Militaries are exploring potential pharmacological solutions to enhance the performance of service personnel through improved strength, mental capacity, recovery, and resistance to fatigue and trauma.
In 2018 Maghawir al-Thawra, a group allied to the Free Syrian Army, uncovered a cache of more than 300,000 Captagon pills while conducting operations against ISIS near the Syrian border with Iraq. An amphetamine-based drug, Captagon is the trademark name for fenethylline, a highly addictive stimulant of the central nervous system with euphoric psychoactive properties, which has been listed as a controlled substance by the World Health Organization and the trading of which is illegal in most countries. Captagon has been used by ISIS fighters to induce fearlessness, suppress pain and achieve exceptional human energy, allowing combatants to stay awake for days and fight with a ‘reckless abandon’. Originally developed as a treatment for attention and sleep disorders in the 1960s, Captagon had been banned in most countries by the 1980s, as it was found to be highly addictive. Yet the pharmaceutical became a key weapon in the conflict in Syria, where it has been dubbed the ‘Jihad pill’, and ‘chemical courage’.
The use of drugs in war has a long history, as soldiers and their commanders have sought to counter human weaknesses in conflict situations. Mental and physical fatigue, fluctuating psychological confidence or muscular strength, and problems of acclimatization all affect the capabilities and effectiveness of soldiers in combat, and militaries have used various methods over the centuries to overcome these difficulties. Today, militaries in the West are investing in research and development programmes to enhance the performance of their soldiers, exploring pharmacological solutions to improve soldier strength, mental capacity, recovery, and resistance to fatigue and trauma. Such applications could deliver significant advantage on the battlefield, where any improvement in the cognitive, physical or emotional capabilities of soldiers can increase survivability and mission success. However, the possibilities for the pharmacological enhancement of soldiers raise important ethical and legal concerns that are unique to the military environment.
The possibilities for the pharmacological enhancement of soldiers raise important ethical and legal concerns that are unique to the military environment.
Much of the narrative surrounding performance-enhancing drugs principally derives from the controversy over doped athletes, cheating their way to an unfair advantage at sporting events. This is misleading when considering their potential use by the military: the level playing field of competitive sport is not to be compared to the existential threat of today’s battlefield. The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport has no social benefit. Furthermore, the secrecy and opprobrium that shrouds their use has left a gap in scientific research about their effectiveness and side effects, which means that militaries are failing to: a) capitalize on their advantages; b) understand their impact when in use by an adversary; and c) develop an assessment of any long-term drawbacks, should they ever be used in a future conflict.
This paper will explore the ethical and legal considerations surrounding the pharmacological performance enhancement of soldiers. It investigates how changing the experience of war could change the very character of conflict itself, and examines how the implications of drug use in war could undermine the legitimacy of the use of armed force by the state. It presents several scenarios in which performance enhancement would be ethically permissible in a conflict context; scrutinizes the impact of implementing performance enhancement programmes on soldier human rights and on broader society; and argues that the research and development of performance-enhancing drugs in the military must take place within an ethically and legally justifiable framework. Since the author is a serving member of the British Army, some considerations take specific account of the UK context; however, much of the analysis is applicable for militaries and policymakers more widely.