Marine Corps Testing Maser for Anti-Personnel Use

Former1626er writes: "The Marine Corps is testing out phasers or what the military industrial complex calls "non-lethal direct energy weapon." Here's the UPI story, and if you have a subscription to the Marine Corps Times you can read the original story - "The People Zapper" - there. In brief: the Marines are deploying a microwave laser for anti-personnel usage, with the idea basically being: burn people so they run away. So, how many of you have read the sci-fi novella "Press Enter"?

Comments

but the question is...

[syrinx]

does it have settings ranging from "stun" to "fry to a delicate brown"?

Why?

[Hellburner]

As both a former Marine infantrymen---well, Always A Marine, but you know what I mean---and a current raving liberal /. nerd I am curious about the utility of this weapon. And this whole line of "non-lethal" research.
Lethal weaponry is meant to effect immediate change through violent force. Political will to its ultimate ---and hopefully least used --- expression.

"Non-lethal" weaponry is about the maintenance of the status quo. "Preservation of order". "Humanitarian missions". "Curbing civil disorder".

Curious. Fascinating, Captain. Fascinating. Just a paranoid thought to chew on. And a statement of how military objectives and missions have changed.
For now, quelling "civil disorder" is outside the U.S. Of course, with the most militaristic police forces in the West it doesn't take a genius...

Re:Why?

[GoofyBoy]

I would figure that they would use these for visualy non-agressive crowd control.

For example, there are a bunch of angry rebels outside of a embassy.

Use bullets. Take the first few down in a loud manner and others will be alerted or retalitate.

Use MASER. Use in a widefield and you can irritate the rebels into running away. They would do anything just to stop the burining. Since its in a widefield you can get them all at once. Keep it on and you have a field of protection.

Re:Why?

[Prof_Dagoski]

I have one small concern with using this as a crowd deterrent. When using irritants like tear gas, pepper spray, or watter cannons, the crowd sees or otherwise senses what's happening. They know that the uniforms(whoever they may be) are doing something, and their basic reaction will be to run _away_ from the uniforms. With this, its invisible, silent, and has no smell. All of a suddent, people's skin begins to burn. This is panic grade material here. There's a good chance that members of the crowd will run towards the weapon, taking them into a greater flux of energy, leading to serious injury pretty quickly. I think the basic idea is sound, but the proposed application of this idea may not be a winner. I think this might be a good weapon used against single agitators or small groups of them. Against a crowd? Like I said, what happens if they panic because for no discernible reason, their skin begins to burn.

I think the Marines and other armed services might want to check notes with correctional agencies around the country. There's been a lot of development in this area. The systems developed for use in correctional systems focus on breaking the mob mentality by causing a shocking pain to snap their individuals back to themselves. Of course, the effectiveness and the legitamcy of such techniques are up for debate, as well as the ethics of those employing them. No non lethal system is inherently non lethal. When used correctly, they stand a good chance of being non-lethal, but when misused they become lethal instruments of torture and terror.

Burns

[ackthpt]

Burning people with lasers, to get them to run away, assumes (with the already underlying assumption that burning people is called for) there won't be abuse. I.e. go for the eyes or other sensitive parts. To borrow an oft used quote, it may not kill, but you'd be surprised what you can live through.

Too rare are the sci-fi books which contend with actual injury and suffering inflicted by heat or light based weapons.

--

Re:Burns

[seanmeister]

From the article:

"Clearly we've seen military combat weaponry migrate to the civil sector. Just walk past any Swat Team and you see what is basically an army unit"

Remember that the next time you're an innocent bystander at a future semi-annual Seattle riot.

Sean

Re:Burns

[griffjon]

Of course, police never aim for the eyes with non-lethal weaponry. Didn't just happen this week in Austin, possibly partially blinding a bystander with his arms raised in the air. nope. right?

I want it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Integrate it with a car and ditch the noisy alarm. False positives won't wake the neighborhood, and real positives would be more entertaining! (And I bet a crook's howls would end sooner than one of those Whoop!Whoop!Whoop!Ennnnnh!Ennnnnh! alarm cycles!)

Imagine the fun if you had one of these babies mounted by the front door for when the jeezoids come a-knocking!

God, the possibilities are endless!

Re:"Press Enter"

[seanmeister]

Never read "Press Enter", but one of Varley's novels from the Gaean trilogy ( Demon , IIRC) made mention of something called a "sunburn gun" that was used to disperse an unruly crowd that was fighting over passage to Gaea. This new weapon sounds like the very thing Varley envisioned!

BTW, if you haven't read the Gaean trilogy (Titan, Wizard, and Demon), check them out - great stuff!
Sean

Away team, Set phasers on 'Pain'...

[Bonker]

I have mixed feelings on this, since this technology eventually *will* be used on humans, and on Americans who choose to riot or protest.

Don't beleive me? Ask survivors of the Kent State Massacre exactly what the U.S. military will do and to whom.

One one hand, it's great that this technology has 'proven' (I'd really like to see those classified studies) not to be lethal. Like pepper-spray, however, there is serious application for misuse, torture and serious human-rights abuse. It's one thing to use an energy beam to make a dangerous crowd uncomfortble enough to disperse, it's quite another to 'teach them a lesson' by repeated application as police all around the country are known to do with pepper spray, batons, and/or their firearms.

Who's definition of 'dangerous' do we use, and who watches the watchers?

I can see it now

[ErikZ]

"You see Congressman, the reason the Marines need this weapon is that it is effective and non-lethal. Let me demonstrate on your aide here.

Aide explodes violently.

"Hmmm, needs tweaking."

Later,
ErikZ

when I was in the marines...

[banky]

we were taught one thing: kill. I fondly remember one moment that, to me, crystallized the entire process of indoctrination.

It was a class on basic security procedures. It was boot camp. They were explaining the official policy on shooting to kill: how you were supposed to shoot to wound in this circumstance and that circumstance. There was a pause, and the Drill Instructor teaching the class, uttered in his gruff voice: "When aiming to wound, the head is an exceptional target".

No one nodded (we're recruits, we got in enough trouble as it was), but the meaning was clear: this isn't summer camp. Military law and procedures are often written by joint committees of military and civilian "officials", but the facts of life were clear: kill you target or risk your life and the lives of your fellow Marines. Making someone "run away" is hard if they're on psychotropics, or they're fanatics pledged to kill you. You don't fuck around. The guy on the Zodiac may have a pistol, or may have a briefcase nuke. You drop him, end of story.

I will, of course, be considered a fanatical jarhead - that's what happens when Marines express views.

Re:when I was in the marines...

[ScuzzMonkey]

And how long ago was this? In recent history (the last twenty years or so) I've never heard of any entry-level weapons instruction course (police or military) that differentiates between "shoot-to-kill" and "shoot-to-wound" doctrine. You aim for center of mass, period. The head if it's an armored target. In a stressful situation, it's an ambitious goal just to hit the target, let alone in a specific area that will only disable. And I've always, always been taught that if you're in a situation when you're seriously considering pulling the trigger, it had better be serious enough that it's worth a killing. As someone else in this thread pointed out, it can be tough to non-lethally hurt someone badly enough to stop them. If you absolutely, positively have to stop your target, then you've gotta go for the gold on the first try. You never have enough control to ensure a wound--if you're going to point a gun and fire, you'd better be willing to kill.

Usually, I hear people throw around phrases like that, I think maybe they aren't too familiar with the subject at hand. But if in fact the Marines taught this doctrine at some point, I'd be interested to hear more about it.

Re:when I was in the marines...

[hey!]

Aren't there ANY situations where having degrees of force between nothing and lethality could be handy?

What about what the army did to all those poor refugee bastards in Korea? If you have a bunch of civilians some of whom might be threats, do you wait until they close enough to pose a real threat then kill them by the truckload?

How about this -- you're guarding the US embassy in Beijing, and an angry mob of demonstrators are gathered outside; a couple of hotheds decide to climb the wall. Sure, it's probably the right thing to do to shoot them, but maybe you'd be better of if you didn't have to. Maybe they're desperate dissidents looking for asylum. Maybe China is in turmoil and your next visit could be from PLA tanks under a general itching for a political excuse to show his patriotism. Given the current state of technology, you shoot now and take your chances later; but does it have to be this way?

I appreciate that soldiers must kill to protect themselves and accomplish their mission, and must be trained to do it quickly and automatically, and that inculcating a casual attitude towards killing people is a simple and proven way to do this. But it also also seems to me that this can be taken too far (My Lai) and that perhaps not having to kill in the first place may be a safer option in certain circumstances. There are lots of unstable situations that aren't war but aren't exactly peace either, and which could be tipped towards war by political factors.

I'm not sure that this maser weapon is the answer -- I'm pretty skeptical. But supposing an effective crowd control weapon could be invented, ideally one which did not cause permanent injury, to an idealistic, soft hearted civilian like me this sounds like a good deal all around.

Nonlethals force continuum

[ciurana]

I was involved with the people who first put forth the concept of nonlethals. I worked with them between 1993 and 1998. I think that this is a good development overall because it helps to enforce what Janet Morris (nonlethal doctrine proposer) and Marine Sgt. Robert Walsh [ret.] described as the force continuum.

The force continuum is the application of different techniques to deterr an attacker or to stop a mob. At the lowest end you have visual and auditory cues, such as "no trespassing". At the high end you have to face lethal force, such as an M-16 or a rocket launcher. Nonlethal doctrine establishes this force continuum so that you have a greater number of options to apply between those two extremes. The idea is that in a confrontation, you will first warn. If that fails, use a deterrent. If that fails, use a stronger deterrent, and so on.

The V-MADS system talked about in the article is one more option for deterring an attacker, and it should not be taken in its own context. Nonlethal weapons and doctrine were created in response to geopolitical changes that metamorphosed the US armed forces from a military to a global quasi-police force. Political, diplomatic, legal and humanitarian pressures make it undesirable or impractical to blast an enemy to the Stone Age or to indiscriminately attack (and kill) a horde armed with sticks, stones, and Molotovs because our forces have better lethal alternatives. The force continuum gives you a wide range of options between diplomacy and military obliteration.

For more information on nonlethals, including a whole section on gadgets (R&D and production) available as of 1997, check out The Nonlethal Weapons Catalog. For gadgets only, check out The Gentle Soldier's Shopping Cart.

Cheers!

E

Re:Not in the military...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Actually, in a mass battle, wounding is more effective than killing. Besides the moral effects, kill an enemy, you've taken out an enemy. Wound one, you've taken him out, plus two people to carry him, plus medics to treat him, plus logistics to support him, etc etc.

The real question is...

[capt.Hij]

The Marines are really pushing this "non-lethal" weapons stuff hard. They have budgeted a severe amount of money for this kind of stuff. I've been to briefings that they sponsor, and they feel that this is the next big thing.

I am assuming that just like their foam gun and wheel shooting equipment that this thing will also come out looking bad. According to the article they are going to shoot this thing from up to 750 meters? From that distance the energy is going to be distributed over the entire body of the victim... err target. That means it will damage eye's, the skin around your ears, and if you are a card carrying member of the Y-chromosone club your going to get your testes roasted.

Think about that last one for a minute there, boys.

The more I listen to this stuff the more skeptical I become. This whole project seems more like an excuse to just dump money on a few companies and academics.

For more info check out this and this and maybe this.

Does less-lethal mean...

[megaduck]

...it only kills them halfway?

"Tear gas and rubber bullets just have not been effective, so they've wanted something more lethal than those and less lethal than an M16."

My dictionary defines lethal as capable of causing death. Isn't "slightly lethal" like being "a little pregnant"?

Graduated response and situation resolution

[Infonaut]

The "force continuum" is a concept which stipulates that the more options you have in applying force to meet an adversary, the more measured your response will be, and the less threat there will be of overwhelming violence and death.

It might sound silly to some that the Marines are testing out foaming agents, masers, and any number of other nonlethal agents, but if only one of those solutions proves to be viable, the research will have paid off.

Here's an example of why this is important. I was deployed with the 10th MTN Division during operation Restore Hope in Somalia. Our mission was to secure food distribution sites, protect local villages from outside bandits, and help the locals rebuild their own legal and enforcement structure. We were almost always vastly outnumbered by the civilian population.

There were many times when I really would have appreciated a nonlethal option other than hand-to-hand combat. The reality of the situation is that when you're faced with a very hostile crowd and you have only three methods of dealing with that crowd (bullets, the bayonet, or hand-to-hand), there's really only one option that leaves you any chance of surviving.

The flip side of that is that while you may be able to protect your own life by shooting that guy brandishing his AK-74, your long-term odds of escaping alive are seriously compromised. Angry crowds just don't like it when you start killing people.

However, if you can incapacitate someone, you're making the point that you will defend yourself, and the consequences of threatening you will be felt. In essense your response is a means of communication - you are telling people that you respect their lives but that you are in command of the situation.

As soon as the shooting stops, you loose control of the situation, which is the worst position for any combat leader.

Having the option to escalate the situation slowly doesn't always mean that you'll choose a graduated response. Note that recently Special Response police units have really changed their tactics in response to Columbine.

See this article in The Atlantic

The bottom line is that the more options soldiers have, the less likely things will get out of control, which means less loss of life.

Re:*prrr* Not allowed!

[jheinen]

In the Army, we didn't shoot at people. We shot at equipment. The Geneva convention does not limit what you can use against equipment. A rucksack is equipment. Boots are equipment. If a person happens to be wearing that equipment when you are shooting at it, oh well.

Ever see a 20mm Vulcan autocannon employed in the anti-personnel role? It's standard practice for the US military, and believe me, there is NO chance a human being has any chance of surviving a hit from that thing. Pink mist baby.

-Vercingetorix

I'm confused...

[tswinzig]

From that distance the energy is going to be distributed over the entire body of the victim... err target. That means it will damage eye's, the skin around your ears, and if you are a card carrying member of the Y-chromosone club your going to get your testes roasted.

Think about that last one for a minute there, boys.

Are you talking to us, or your genitals?

Military Strategies Explained

[Speare]

As the joke goes, the different armed services of the USA have a few distinctions in their use of military strategy jargon.

The order: "Secure that building!"

• Marine Corps:
• • Assemble the platoon and supplies
  • Approach the building along three axes
  • Bring the building under mortar and SAW fire
  • Assault the building under covering fire
  • Sequester surviving prisoners
  • Establish lanes of fire
  • Prepare artillery calls
  • Repel counterattacks
• Army:
• • Assemble the company
  • Appoint guard mount
  • Take control of all exits
  • Make sure no one gets into the building without a pass
• Navy:
• • Unplug the coffeepots
  • Turn off the computers
  • Turn out the lights
  • Lock the doors on the way out
• Air Force:
• • Contact real estate agent
  • Negotiate 1-year lease
  • Be sure to get option to buy