hit at close range by a high-pitched sound blast designed to deter pirate boats and terrorists at least a quarter mile away is indescribable. The sound vibrates through you and causes pain throughout your body, not only in the ears. I thought I might die.”
Sound itself can be violence. As a first step, governance structures must acknowledge this and subject sound-based weaponry to proliferation controls as other military items. No one has come up with a perfect solution that addresses all issues yet, but gaining international recognition of a form of violence that has dogged humanity for millennia would be a critical starting point upon which further, more permanent, regulations could be built.
*Editor’s note: Writing for the Center’s new Next Up in Arms Control series, Emmy Tither is a PhD student in the Informatics program at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and conducts research on the intersection of sound, violence, and international law.
DISCLAIMER: Next Up in Arms Control is a way for the Center to present an opportunity for dialogue and provocation through the thoughtful exchange of ideas and opinions on new or different ways to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear threats. Opinions are the authors’ alone and not necessarily reflective of Center’s positions on the issues addressed.
