8.6 Neural Weapons
801
Military operations of information support today are already clearly connected
to cybernetic security and cybernetic operations due to the presence of the corresponding environment—the community of computer communication and social
media is used to distribute information and influence people in a certain manner.
Since neuron devices are used more and more commonly and connected to
computers, they can be hacked like any other electronic components (see Chaps. 2–
4); the difference here lies only in the fact that this will result not in correct or
incorrect operation of external devices, but in altering the way of thinking of the
users. A hacker of neural device could alter brain waves, moods, mental state, and
capacity of the user and might even take control of a user’s body through a BCI to
perform an unintended action [47]. Such hacking of a neural device and thus a user
could even permanently “rewire” the brain of the user or “brainwash” them.
There are also technologically easier methods of hacking the brain. In the most
basic case, malware can attack the minds of users by simply manipulating the blink
rate of the image on the screen and displaying images on the screen that affect subconsciousness and cannot be perceived consciously [48]. Even though the effectiveness
of messages affecting the subconsciousness is often doubted, neurobiologists have
found proofs that such effect on the subconsciousness is actually real [49].
8.6.7 Neural Weapon Threats
The term “neurowarfare” has been in use for several years to broadly describe the
military utilization of neuroscience and technology (neuro S/T) [50].
From the current literature three different aspects of “neurowarfare” can be distinguished: (1) neurowarfare as neuroenhancement of own personnel that allows them to
perform better in terms of their cognitive abilities and decision-making; (2) neurowarfare as getting inside the heads of enemies for interrogation and strategic intelligence
using neuro S/T; and (3) neurowarfare as neuro S/T enabled methods for influencing
enemy behavior much more directly than mere PSYOPS.
The ongoing academic debate on the potential future role of neuro S/T has already
led some commentators to suggest that brains are becoming the new battlegrounds
[51].
The mind or “neurospace” could soon emerge as a new distinct and most likely
final domain of warfare after land, sea, air, outer space, and cyberspace [52].
The most basic idea behind attacking the minds of enemies is very old. It has been
first formulated by Sun Tzu (sixth century BC), who pointed out that “to subdue the
enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
Similarly wrote PSYOPS specialists Paul E. Valley and Michael Aquino “that
wars are fought and won or lost not on battlefields but in the minds of men.” [53] All
warfare is ultimately aimed at forcing the own will on the enemy and manipulating the
enemy into accepting defeat and terminating hostilities. According to R. Szafranski,
“the object of war is, quite simply, to force or encourage the enemy to make what
you assert is a better choice, or to choose what you desire the enemy to choose.”
801
Military operations of information support today are already clearly connected
to cybernetic security and cybernetic operations due to the presence of the corresponding environment—the community of computer communication and social
media is used to distribute information and influence people in a certain manner.
Since neuron devices are used more and more commonly and connected to
computers, they can be hacked like any other electronic components (see Chaps. 2–
4); the difference here lies only in the fact that this will result not in correct or
incorrect operation of external devices, but in altering the way of thinking of the
users. A hacker of neural device could alter brain waves, moods, mental state, and
capacity of the user and might even take control of a user’s body through a BCI to
perform an unintended action [47]. Such hacking of a neural device and thus a user
could even permanently “rewire” the brain of the user or “brainwash” them.
There are also technologically easier methods of hacking the brain. In the most
basic case, malware can attack the minds of users by simply manipulating the blink
rate of the image on the screen and displaying images on the screen that affect subconsciousness and cannot be perceived consciously [48]. Even though the effectiveness
of messages affecting the subconsciousness is often doubted, neurobiologists have
found proofs that such effect on the subconsciousness is actually real [49].
8.6.7 Neural Weapon Threats
The term “neurowarfare” has been in use for several years to broadly describe the
military utilization of neuroscience and technology (neuro S/T) [50].
From the current literature three different aspects of “neurowarfare” can be distinguished: (1) neurowarfare as neuroenhancement of own personnel that allows them to
perform better in terms of their cognitive abilities and decision-making; (2) neurowarfare as getting inside the heads of enemies for interrogation and strategic intelligence
using neuro S/T; and (3) neurowarfare as neuro S/T enabled methods for influencing
enemy behavior much more directly than mere PSYOPS.
The ongoing academic debate on the potential future role of neuro S/T has already
led some commentators to suggest that brains are becoming the new battlegrounds
[51].
The mind or “neurospace” could soon emerge as a new distinct and most likely
final domain of warfare after land, sea, air, outer space, and cyberspace [52].
The most basic idea behind attacking the minds of enemies is very old. It has been
first formulated by Sun Tzu (sixth century BC), who pointed out that “to subdue the
enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
Similarly wrote PSYOPS specialists Paul E. Valley and Michael Aquino “that
wars are fought and won or lost not on battlefields but in the minds of men.” [53] All
warfare is ultimately aimed at forcing the own will on the enemy and manipulating the
enemy into accepting defeat and terminating hostilities. According to R. Szafranski,
“the object of war is, quite simply, to force or encourage the enemy to make what
you assert is a better choice, or to choose what you desire the enemy to choose.”