The Delhi Police has recently inducted an all-woman Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team comprising 36 elite women commandos, trained for anti-terrorist operations. The three wings of the military also have Special Forces which include MARCOS, Para Commandos, the Ghatak, the Garud Commando Force and the National Security Guards. In addition, the CRPF has the specialised COBRA (Commando Battalion for Resolute Action) force and has trained women commandos to deal with difficult situations. The members of these forces are equipped with body armours, communication systems, devices to enhance vision, and the best possible weapon systems.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

The issue that is emerging is whether neuroscience, biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence could be used to enhance the capabilities of the Special Forces to help them complete missions more safely, effectively and economically. In a number of war-like situations, the human brain is faster than a computer in perceiving threats, yet a computer is faster than a human being in calculating countermeasures. Therefore, the forces that are able to combine the two will gain an advantage over those that do not. Enhancing the capability of security personnel with the help of neuroscience is another area that is being explored. For instance, currently one operator is needed to pilot a single drone. If the cognitive capabilities of a drone operator can be enhanced, a single operator may be able to pilot a swarm of drones in future.

The medical enhancement of the capabilities of troops is not new. Throughout history, armies have used risky enhancements such as addictive drugs to improve soldiers’ performance. For example, caffeine, modanifil, and amphetamines have been shown to be highly effective in temporarily reversing the degradation of the mental performance of sleep-deprived soldiers. The US military and other armies gave amphetamines to soldiers to overcome battle fatigue during World War II. The German military provided a stimulant called Pervitin to soldiers in combat. During the Vietnam War, the level of psychoactive substances consumption by military personnel was unprecedented in American history. David Grossman in On Killing, writes, “Vietnam was the first war in which the forces of modern pharmacology were directed to empower the battlefield soldier.” Even today, military personnel are prescribed such drugs; however, this is treated as classified information.

In a few developed countries, neurological research is directed towards developing military applications for human enhancement—to reduce the need for sleep, to increase the brain’s capacity to retrieve information pertinent to a specific mission, to assist in decision-making under extreme battlefield stress. This may have serious ethical, legal, social, and operational implications.

The ethical issues which emerge are: If an “enhanced soldier” went out of control and violated the laws of war, who would be at fault? Would it be the soldier, the combat leader, or the medical team that created him? Wars are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), which is a set of legal principles designed to protect those affected by conflict and to regulate the means of warfare. Under the IHL, military action must meet military necessity, use force that is proportional to the objective obtained, treat combatants and prisoners of war humanely, and not target civilians. Would we have to modify IHL to deal with enhanced soldiers? Could an enhanced soldier who is taken a prisoner of war be subjected to reverse engineering, biological or neural implants? Would it be permissible to overload an implanted chip such that it may cause brain damage through an electrical overload of neural circuits in a soldier? What would be the ethics of fighting an enhanced soldier? Would the Geneva Conventions apply?

The human rights issues relating to enhanced soldiers are more complex. Despite their enhanced status such soldiers would remain fundamentally human. The preamble of all the universal human rights instruments refer to “all members of the human family” and address the rights contained therein to “all human beings”. Soldiers have the right to life, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war. Enhancement technologies may adversely affect the right to life where the use of a particular technology poses a risk to a soldier and may result in his death. On the other hand, enhanced soldiers may infringe on the right to life by causing the wrongful death of civilians while under the influence of their enhancement. While an enhanced soldier who can withstand pain and operate effectively under stress may benefit a State, the opponent may be forced to develop weapons that cause excruciating pain or suffering to neutralise such a soldier. 

While the enhancement of soldiers sounds tempting, genetic engineering has a serious downside. Its unpredictable nature generates questions of safety and the potential side-effects of modifying genetic pathways. We must not forget that athletes are forbidden to use illegal substances to increase their performance. Governments must consider all the pros and cons of genetic engineering before deciding whether its use in the military and other forces would be truly advantageous.

The author is a Wing Commander (retd). Views are personal.