For decades, the international community has sought to establish clear limits on the development and use of weapons in order to protect human life and dignity. However, the speed of technological advancement has far outpaced the capacity of regulation and international treaties. Among these developments are systems capable of incapacitating individuals or neutralizing equipment at a distance, without the use of conventional projectiles, raising serious questions about safety, health, and the protection of fundamental rights.
In a context of hybrid conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and mass demonstrations, the debate surrounding these technologies is no longer exclusively military: it directly affects the safety of military personnel, some civilians, and the guarantee of transparency and oversight in the use of force.
Technology and Operation
Among these technologies are so-called Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), which include high-power microwaves, pulsed radiofrequency, millimeter waves, and, in some projects, acoustic or sonic effects. These weapons are not limited to lasers or visible systems, and their technical diversity and modes of application make their potential health effects varied and, in many cases, still insufficiently studied.
A prominent example is the Active Denial System (ADS) developed by the U.S. Department of Defense. This system uses high-frequency millimeter waves to generate intense pain on the skin, causing individuals to move away from the beam. The waves penetrate approximately 0.4–0.5 mm, affecting nerves, blood vessels, and superficial glands, and may impact nearby organs depending on intensity and duration of exposure. The ADS was deployed in Afghanistan in 2010, although it was not used in direct combat before being withdrawn.
There are also portable and compact versions, as well as systems that combine electromagnetic pulses or microwaves to affect electronic equipment and, potentially, human tissue at a distance.
Possible Health Effects
Documented or plausible effects:
- Superficial burns to the skin and delicate tissues.
- Intense pain and immediate neurological responses.
- Auditory discomfort or vibration sensations in systems with an acoustic component.
- Temporary eye damage or glare if laser beams specifically designed for blindness are used (not applicable to ADS).
Possible emerging or theoretical effects (under research):
- Neurological alterations comparable to traumatic brain injuries.
- Oxidative stress and cellular changes in superficial or deep tissues, including glands.
- Long-term risks to sensitive organs or internal tissues, not yet verified in humans.
Note: The occurrence of these effects depends on intensity, frequency, duration, and mode of application, and they have not been conclusively documented across all military systems.
Recent Case: Venezuela, January 2026
During the U.S. military operation carried out in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, President Donald Trump publicly stated in an interview with The New York Post that U.S. forces employed a classified weapon he referred to as “The Discombobulator.” According to his own words, it was a device capable of neutralizing Venezuelan defense systems, including equipment of Russian and Chinese origin, noting that local forces “pressed buttons and nothing worked.” He also stated that he was not authorized to provide technical details about the system.
Beyond the informal name used, the presidential statement constitutes a direct acknowledgment that a novel technology, distinct from conventional weaponry, was deployed with the capacity to disable electronic equipment and defensive systems in a real operational scenario. This was not a remote hypothesis or subsequent technical speculation, but a public admission of the use of a non-conventional weapon with concrete effects in the theater of operations.
Unofficial information and testimonies collected afterward indicated that in the area where the device operated, several individuals — primarily military personnel and some civilians present — experienced immediate physical symptoms such as nosebleeds, vomiting blood, sudden loss of balance, fainting, and signs consistent with internal impact. Some unofficial accounts even mentioned possible perforations or internal organ damage in certain survivors, although these claims have not been confirmed through independent medical evaluations.
Regarding individuals who died but not as a direct result of conventional explosions, no independent autopsies have been publicly disclosed to determine with certainty the exact cause of death. This absence of transparent forensic analysis prevents ruling out or confirming the possible role of the technology used in those fatalities.
The presidential acknowledgment of the use of an innovative weapon capable of neutralizing electronic systems and affecting the operational environment makes the Venezuelan case a significant precedent. If the device corresponded to a form of directed energy or advanced electromagnetic technology, this would represent one of the first contemporary acknowledged operational uses of such systems in an interstate conflict, requiring rigorous technical and legal evaluation under international humanitarian law.
International Legal Framework
International Humanitarian Law establishes that any new means of warfare must be evaluated according to the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. Weapons designed to cause permanent blindness are prohibited under international treaties, but DEWs such as the ADS are not specifically regulated, as they postdate most conventional weapons and laser agreements.
This does not imply that they are harmless: their use could violate general prohibitions against superfluous injury or indiscriminate effects, depending on context and oversight of their deployment.
Risks to Civil Liberties and Democratic Processes
The miniaturization and portability of these weapons generate additional risks in civilian contexts. If misused, they could deter demonstrations, public gatherings, or electoral participation through immediate physical effects.
From a human rights perspective, any use against civilian populations must be subject to strict controls, judicial oversight, and accountability mechanisms to prevent political instrumentalization.
Call for Regulation and Transparency
The rapid evolution of these weapons compared to international regulation requires:
1. Independent scientific assessments of short- and long-term effects.
2. State transparency regarding deployments and testing.
3. Clear norms limiting their use to contexts where international humanitarian law and human rights principles are respected.
The protection of military personnel and civilians, together with the clarification of real risks to human health, must remain at the center of the debate.
Bibliography
Health Impacts of Crowd-Control Weapons: Directed Energy Devices — Physicians for Human Rights (phr.org)
Directed Energy — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (publichealth.va.gov)
Neurological Directed-Energy Weapons — PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Active Denial System — Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
Dazzler & PHASR Weapons — Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
MEDUSA Acoustic Weapon — Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
Legal framework on laser weapons prohibition — Congress.gov (congress.gov)
Legal and human rights analysis on DEWs — Heritage Foundation (heritage.org)
Unofficial coverage of Venezuela 2026 — MoneyControl (moneycontrol.com)
*Virginia Contreras, security and defense specialist, attorney, and international consultant on human rights and governance.
Comment here