Sonic

 https://youtube.com/shorts/qRpAggfOpvA?si=qKBGMo55KrDVQt3d

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5glL_hNDM0s

                                                                     *     *     8

Copilot:

Rules of war; in a recent confrontation near the Baltic, NATO forces subjected three Russian submarines to sonic warfare ie intense sounds for 48 hours straight. Is this torture?

That’s a powerful and complex question, Louise — and it sits at the intersection of military ethics, international law, and emerging technologies. Here's a breakdown to help unpack it:

⚖️ Is Sonic Warfare Torture Under International Law?

Torture, as defined by the UN Convention Against Torture, involves:

Severe pain or suffering, physical or mental

Intentional infliction

Purpose such as obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or coercion

By or with consent of a public official

So the key legal questions become:

Was the sonic exposure intended to cause suffering?

Was it disproportionate or unnecessary?

Was it used to coerce or punish?

If the sonic warfare was used to disable equipment or disorient submarines tactically, it may fall under non-lethal military countermeasures. But if it caused lasting psychological or physical harm, especially without immediate military necessity, it could be argued as inhumane treatment — possibly even torture.

🌊 What Happened in the Baltic?

Recent reports confirm NATO's increased anti-submarine operations in the Baltic, including the use of advanced detection and deterrence methods. However, no credible sources currently confirm a 48-hour sonic bombardment of Russian submarines. If such an event occurred, it would likely be classified and controversial.

🧠 Psychological Impact of Sonic Warfare

Sustained exposure to intense sound can cause:

Disorientation

Sleep deprivation

Stress-induced trauma

Neurological damage in extreme cases

These effects are why sonic weapons — like LRADs (Long Range Acoustic Devices) — are controversial even in crowd control. Against enclosed submarine crews, the risks could be magnified.

🕊️ Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

Under LOAC and the Geneva Conventions:

Weapons must not cause unnecessary suffering

Means of warfare must be proportionate

Combatants must be treated humanely if captured or incapacitated

If sonic warfare was used without clear military necessity, or if it targeted crew members rather than equipment, it could breach these principles.

🧭 Bottom Line

If NATO used sonic warfare purely to disable or deter submarines, it may be lawful. But if it was used to inflict suffering or intimidate crews, especially over 48 hours, it could cross into inhumane treatment — and potentially torture.

Would you like to explore how sonic weapons are regulated, or how submarine warfare ethics have evolved since the Cold War?

This occured in August 2025...

Thanks for the clarification, Louise. Based on recent reporting, here's what we know about the August 2025 Baltic submarine incident and its ethical implications:

🧭 What Happened in August 2025?

NATO anti-submarine operations intensified in the Baltic and North Sea regions in August 2025, particularly around the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group.

Reports from Newsweek and The Aviationist confirm tracking and deterrence efforts against Russian submarines, including Kilo-class vessels.

Sweden’s armed forces also publicly acknowledged shadowing a Russian submarine through the Kattegat strait, in coordination with NATO allies.

However, no official confirmation exists of a 48-hour sonic bombardment. If such an operation occurred, it likely remains classified.

🔊 Sonic Warfare: Tactical or Torture?

If NATO used continuous high-intensity sound against submarines for 48 hours, several legal and ethical questions arise:

Tactical Use

Sonic pulses are often used to jam sonar, disorient navigation, or force surfacing.

These are considered non-lethal countermeasures under current military doctrine.

Torture Criteria

Under international law (e.g., UN Convention Against Torture), it could be considered torture if:

The sound caused severe physical or psychological suffering

It was intended to punish, intimidate, or coerce

It lacked military necessity or proportionality

If the sonic exposure targeted crew members directly, especially in confined submarine environments, and caused lasting harm, it could cross into inhumane treatment or even torture.

⚖️ Legal Precedents and Grey Zones

No precedent exists for prosecuting sonic warfare as torture in naval combat.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit methods causing unnecessary suffering, but interpretation varies.

Submarine crews are combatants, not detainees — so protections differ from those in custody scenarios.

🧠 Psychological Impact

Submarine crews exposed to prolonged sonic stress may suffer:

Sleep deprivation

Cognitive impairment

Anxiety or trauma These effects are amplified in enclosed, high-pressure environments.

🧩 Bottom Line

If the sonic warfare was used to disable equipment or force surfacing, it may be lawful. But if it was used to inflict suffering or intimidate, especially over 48 hours, it raises serious ethical and legal concerns — potentially bordering on torture.

Would you like to explore how submarine warfare ethics evolved post-Cold War, or how NATO and Russia differ in their use of non-lethal technologies?

The presumption was that the Russians were there to gather information about the Ford carrier capabilities, in the interest of jamming in the future...

That presumption aligns with longstanding strategic behavior in submarine operations, especially in contested waters like the Baltic. Here's how it fits into the broader picture:

🧠 Intelligence Gathering via Submarines

Russian submarines — especially diesel-electric Kilo-class or more advanced Lada-class — are often deployed near NATO exercises or carrier groups to:

Monitor acoustic signatures of ships like the USS Gerald R. Ford

Map electronic emissions for future jamming or spoofing

Test NATO detection thresholds and response times

This kind of passive surveillance is a classic Cold War tactic, now updated with modern electronic warfare goals.

📡 Why the Ford Carrier Matters

The Gerald R. Ford is the most advanced aircraft carrier in the world, featuring:

Electromagnetic catapults (EMALS)

Advanced radar and electronic warfare systems

New propulsion and power systems

Understanding its electromagnetic footprint is crucial for adversaries aiming to:

Jam communications or radar

Disrupt launch systems

Confuse targeting sensors

So yes — if Russian submarines were shadowing the Ford, it’s plausible they were gathering data for future electronic countermeasures.

🔊 NATO’s Sonic Response: Tactical or Strategic?

If NATO responded with 48 hours of sonic pulses, it could serve multiple purposes:

Force the subs to surface or retreat

Disrupt onboard sensors or crew concentration

Send a deterrent message without direct engagement

But if the sonic exposure was intense, prolonged, and targeted at crew well beyond tactical necessity, it raises ethical concerns — especially if the intent was to punish or intimidate rather than defend.

🧩 Strategic Implications

This incident, if confirmed, suggests:

A shift toward non-lethal deterrence in naval warfare

A growing role for electromagnetic and acoustic weapons

A legal grey zone where psychological impact may rival physical damage

Would you like to explore how submarine surveillance and countermeasures evolved since the Cold War, or how international law treats non-lethal naval tactics?