By: Julissa Mustafa
It’s amazing what sound can do to you, and it is all covered in Juliette Volcler’s book: ‘Extremely Loud: Sound as a Weapon’. Based on the title itself, it is clear that the author intends to prove the point that sound may be used as a weapon. Since she is a journalist, I find that she writes thoroughly and her research is in-depth. In this easy-to-read book, she makes it comfortable for us to understand her timeline since the usage of sound as a weapon is divided into ‘military use’, ‘non-lethal weapons’ and ‘crowd control’.
The approach in explaining her point comprises under six chapters, which I find well categorised: the technicalities of the human ear; low-frequency sounds; explosions; silence; medium-frequency sounds; and the general power of sound. Concerning pain, sound affects not only the human ear, but also the mind and overall body. The spectrum of pain starts at sleep disturbances, fatigue, apathy, depression, loss of concentration and confusion;[1]which then escalates to moderate chest wall vibration, blurred vision, severe respiratory and scars on the tympanic membrane.[2]From the overall pain, it can be seen that targeted ‘death’ is not on the agenda.
The first thing I noticed is that she does not define ‘weapon’ or ‘tool’. In effect, it gives a subjective perspective of what the term means, but at the same time, it opens the mind of the reader to categorise each ‘object’ by ourselves.
Moving to the first point, it’s noted that the experiments of sound as a weapon were initiated for military purposes. The frequency of these weapons ranges from low frequencies such as Gavreau’s ‘gigantic whistle’; Hungary’s ‘infrasonic weapons of mass destruction’; Russia’s ‘infrasonic bullet’; and United States’ ‘low-collateral-damage’.[3]However, they are impractical weapons. The same conclusion is obtained for (non-frequency) ‘noise’ weapons. Certain examples such as ‘wonder weapon’, ‘miniature tornadoes’, ‘wind gun’ and ‘vortex rings’ gun all weapons which use the abrupt changes of pressure. These weapons have never passed the experimental phase, and the effect of it is diverse making it hard to prove the author’s point. Funnily enough, I wouldn’t consider pressure weapons under the category of ‘sound’.
The only proven use of sound in military conditions was with medium to high frequencies in World War II. These frequencies are the range for music and sirens in military broadcasts.[4]The effects, however, was not physical ‘pain’ but rather psychological. Several examples include the German J-87 dive bombers (Stukas) which bombed the roads in Ukraine on August 1941; at that same time the Stukas had sirens screaming for an extra psychological effect. This resulted in people falling to the ground or ran in panic’.[5]Another an example is in the Vietnam War where helicopter broadcasters played recordings in high volume at night making the listeners unbearable. One Viet Cong commander complained these audio messages was even heard through the earth. The ‘advantage’ of this operation in a pilot’s view was that these ‘psychological attacks’ helped them make killing easier.[6]In this case, I would argue that sound ‘aided’ military actions, as opposed to creating a direct physical effect of a weapon.
The second category which also coincides with military purposes is deemed as ‘non-lethal’ weapons. I find that this argument proves her point. For example, the usage of practice grenades (which has bright light and a strong sound) was suggested by U.S. Colonel Rex Applegate’s book for riot control. This particular item was used for law enforcement such as in France back in May 1968, or during a demonstration by the fishermen in Rennes.[7]
Next, an experiment was developed by the CIA, and professors which aimed for a ‘no-touch-torture’ or a psychological attack. Their ultimate goal was in making this sort of torture less visible, more effective, and accepted legally or in the media.[8]This experiment included sensory deprivation in ‘interrogation’ methods, such as silence under certain circumstances. Another ‘silent’ experiment was also conducted in Canada, financed by their Defence Department in the manipulation of the senses. In one of the experiments, the condition of the volunteers was that four of their senses were blocked.[9]The result of this was initially the volunteers fell asleep; later became bored, impatient and emotionally unstable. They also had other symptoms which include confusion, headaches, mild nausea, and fatigue.[10]
Institutions teach these ‘no-touch torture’ methods. From 1966 to 1991, the army’s School of the Americas, trained officers from Central and South America in military interrogation. From 1966 to 1974, the Office of Public Safety taught CIA techniques to police from forty-seven countries, including Brazil, South Vietnam, Uruguay, Iran and the Philippines.[11]Regarding effectiveness, she proves her point that silence may be used as a weapon for interrogation methods.
Last but not least, is crowd control, which in my opinion is an effective tool. The last two examples include the LRAD and the mosquito, which has proven its ‘practical’ use as opposed to other weapons such as ‘spark gap sound sources’, ‘plasma sound source’ and an ‘acoustic blaster’.
The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) was explained briefly. The LRAD Corp. invented the device which combines multiple piezoelectric loudspeakers which allows it to send a sound at an amplitude of 121 dB and 153 dB at 1 meter. This loudspeaker can be used to send instructions to an entire neighbourhood, play a song from a CD or MP3 player, or to disperse crowds with mid-range frequencies or higher.[12]Regarding crowd control, seeking protection from an LRAD (under 153 dB) at a distance of fewer than 100 meters is difficult. Earplugs and helmets won’t work, and the only way out is to leave the area or to get behind the LRAD.[13]The direct effects include an instant migraine and may knock people to their knees.[14]The downside to an LRAD, however, is that no special license is needed when purchasing it, which is why many have them. This includes the New York and Santa Ana Police, a cruise ship, and even a Japanese whaler.[15]
The last item for discussion is the mosquito. This device is presently used in France as a sound repellent device rather than a ‘weapon’. The mosquito produces high-frequency and unbearable sounds to distance a category of people from a certain location. They play an important part to control vigilantes in public space, a task that may well be ineffective for law enforcers.[16]The effect of its unpleasantness under the exposure of ‘five to fifteen minutes’ will make someone leave that particular zone, preventing vandalism, graffiti, and loitering.[17]
Overall, she walks us through the experience of experimenting sound beginning in the 1940s under war conditions to current conditions. She also points out that these experiments have also been used for entertainment purposes. However, I find that since she has not defined ‘weapon’ or ‘device’ in plain air, in the end, it opens the mind, but in effect may cause confusion of the meaning itself, unable to support her argument. The other downside is, under all military conditions, the use of sound as a weapon has failed, and the use of sirens and loudspeakers, in my opinion, falls under the category of ‘aided’ device as opposed to being considered as a weapon. The use of sound as a weapon under direct military attack fails.
Concerning non-lethal weapon, I find that she proves her point. However, this is subjected to ‘just’ silence. Other frequencies haven’t shown much success in establishing proof except for the LRAD and the mosquito. The two last devices wouldn’t necessarily fall under the category of ‘weapons’ but may as well be a ‘device’. These last two items, in my opinion, are what I find supports the author’s point of sound as a device since it has enough proof.
Nevertheless, after reading her book, you are well informed of the history of sound itself. It’s knowledgeable, and she puts all ‘spectres’ of sound in her book. Whether its silence, low frequency or the non-frequency sounds, she explores all of them. Even if I find that her argument doesn’t necessarily prove her point, I find that the title shouldn’t go as far as ‘Extremely Loud: Sound as a Weapon’, but instead should be called ‘Extremely Loud: Experimenting with Sound’.
[1]Juliette Volcler and Carol Volk, Extremely Loud: Sound as a Weapon(The New Press, Distributed by Perseus Distribution, 2013) 22.
[2]Ibid 23.
[3]Ibid 30.
[4]Ibid 93–4.
[5]Ibid 95.
[6]Ibid 100.
[7]Ibid 58.
[8]Ibid 68.
[9]Ibid 70.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Ibid 72–3.
[12]Ibid 110.
[13]Ibid 110–11.
[14]Ibid 111.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid 118.
[17]Ibid.
the picture above is taken from https://thenewpress.com/books/extremely-loud