COMMENTS ON (DELETED) NON-LETHAL WEAPON BROCHURE (RE ELECTROSHOCK)

• Document Type: SPECIALCOLLECTION
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 00173523
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: January 21, 2025
• Document Release Date: January 15, 1983
• Publication Date: December 31, 1970

3v117,1',10P,
31 Docember 1970
TO:
FROM:
Dept. of
��
1
�.;
SUP,JECT: Comments on Non- Lethal Weapon Brochure
REFERENCES: A. Non- Lethal Weapon" Brochure,
B. Roth, E. M. , "Electric Current", in NASA- CR- 1205
(1), Washington, D. C. , 1968. (UNCL. )
C. Walter, C.W., Electric Hazards in HosTxitals, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. , 1970. (UNCL,)
We have been much interested by the /brochure submitted by Mr.
IThe principle of controlled electroshock can
offer an effective solution to the personnel incapacitation problem.
It is unfortunate that the brochure is in the form of an advertising pamphlet.
rather than a scientific presentation. The brochure gives no definite engineering
specifications, but we assume that rhas the following conditions in
mind: (1) a single net with left and right halves connected to the )System
by a two conductor insulated cable; (2) projection of the net onto the subject
in such a way that the subject would tend to grasp one half of the net with each
hand and take the current in an arm-to-arm direction (rather than upper body
to feet ); (3) five shocks per second to be delivered (about 0.5 joule each,
duration of each pulse about 500 microseconds); and (4) the subject is healthy.
The somewhat confusing numbers presented with Figure A of the brochure
apparently make the key assumption that the circuit resistance is 10,000 ohms,
presumably including the two series contacts between the net and the subject.
A single conductor system using the ground loop would require that the shock-
be:.: itself be thoroughly grounded or the person holding the shockbox would be
shocked just as severely as the subject.
Approved f or R3leasa
Dalt e
is correct that currents above 20 milliamperes will cause painful
tetz.y of the muscles through which the current passes and that individual
(Ref. B)
shocks of about 0.5 joule are not likely to kill healthy people. Mr.
�
!states that he has verified the effectiveness and safety of the repeated
short pulses mentioned above by appropriate tests.., Such a result seems
reasonable, but it would be nice to see the report of his experimental
procedure.
We question the reliability of the net- shockbox combination in incapacitation
of a high percentage of subjects under field conditions. In order to be
effective, tetanizing amounts of current must pass through muscles that will
incapacitate the subject. In order to get to the muscles, the current must
get through the skin somehow. A large area of firm contact with sweaty skin
can have a resistance of a few hundred ohms; a small area of dry contact with
B)
light pressure can range up into millions of ohms. (Ref. If the net provided
two contacts with the subject's body, amounting tea series resistance of one
megohm or more, the shockbox would have to deliver a voltage of 20,000 volts
or higher in order to force the required current through the skin. We doubt
that a shockbox of the small dimensions specified by J could
provide such voltages and energies., What if the subject is wearing a leather
jacket, motorcycle helmet and dry leather gloves? What if part of the net
happens to get into the subject's mouth? What keeps the net from shorting
itself out? Why wouldn't a subject with painfully paralyzed arms start to run,
thereby breaking contact?
Engineering details and extensive field test results of the system are necessary
for evaluation of this approach.
The primary medical hazard of the system is the possibility of inducing
ventricular fibrillation of the heart. Ventricular fibrillation is almost in-
variably fatal under field conditions. If ldevice included current
limiting circuitry so that the energy in each brief pulse was limited to about
O. 5 joule applied hand-to-hand, the risk of ventricular fibrillation in a healthy
(Ref. B)
subjc.'ct should be negligible. If the subject happened to be "electrically
sensitive" (due to coronary artery disease with irri,table myocardium, pace-
maker device, etc.) a much smaller shock could lead to unconsciousness
C)
within seconds and death within a few minutes. (Ref. jacknowledg,es
such a possibility by noting that his device should be used on "healthy crooks"
only. Most young people, aside from invalids, do not fall in the "electrically
sensitive" category.
In summary, we feel that such a device is not likely to cause permanent injury
to an active young adult subject, but we question its reliability as an inca-
pacitation system under field conditions. Our engineering staff has roughed
out a circuit diagram for a unit that would deliver 0.5 joule under the low
resistance conditions assumed by \ We will be happy to provide
a copy of this diagram or comments on any other points that you may request.