Slashdot Mirror
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"?
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?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"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
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!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
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?
"And like that
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!"
[