Slashdot Mirror
Millimeter-Wave Weapon Certified For Use In Iraq
jdray writes "Wired has a story on the certification of the Active Denial System for use in Iraq. The ADS is a millimeter-wave weapon that uses a reportedly non-lethal energy beam to inflict short-term pain on its targets, encouraging them to leave an area. Experimenters call this the 'Goodbye effect.' I can see using this in a wartime situation, but how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?" From the article: The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves — 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven... while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, 'some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'... There has been no independent checking of the military's claims." Wired use Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain documents on the military's testing program.
Time to don the triple layered Tin foil suit with extra ball protection.
...
The army will have to think harder when civilians start running at them with faraday cages around them.
Additional questions
Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
How many minutes does it take to cook a human?
Does this device go "ding" when its done?
liqbase
So I went in to the thread see the comments, and was presented with an ad for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Keywords gone wrong, or just a funny coincidence?
Sounds like the Neronic Whip that Isaac Asmiov described in his Foundation series. Now whether or not its a Good Idea(TM), that is a tough call. Likely it depends on whther you're on the trigger end or muzzle end, so to speak.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?
Is using a non-lethal device for crowd control a bad idea? I'd guess it would depend on if this can create permanent harm or not. If it has no ill side-effects I'd say it's one hell of a lot better than tear gas that can kill people with some respiratory conditions.
Crowd control in an of itself is not a bad idea if that's what you're getting at.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"At most, 'some...may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'"
They slept with Susie too???! That tramp!
That's sooo Osama bin Laden.
They do nothing!!
This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Absolutely NO amount of radiation is completely safe. I'm wondering if this will be a new disaster like the use of radioactive munitions by NATO in former Yugoslavia...
The problem is that the people who were tested were told ahead of time to remove glasses, contact lenses, and any metal that could generate "hot spots". I really doubt they're going to extend the same courtesy to dissidents in a war zone. They're also assuming that the average grunt in the field is going to properly operate the equipment.
In every war the army mentions non-lethal weapons in the press to give the population the feeling that they try not to kill so many people.
What happens if it's aimed at the head for a prolonged time?
What if it's aimed at someone with a pacemaker?
"how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?"
It is not a bad idea if you are for the system and the establishment, trying to protect your own interests and the status quo. Fry them hippies.
It is a bad idea if you are not a member of the elite, and you are trying to resist tyranny and fight for freedom and human rights via non-violent civil disobedience. This would only be one more tool for police to potentially abuse, like the tazer which has its good and bad sides.
1 voice in a sea of voices
1. Construct a reflective parabolic dish with focal length x meters.
2. Stand x meters from the millimeter-wave weapon.
3. Enjoy frying your aggressor with their own energy.
Crowd control should be about de-escalating the chance for conflict. If you start burning people with microwaves, you radically and abruptly increase the chance for a peaceful protest to turn into a bloody lynching.
During the protest against the invasion of Iraq in New York, just trying to deny all the intersections to protesters with sawhorses and mounted police caused surging to begin in the crowd, and the NYPD came within a hair's breadth of inciting a riot that would have burned out Midtown Manhattan and killed a lot of people.
And if any police department or government agency in the United States gets the bright idea to employ this kind of means here against people exercising their constitutional rights, they should think very carefully and deeply and consider that I and many of my patriotic countrymen are very jealous of our rights and also possess automatic weapons. How far do you want to push us, Mr. Man?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I'm sure the DoD has covered all the angles and this is just needless worrying, but what happens to those of us with rather extensive metal deposits in our teeth?
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Will it keep you young whippersnappers off my lawn?!
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
What about all the S&M clubs out there!
Set phasers to stun.
How is this "humane"? Inflicting wide area pain at a distance is somehow better than delivering it in person? (It will not be long before we hear about this being used on confined prisoners.)
People remember what you do to them. If you make them suffer, they are not going to thank you for it later. This is going to be just another reason for people to hate the US. (Like we have not given them enough Shock and Awe already...)
How long before it gets used on US citizens? Protest and find out!
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Because they have never mislead us before.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
On the one hand, it beats the hell out of using machine guns for crowd dispersal.
On the other, because it doesn't (apparently) kill people, armed forces will be *much* more likely to use it to disperse people, instead of trying to do things that keep people from rioting. Technical solution to non-technical problem isn't a solution, it's a treatment.
Any bets on whether this is already in use for interrogation?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"At most, 'some...may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'"
Yes, and a similar thing would happen with short term exposure to FIRE...and if you stay in FIRE long enough you get serious burns instead of blistering. I think I'd like to wait on some serious testing (such as, can they cook a 20lb turkey with it) before saying "WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!!"
In any case, if the options are lead bullets or this, I'm guessing those on the receiving end would probably prefer the latter. Heck, in cold climates they might cause public disturbance just to get them to use it!
The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven..
I wonder how it relates to UV, visible light and IR then? That's mighty big frequency range from 2,4GHz to 30 EHz.
Why couldn't they just say "EHF" if they needed to specify the frequency area where 94 GHz resides. I hate these articles that try to sound technical with some babble but in reality just betray that the writer does not know what's he talking about.
I'm all for nonlethal weapons when the other choice is killing people en masse. But in the current Iraq situation, all I can see in a device that causes pain without killing is a lot of hurt people wanting payback big time. Something like this could be perverted into a horrible torture device. To ever use something like this against a civilian population would be dubious at best. Doesn't the world hate the U.S. enough already?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Sort of goes without saying, dosen't it?
People won't be able to precisely foretell arising effects until the technology has actually been in action anyway. And even then, nobody can be sure that no long-term effects crop up.
Some time ago, people thought that it would be a good idea to feed cows with meat and bone meal.
I'd rather suffer "intense pain" that is non-lethal than get shot. I have the same argument for tasers, if the cops are going to take me down because I'm drunk and throwing bottles at them better a taser than a bullet.
the problem becomes in what situations is force, even if non-lethal used. if we march on washington because we don't like the results of the next election and start getting zapped and tear gased, I don't think that is acceptable. unless of course the protest became a violent mob, which happens so easily these days.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Flame on!!!!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
While this weapon certainly could be more human for crowd dispersal than some curently available (Tear gas that can cause death in athmatics, rubber-coated steel bullets [you didn't think they were just rubber, did you?] which can kill, being hit with sticks, ect.), there's the follow-up possibility of other places to consider. After the interrogation techniques seen at Abu Ghraib and Guantanama Bay, the ability to make someone feel like they're on fire, say while blindfolded, might be too juicy a plum not to be picking.
I see nothing wrong with five meals a day
Probably has effects like other microwaves. The military found out long ago that exposure to microwaves increases the incidence of cataracts. That's why there are rather low exposure limits-- a few milliwatts per cm^2.
But by the article's admission, we don't know the long lasting effects yet. The burning rays are supposed to be absorbed by the top layer of your skin. But what happens if there's nerve damage that becomes apparent in ten years? Or an increased risk of skin cancer later on in life?
Unless it is absolutely necessary, we probably shouldn't use this weapon yet. The US has the unenviable distinction of being the only country to use large-scale nuclear weapons in war, and that event and it's reasons are debated and discussed to no end. I wouldn't want another weapon used that, although smaller scale, still ends up killing people decades later because they are put at an increased risk for other factors. Especially if the "intent" is non-lethal. But if we can be almost certain that it's truly non-lethal with no long lasting effects, this would be a good tool to use, for both military and riot police.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Better than getting worked over with a club, I suppose.
Sounds like a good idea in principle, but someone, sooner or later, is bound to abuse it. Who will be responsible for determining when it can/can not be used? For a soldier to kill someone with a gun, they have to have a damn good reason to do it. To use something that inflicts pain with no long term effects? Very high danger of abuse.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Using this device for domestic crowd control will deny me the pleasure of watching post "big game" revelers/rioters roll down the street under the playful stream of a water cannon!
That's one of the few enjoyable aspects of a riot.
P226
Then later:
Do you know anyone that can run half a kilometre in 5 seconds?
Light of god ftw..
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
So what happens if you are at the front of a very large mob and they start shooting you with this thing? The people in back don't feel it but the people in front are getting cooked. They start to push to get away and suddenly you end up with a large scale riot and people getting trampled to death. Sounds like a lot of fun! :/
Im commenting this from my failing mind, so its possibly wrong:
I believe this "product" came out of DARPA as a result of the military wanting nonlethal means of exerting influence in the US, if called to do so. AKA riot, bio panic attack, etc....
Any one have more details....?
1) Develop new weapon.
2) Deploy weapon during a civil war.
3) Watch insurgents develop counter measures via trial and error.
4) Insurgents publish counter measure globally.
5) Return to step 1.
S.W.A.T. vans aren't my concern, what about the poor children swimming?
I thought Bush was in Active Denial for the past 6 years......
What jackass marked this as a "troll"? (Yeah, mark me up as well. Fuck you preemptively.)
Obviously there's a lot of opposition to this weapon. The problem is currently they're not allowed to use weapons of any kind. Given the unanimous opposition to granting marines weapons of any kind, let's try another alternative.
What if Al Queaeada was given a new weapon and the new weapon caused u.s. to pull out of Iraq. Would you support it then?
Question is, how long before people are tortured with this device?
:-(
In fact, given the current administration's apparent view that coercion which causes non-permanent harm is not torture (e.g. waterboarding), this seems ideal.
I wish I was kidding
Tin foil suits perhaps?
Privacy is terrorism.
They hate us because we want to cook them like popcorn.
Plump When You Cook HIM!®
at the enemy, which produces the same "Goodby Effect". BeeGees works particularly well when played loud enough with the right amount of treble on the mixer.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Precisely. If I hadn't just burned through a batch of mod points that'd get one from me.
White phosphorous is a chemical weapon issued to US forces so that it can be used for smoke screen purposes. However since it has historically also been used as a particularly nasty incendiary weapon, some of the more 'enterprising' elements of those same US forces have used it as an offensive weapon - most notably against civilians in Fallujah. I'm not trying to blame the so highly lauded US soldiers here - I know what that'll get me thanks - but I am trying to reiterate that soldiers under high stress on the battlefield will use whatever tools you give them without necessarily taking the ethics arguments into account at all - and who could blame them? The same logic of course extends to law enforcement and so-called "crowd control".
That's why it's all the more important that governments, international legislative bodies and military/law enforcement authorities keep themselves and each other in check and only issue such weapons under situations of absolute necessity if at all. Any power or weapon issued to anyone will some day be abused. The more powerful, potentially unethical and/or just plain nasty that power or weapon the more grave the risk to innocents.
So it's imperative that we, you know - the people, do everything we can to keep these things out of their hands.
The same kind of exotic new weapons were always being touted in Vietnam too. We are so antiseptic about war. We see it like a fancy game or something and think that we will win if we only have a better cheat code. All of our powerful weapons and technology will never prevail if what we are fighting for is wrong, unless we are prepared to become completely and totally ruthless to terrorize and cow the Iraqis into doing things 'our' way, in which case we don't need any new non-lethal weapons.
Doesnt the Geneva Convention prohibit these types of weapons ?
weapons designed to inflict extreme pain as apposed to outright kill
not that iam surprised by this considering how far USA has come in ignoring it so far
"Commencing test # 1"
"Ow, my sperm!"
"Interesting, lets try that again, commencing test # 2"
"Hmm, didn't hurt that time."
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
It's saddening to see how a country that was once a pioneer of freedom and civil rights now routinely resorts to torture to enforce its will. This weapon simply disgusts me. As far as I'm concerned there is no justfication for this in an ethical society, regardless of how many skyscrapers get levelled by terrorists.
"What's in the box?"
"PAIN!"
I remember your Gom Jabbar. Now you'll remember mine: I can kill with a word.
So, what about those in a crowd that don't pose a threat? Giving indiscriminant "pain" is a bad idea and as a side-effect would make laws being in the general area of protests enough of a reason to get "punished". Anyone else see that this would be a slippery slope? Perhaps a danger to free speech and the right to protest?
An above post pointed out that tear-gas can be lethal for people with respitory illnesses. But, radiation is lethal for everyone (not to mention that there is NO safe level of exposure) and quite hard to avoid if one doesn't know where the point of origin is. Not to mention the fact that batons can target specific people (the dangerous ones) whereas this method can't.
Too many problems.
Look at why water cannons aren't used much in the US, although they are used elsewhere.
It's not because we're cool cats afraid to get wet.
It's because water cannons were the "crowd control" measure of choice when putting down civil rights protestors. These were people marching for the right of "negroes" to be treated like human beings, and the authorities found that unacceptable and dispused the crowds with high pressure water. Don't forget that this was an era when governors would shut down universities rather than let a black man attend classes, and there were many small towns with dirt lots which had been public swimming pools, but filled when dirt when courts ruled that the black children must also be allowed to play in them.
We hope that millimeter-wave crowd control will only be used to break up riots after superbowl games.
We pray that millimeter-wave crowd control will never be used to break up peaceful protests after the public gets fed up with burying yet another soldier because of a pointless war. Vietnam, Iraq, Liechenstein. Whatever.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Was anyone else troubled by the bit in the article about testing on monkeys - they had to forcibly hold open the monkeys' eyes so that they could burn them.
Man, how do you get so you can do that for a living. No, on second thoughts don't tell me.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
they have done nothing to us...
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
So if it can't cause you injury, people will eventually learn this and be able to sustain the pain since it is false. Even the article mentions "volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters". Nothing would turn an angry crowd into a furious crowd more than something like this. Now they have a real reason to act violently, personal pain that is nevertheless lacking any consequences. When people show up with guns the threat is death, not blisters.
At most, 'some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'
Not a problem, if it is just your arms. Or maybe even your face. But what about your eyes? Emissions from arc welding can cause cataracts or even retinal scarring.
"Electric arcs radiate much more than visible light. Infrared rays, although they cannot be seen, can be felt as heat. They can cause retinal burning and cataracts. At the other end of the radiation spectrum, ultraviolet rays. Its painful effects-swelling, tearing, even temporary blindness-may not show up for hours following exposure."
So, what would the effects of this thing be on a person's eyes? It just seems like a really bad idea to use EM to scorch people. We're actually pretty fragile.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What when the weapon falls into the hands of the bad guys? Will every good guy be provided with shielding? What when the shielding falls into the hands of the bad guys? And what when the bad guys improve the weapon by a tenfold? And who will get the contracts to create both weapons and shielding? *cough*bribe*cough* What are the effects on baby skin? Will different coloured skin have different effects? What about peace? Happiness? Joy?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
So, if I have this right, the wavelength is somewhere between that of X-Rays, which penetrate the human body, and Microwaves, which also penetrate the body. And they are strong enough to cause "small blisters".
What about the possibility of internal damage? Cooked brain, microwaved organs anyone?
The summary said this was between microwaves and x-rays. Both of which have been considered cancer concerns. Of course, visible light, approximately between 350 and 700 nm is also in that range. Much of the cancer worry has to do with intensity and duration of exposure. Higher frequency light only reduces the amount needed to cause problems. I would think that if exposure to this weapon caused blisters and pain, the beam would have to be fairly intense.
First off, x-rays aren't a cancer *concern*, they are absolutely known to cause cancer. So there's that. However, for sub-visible wavelengths, the case for cancer is a bit weak. Cancer is caused when DNA molecular bonds are broken. This happens when the molecule absorbs a photon which excites a bonded electron temporarily, long enough for it to change the chemistry of the molecule. One problem with the cancer theory - this process requires visible-uv light at a minimum, and the process depends solely on the frequency of the light, not the intensity. Microwaves won't do the trick, nor will radio waves.
For microwaves or radio waves to cause cancer, they'd have to result in some pretty serious localized heating to your tissue, probably for a rather extended time period, and even then it's rather doubtful since you'd probably simply die first from being cooked.
Due to a well-placed chipped tooth I got in my youth, I can produce sound near that frequency by whistling a certain way. It was great back in 8th/9th grade, when I could make most of my classmates grimace without most of the teachers being able to hear it.
I could also do a pretty convincing cricket chirp, as well.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
So what happens when someone is being "encouraged" to depart, falls and twists his ankle and can no longer run away? Does he get cooked?
I wonder how well it transmits through automotive safety glass...
Actually I'm 33 and it annoys the hell out of me too. =P And although I was once a reporter, I'm neither mild-mannered nor have I ever worked for the Daily Planet. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of non-teens that can hear it is well inside double figures. So like most crowd control mechanisms the 'collateral damage' of that damn whine is less discussed than the oft-hyped perceived benefits. And at the opposite end of the spectrum here's a relatively recent and remarkably relevant Ask Slashdot from a kid being harrassed with it by his elderly neighbour. One has to wonder if/when civilians will adopt a similar strategy with regard to the parent story and start pumping out their own mm waves at will.
For some reason, you forgot option 3, the most widespread one:
3. Peaceful crowds show up to protest the administration's policies, but the authorities claim they are getting violent, and the crowd is beaten and dispersed.
If you think this doesn't happen in the US, you need to get out more instead of theorizing that there are only two options, and they are both evil.
I see lots of crowd control weapons being developed recently. There is something wrong when democracies need to spend so much to protect them from their people.
Lies about crimes
I really think the Iraqi people have had enough of the US testing out its latest weapons on them. The whole thing has really been a big showroom for the defence companies.
Because quite clearly the people you're using it on will get out of the way immediately. They won't be potentially injured or trapped. They won't be confused and run the wrong way. They won't be scared to come out of their hiding place because soldiers are sitting outside. No, they'll promptly step out of the beam and go straight to the doctor for a check-up. The article implies that the longest it was used on anyone was 5 seconds ("none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds"). Before we use it on people that potentially can't move away, I think we need to test the result of at least a minute's exposure.
So anyone that makes the leap "I'm too hot, I'll use water" could suffer much worse burns.
I'm not too worried about the use of this device in conflicts in Iraq. I can see the potential for abuse, but when confronted with armed resistance responding with less-lethal force seems reasonable. I'm worried about uses for crowd control. Most unruly crowds are not violent and will disperse given time and instructions, at least to the point that any dangerous participants can be identified. Labelling this weapon as harmless, even in the long term, legitimizes its use against peaceful demonstrators - particularly given the assumption that if the police had to use a weapon they must have been dangerous and out of control.
October 2001:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1470
The whole POINT of agony, pain, death is to make GOVERNMENT find ways to AVERT war, not DIVERT civilians. F*cking idiots in charge, wiling and scheming away.
Now, it's time for rogue smart scientist to come up with Civilian FAE-effect. Sort of like a Fuel Air Explosive, but instead of blowing up, it is really ADS-A... ADS-Attenuator.
Release a floating, persistent vapor or cloud around the demonstration and then maybe the micrometals will either disperse or amplify the ADS. Maybe even create a huge *OPEN-AIR TESLA EFFECT*. Maybe it'll get so out of hand the idiots IN and working FOR the offices of these devious officials will have to re-think. And, if the boys in urbarn warfare cammo think they'll have it easy, then the civilians -in whatever country they might be- can fire RPAs, or Rocket-propelled Attenuators from a distance into the ADS zone to dampen the attenuator. Not saying shoot the soldiers (at least, not if they cease and desist-- after all, you're a "guest" in a country not by the invitation of a president/emir/premier/whatever, or by your the decree of the invading soldier's leaders, but by the PEOPLE of the country being "occupied" -- pretty much any other scenario is an illusory thing at best...), but to shot into the ADS/millimeter wave area.
Anybody besides me thinking this thing needs an attenuator? Hell, that ADS can be used for sweeping whole neighborhoods in the night, cooking and brain-killing all sorts of people, innocent AND criminal. Might even mess with emergency or home-based/hospice care medical equipment at some point. After all, just recently the USAF conducted tests that jammed a widely-used spectrum occupied by civilian garage door remote controllers/transceivers, and it was asserted THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO DO SO by the Slash poster/submitter.
It's sort of along lines of wasting the government's time (really, tax payers' time and money) to prove the thing is a boondoggle and is a disingenuous activity.
This ADS is NOT a scheme as simple as using fire hoses in a Civil Rights riot. Even a FIREHOSE can kill if it is let go and whips around. The bell brass or metal crank/nozzle can break skulls, smash cars and damage solid equipment. Even water and soap on the streets can wash people into a trampling situation, getting them hurt or killed. ADS could be vastly more damaging, and given its mobility, can be quite vicious and nefariously used.
I say that for every deployment of ADS, an equivalent jammer operated by a civilian oversight team should have the veto power to order troops and cops to stop, or jam them then JAIL them (if they dilly-dally too long and hurt civilians after the desist order was issued).
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Most disturbing thing about this is that the people developing the weapon have rebranded pain as the "goodbye effect". It really concerns me that weapons manufacturers would sugar coat a simple thing such as causing another human being intense pain. I know none of us wish to think of ourselves as making weapons that are meant to harm other people, but if you downplay the harm and then deploy the weapon. And troops don't understand why a bunch of political protesters that this weapon was used on suddenly want to kill Americans even more than before, then you will have done this country a disservice.
Sure maybe it has the potential to cause less permanent physical harm than beating them over the head with a club, or shooting them with a gun or blowing them up, but you are still talking about purposefully causing intense human pain and suffering. And if you are talking about crowd control then this is presumably going to be used against gathered groups that have been ordered to disband that aren't, such as political protests.
Just imagine there is a peaceful protest somewhere in Iraq, and the armed forces show up with such devices but don't use them. Arrange to have five or six people in the field of fire on a certain signal suddenly scream "Ahhh! It burns! They're attacking!" and pretend to be in pain. The opinion will turn against the Americans even if they didn't activate the device! Great publicity stunt for the opposing side.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Intentionally inflicting intense pain on a person to illicite a response is torture. Saying the pain is non-damaging and short term, doesn't change the fact that it's torture. This is a mass torture device.
In crowd control situations, I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't also be collective punishment. It's like two Geneva Convention violations wrapped in one. Go USA!
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
So maybe it works for the average 18-35 year old male in good condition, but what about pregnant women in the way, or children, or older people? What if they accidentally happen to be in range?
Are soldiers trained to only use it on crowds of men? Or to point it at a house to chase people out? Do they have training to avoid high-risk groups?
Doubtful. This is just the war industry trying out a new gadget. Who makes it? I'd like to buy their stock. I don't want to miss out on another Halliburton opportunity where the stock rose 600% after invading Iraq.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
This may be much easier to use than a squirt bottle when the cats are being bad.
Those little sh%ts know I won't squirt towards the TV, so they fight and do bad things right in front of it all the time.
Here is a companion article from Wired with some of the documents: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72236-0.htm l?tw=rss.index
I am not a crackpot.
How long before the terrorists figure out that your average microwave oven can be disassembled and turned around against US troops?
Did the Army ever consider the ease with which the terrorists could adopt such tactics? If this weapon is indeed effective, it will only provide the terrorists with yet another way to wreak havoc.
What if someone, in an otherwise peaceful demonstration, brought one of these devices, and trained it on the soldiers?
It's easy to recognize tear gas and stay away. But this weapon is invisible - it could be targeted against all of the soldiers in a given area, or merely one. How would you like to be that "one"?
Invisible weapons don't promote security - only escalated conflict.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Legitimacy of the grievance has no bearing on the right of a person to express that grievance.
It is how you express that grievance that counts.
Otherwise, we have 3k+ dead soldiers who died for nothing at all.
Blar.
Joking aside, how easy would it be to make protective armor against this kind of attack? You can buy rolls of steel or aluminum window screening at any hardware store for under $50.
Causing them to fall back to "Plan B," also known as rubber bullets (or real ones). I'm not sure that's an improvement.
Plus, at least if I was going to deploy this, I'd probably use a mix of denial devices; tear gas, smoke, ultrasonics, psychological deterrents (recordings of people screaming, etc.), and the giant Radarange. If one particular method doesn't make you want to leave, chances are one of the other ones will.
It just adds to the would-be rioter's load of stuff they have to bring. Gas mask, earplugs, roll of window screen, padded suit (don't want to get trampled by the less prepared)...joining a mob and burning stuff just becomes less fun-sounding in a hurry, when you have to go home and get your "riot kit" first.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Problem with all this is that no one has addressed the very real possibility of eye damage. Seems that is an issue with laser weapons and is restraining their use as an antipersonnel device, but the possibility of generating cataracts in-masse or literally boiling the liquid inside the eye has not been addressed with this human-sized microwave oven. And if all the hyperbole is right about cell-phones causing cancer, what about being exposed to a EM field that is an incredible order of magnitude more than the puny few milliwatts a cell phone transmits.
Since this is a "non-lethal" weapon, wait for it to be deployed on every single excuse.
This is a bad idea no matter how you slice it. As an engineer with extensive RF experience, this really sickens me.
I wonder if this new technology could actually be adapted to something useful, such as making my t-bone steak a perfect medium-rare?
Also, not in the article, but how would this affect plant life? Seems that radiation of that type would cause a devastating effect in just a few minutes of exposure, since the plant cannot execute the "Goodbye Maneuver."
Maybe this new weapon would be more useful in eliminating the damn kudzu from the American south.
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
god, I know we don't talk much...I know I make fun of you a lot, and that I use most of your so called "holy books" for toilet paper, but I just wanted to take some time out to thank you.
Thank you god. From the bottom of my heart. Thank you god, for allowing me to grow up and not be living with my parents before this technology came to fruitation. In a different world, with a different timetable, I could be screaming right this very second.
Living With a Nerd
It is good to know that Raytheon is making torture devices.
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
Are you actually serious? Do you have any idea what goes on when a prisoner is tortured for information? This weapon system is the Disney-ified G-rated version of even the mildest "information extraction" techniques, divided by a thousand. This is nothing in comparison. As for your highly specious rape analogy, I can't speak for everyone here, but I'd much rather be mildly burned by an energy weapon than raped, any day, no contest, they're not even in the same goddamn universe.
Honestly, you über-pacifists are never satisfied. First you bitch about the horrible casualties of war - and I won't argue with ya on that one -- but when military contractors try to develop a non-lethal weapon system you bitch about that. The world is an ugly place, human beings are ugly by nature, so any sovereign nation (not just the U.S.) needs a standing military to defend itself when and as needed; the less lethal/destructive we can make those conflicts between nations, the better. Quit your whining, this is a step in the right direction -- a small one, but important nonetheless.
If this is going to be used in a war zone, what are the chances that someone will be able to recover one from a battlefield?
If these things are man- or even truck-portable, a stolen one could massively increase an opponent's lethality; zap a patrol and, while they are writhing on the ground, put a couple of bullets in each of them or lob a grenade into the middle of the group. Or, alternately, open the taps against a crowded marketplace. They won't have the manual to see how long it is safe to use against a target ( and might not care anyway ) and they'd probably play with it to see if they could make it lethal
I think people with amalgam fillings in their teeth may get more than just a temporary 'feeling of pain' from a device like that. So will people with metal plates in their heads, people with replaced joints, which may have some metal content, former soldiers with shrapnel stuck in their bodies etc.
You can't handle the truth.
At least in my experience, Tasers replaced nightsticks and billy clubs because they're more photogenic and have less of a stigma. Most of the situations you see Tasers being used in, would in the "bad old days" probably have engendered use of the club. Only that's not quite acceptable anymore, so instead they've found a method that looks better from a distance, and leaves fewer marks. (No awkward explanations of how somebody 'fell down the stairs,' etc.)
I'm not at all convinced that the level of police brutality has increased in recent years, if anything I think it's probably at its lowest level in this country historically. Arguing with people who consider themselves to be in a position of power has never been a safe sport, and depending on where and when you did it (and who you were), you might have been lucky to get out with the equivalent of a Tasering.
I'm not defending the practice per se, I'm just suggesting that I think you're wrong to assume that the technology actually causes brutality; the brutality has always been there, and always finds an outlet. That the Taser seems to be the choice du jour for causing pain doesn't really make it unique.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Put that thing on someone for too long and you get a Deadly Denial of Skin attack.
Come into my country and torture me with experimental technology, I'll be forgiving.
Quack, quack.
First read this (Time) : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 004099-3,00.html
"Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon praises the approach, which relies heavily on special forces, unmanned drones and possibly a new *high-powered* microwave weapon"
Then, read this (NY Post) : http://archiv.infopeace.de/msg01572.html
"U.S. military officials said last night that a preliminary battle plan
outlined for President Bush last week calls for the most extensive use of
electronic and psychological warfare in history - including secret new
electromagnetic pulse weapons to disable Saddam's entire command and
control structure."
And finally, read this : http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm
"A nightmarish US super weapon reportedly was employed by American ground forces during chaotic street fighting in Baghdad. The secret tank-mounted weapon was witnessed in all its frightening power [...] Searching for a description, al-Ghazali said it appeared to be shooting concentrated lightning bolts rather than just ordinary flames."
Are U.S. using Iraq as a test bed for new electromagnetic *lethal* weapons ?
When these weapons can shoot as milli/microwave lasers, silently, we'll see the next generation in infantry warfare. Snipers get more than one shot, special goggles necessary to see fire, day or night, and no audible clues. I'm unsure how many shots/power you'd be able to get with a pack-based system, but it's got to feel a lot safer zapping enemy targets in a bunker than with a loud noisecannon.
fuck this. when the negro riot again in LA, or any other place, don't bother with this shit. Just shoot the fuckers and make it standard practice. When it becomes apperent that looting and rioting negros are just going to be shot then maybe the won't be in a hurry to riot.
Can't use hoses for crowd control, because that's politically incorrect.
Can't use tear gas because it causes flashbacks.
Can't beat 'em with sticks because it will get looped out of context on TV.
Can't use 94GHz because it's the patchouli band.
Which leaves only one weapon to use for crowd control: Slayer.
In Iraq, this device is probably only effective on a large crowd if the crowd knows where the source of the pain is originating from. While it is probably obvious to test subjects where the "heat" is coming from, an educated guess would say that large crowds may panic and potentially stampede. (Yet another reason for Iraqi's to hate the U.S, oh goodie.)
It's probably a better tool for crowd control and riots that existing methods, but it'll probably get a mandatory audible cue if it sees civil deployment.
Hey, it's sounds better than being taser'd.
http://www.guster.net : Mmmmm fresh Guster.
Now, although these statistics seem to indicate that the weapon's relatively safe as far as non-lethal crowd-control goes, one's got to ask...
If this weapon hasn't been deployed yet, where on earth did they find 10,000 willing test subjects to try this thing out, all the time keeping it top-secret? Sounds to me like there's a very serious human/animal-rights violation going on here (apart from the obvious implications of actually using the thing in practice)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
That could be interpreted as an offensive act that permits escalation. While channel surfing I caught a show going over less-than-lethal weapons, it seems that the US Marine Corp is doing a bit of research in this area. At the end the reporter asked something like: Wouldn't the Marine with the sticky foam gun be at risk if the opponent is armed? The general being interviewed responded that every Marine employing a less-than-lethal weapon will be accompanied by several Marines with highly lethal weapons.
In short, don't be bouncing their hi-tech rays back at them if you are not prepared for them to go ballistic, literally, on you.
Area-of-Denial weapons currently give definite signs of them being used. Tear gas canisters flying and spinning on the ground, releasing very visible gas, water cannons spraying across 50 foot distances, rubber bullets being fired from realistic rifles, mounted police charging into crowds.
When you get hit with any of those, you have definite proof to show it happened and you were being "crowd controlled" or policed. It's visible on your skin (rubber bullets and batons leave some nasty ass bruises) on your mucus membranes (oh, the lovely effects of CS) or your clothes being soaked. They all show up on camera too, for future use in media.
These new weapons are silent, invisible and unproovable. Police/soldiers are able to inflict pain akin to your flesh cooking in a microwave oven and you have NO PROOF AT ALL it ever happened to you. TV, ACLU, police, judges -- nobody will believe you based on your words alone. Today, if the government wants to disperse a protest, the cameras get to see what happened. Next year, all they will see is a crowd scattering for seemingly no reason, with maybe one policeman standing somewhere in the crowd, holding, well, who knows what that looks like... what, exactly?
"There were no problems during the anti-whatever protest today. When the crowd started getting unruly, we ordered them to disperse and used the water cannons, and they quickly did!" Of course nobody has to reveal exactly why so quickly. The microwave area-of-denial weapon is safely guarded where it's not visible to cameras. You wouldn't want anyone to throw a brick at this expensive piece of technology, now would you?!
It actually says that. I had to double check.
What happened to UV, Visible light, Infrared? Whole regions of the electromagnetic spectrum destroyed with one Journalistic Infelicity.
Squirrel!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" - Benjamin Franklin
You can use this quote for this, the conflict in Iraq, airline security nazis...
Our choice??? Maybe one day as the pendulum makes it's long, slow return.
But millimetre waves? They have that scary, otherworldly, science-fictional quality to them. They're invisible, for one thing (and as any film director worth his/her chloride ions knows, what you can't see is always scarier than what you can). And they could do all sorts of unknown long-term damage. In short, they could scare people far beyond their actual capabilities.
Okay, it's not the way that the term 'FUD' is normally used, but it doesn't seem entirely out of place here either...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
This is a bit like saying an asteroid is bigger than a pebble and smaller than the sun... microwaves and x-rays are on opposite ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. It would have been much more useful to say that the waves were longer than visible light, or even longer than infra-red light, but shorter than microwaves.
I think people are confusing "protest" with "mob." A planned protest with people who know what they're getting into, and have protection, is a very different entity from a spontaneous street riot.
Sometimes people who want to crack down on a protest will term it a 'mob' or 'riot,' but they're different. A riot, and what this machine is designed to disperse, is a situation where you have a whole lot of people just getting together spontaneously for the purposes of causing violence. Since spontaneity implies lack of preparedness, this would be effective there.
Even if you have something that starts off as a protest and then becomes a mob or riot, say by virtue of people joining up with the protest whose ends are violent rather than peaceful, then the deterrent system is most effective against the violent hangers-on, rather than the core protesters. So again, it's not ineffective.
"Professional protesters" and the other people likely to bring protective gear are not the real concern, because they're the ones least likely to be causing violence. (And if they are, you can't really call it a 'protest' anymore, it's a battle, and time to bring out the real weapons.) In many ways, a good crowd 'discourager' should have some form of protective gear that's effective against it, because this allows you to drive off violent spontaneous rioters but have minimal effect on core protesters.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you can't win their hearts and minds, just, you know, cook them...
Honestly, you über-pacifists are never satisfied. The alternative to the true pacifist is to let the ones without sins throw the first stones or to turn the other cheek.
So, no, high tech whips are not satisfying as an alternative. any sovereign nation (not just the U.S.) needs a standing military to defend itself when and as needed; the less lethal/destructive we can make those conflicts between nations, the better. Quit your whining, this is a step in the right direction -- a small one, but important nonetheless. Right. This weapon for use in Iraq is a defensive act on the part of the U.S.
Seeing how Iraq posed a clear and pressing danger to the U.S. with it's vast arsenal of stokpiled weapons of mass destruction, fittend onto ballistic missiles as they were...
See, we're saying this weapon will be misused.
Just like the defensive military was misused.
You can't take the sky from me...
Geez, this one comes out every few years. Along with the German Nazi moon-base and water-fueled automobiles supressed by the oil companies.
After a few decades, you wonder who is more stupid: the folks who put these things out or the folks who believe them.
Time to wrap myself in Microwave Popcorn Bags.
mmmmmm.....popcorn.
Have you read my journal today?
Longer wavelength than X-rays...
Everything artificially generated is a longer wavelength than X-rays. Everything shorter we get from nuclear decay.
A sensible comparison might have been to say "longer wavelength than light", or better "longer wavelength than infrared".
The Toyota Camry is longer than a bacterium but shorter than a Lincoln Town car, but it would be retarded to write an article describing it that way.
I'm 39 and can hear it fine. Unlike my experiments with a sinewave generator, where I have difficulty hearing anything over 16 kHz.
I'd guess the Teenbuzz as played by Winamp has maybe 12 kHz. That is quite audible even for older people...
C - the footgun of programming languages
what's the difference with tear gas? if you're too close to a fired canister... it's very painfull/unconfortable
here, in chile, we have universitys where the students riot almost once every 2 weeks (put barricades, throw molotov cocktails, and rocks with slings, etc); the standard riot control tactic used by the police is gas them with tear gas (a lot of it) and spray them with "guanacos" (trucks with water firing devices... like a fire truck but kinda armored; btw the water they spray it's treated with irritating chemicals) so... if someone develops a way to disperse a riot... but without being able to leave your house without being subjecto to the effects to the tear gas in a 2-3 block radius of the riot... i'm in favor of it
What you'd more than likely do with your tinman outfit, is re-focus the energy in some intense ways on yourself or others around you, causing real problems.
You also make a nice, bright, shiny target for a taser if you really seem to be resiting the call to leave an area, and wearing a giant conductive suit around tasers seems like one the less bright choices you could make.
Please let me know what protest you plan to attend wearing tinfoil so I can show up with a video camera and earn big bucks with the hilarious result on Revver.
If a protest is lawful and you have the permits, you have no need for such a suit...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I oppose nonlethal weapons, and I am a pacifist.
Let me tell you why. Lethal weapons have consequences. If you shoot someone, it's undeniable that you shot them, and you will have to answer. If you're the police, facing off a crowd, and the only enforcement tool you have is a gun, you're MUCH more likely to do the proper thing, and talk the situation down or handle it in such a way that it stays in control.
If you have a magic ray gun, you're much more likely to shoot as soon as you bloody well feel like it, without trying to properly address the situation. Not only does this give you a crowd of angry, hurt people, it also fails to address the underlying cause of the disturbance in the first place.
Additionally, the media treats them so much differently. If the police shoot into a crowd of protesters, there is instant, full coverage, and possible society-changing events (Kent State?). If the police shoot tear gas into a crowd, or now shoot them with the magic ray gun, the story is always "An unruly crowd of protesters was dispersed by police. We'll tell you how they were bad people at 11". And nothing else happens. If someone tries to sue for the force being used without cause, the response is usually "it was just tear gas, ya big baby, get over it". So, nothing changes.
And while I do agree that society is becoming a bit more violent, it's also true and documented that police in many countries have taken to instigating violence at large protests in order to have an excuse to disperse the entire event. There are videos of plainclothes officers getting out of police vehicles, mingling with the crowd, and then starting vandalism or violence in an effort to encourage others. So it's no longer a fair measuring stick to say "we'll only use it on violent crowds", because the police are making the violent crowds.
A respect for life is about the only thing we have left going (and it's marginal at that), so it's for that reason that I say we use it to our advantage, and I discourage the use of nonlethal weapons for crowd control. Make the police do their job, not just hit a button every time they think it's time for a coffee break.
(this is also the reason I oppose the use of unmanned combat vehicles, but that's a discussion for another thread.)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
The intended purpose of this device is for crowd control. The implication of people using "armor" would be that the "mob" is actually somewhat organized.
Bullshit. It just means that you came prepared. If everybody wears coats to a protest, does that mean they're organized, or that they watched the weather report?
Wearing armor would also imply that the crowd is likely to atack. Try to picture someone putting on armor so they could quietly sit and protest. These are people who'd at least be throwing rocks.
Bullshit. Wearing armor means you think you're likely to *be* attacked. If you put on a coat, does that mean you're trying to attack the cold?
My guess is that if armor is possible and is used, that the army would put down the millimeter gun and pick back up the machine gun.
Well, maybe. But I think what's more likely is what the Seattle police did in 1999: use tear gas, and prohibit the sale or use of gas masks. While this is a new less-lethal weapon, less-lethal weapons themselves are not new.
One wonders how long before the WTO meetings (and other organizational meetings) are going to be targeted by millimeter-wave weapons wielded by anarchists who no longer dare form crowds in protest?
Seastead this.
Well, I am 35 and I heard that loud and clear OVER my stereo playing. The cats also flew out of the room.
Cool...
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Parker, Smith, Ginsberg, Kowznofski, front and center! Yew all just volunteered to help these here boys from Litton Industries test their new riot gear.
Yes sergeant!
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
It's a recruitment tool. This is going to be used to recruit more "terrorists" etc.
...
Also, if it causes a net increase in trouble and violence I guess the _weapons_ companies are going to be a bit bothered about that aren't they?
1) Sell something to the US military that's supposed to make people pissed off with them "move away" by using something that will piss them off.
2)
3) Profit!
There's actually plenty of info out there on how to actually reduce terrorism, win people to your side, lots of actual real life cases etc.
But it actually seems the people controlling the USA are not interested in reducing the threats to the USA. Just look at the US actions after 9/11 - many Islamic nations were on the US side immediately after 9/11, but what did the USA do instead?
It's not Iraq or Iran or North Korea that's the greatest threat to the USA or the world (it never was Saddam Hussein or even Osama), it's the people ruling the USA. And that's been true for many decades.
Funny the USA spends billions on weapons and wars, and can't even afford to make and use voting machines that work. Makes you wonder what the real priorities and motives are eh?
while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, 'some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'
I find it disturbing that this operates on the same principle as the old saw about boiling a frog in a pot. Shoot the frog with bullets, and the frog (or its surviving kin) will sue you. Shoot it with "non-lethal" rayguns, and it will... er... just jump out of the pot.
Ok, I suppose that's the opposite of the physical effect! But it mstches the political effect, which is that the public will (notionally) accept these radiation guns where they would absolutely not tolerate flying lead. So our plutarchy gets to metaphorically turn up the heat on the burner just a little bit, as opposed to being forced to throw the frog whole hog into a boiling pot.
Still and all, IF we could trust governments to use this lawfully, it would be alright. Unfortunately, that's not the case, now is it? That's the primary case to resist it.
The catch is, at what point does one group become a "rampaging Mob" and does preparation for "crowd control" feed into that.
That line really hits home. I'm reminded of my one experience with a protest gone moderately bad.
2000 Presidential debate at UMass-Boston: the third-party candidates were turned away at the door and we had a huge mob of protesters arranged. The mood was light and spirits were high. The police were out in force but were generally pretty friendly and many of them were casually conversing over the hastily-erected fence. One officer got a rousing ovation when a protester dropped her sign oon the wrong side of the fence and he broke ranks to go over and hand it back. All was well.
Then the riot team arrived.
Black-clad stormtroopers with plexi-glass shields and batons do a lot to kill the mood. The change was dramatic and nearly instantaneous. To this day, I still believe that if the regular beat cops had maintained the barricade, it would never have come down. No one would have been trampled by the equestrian unit and no one would have been maced.
Did the protesters bring this upon themselves? Sure. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
Would they have chosen to do so if they hadn't been threatened by the presence of the riot squad? There's no way to say for sure but I personally don't believe so. The tension - as I observed it - just wasn't anywhere near to critical mass.
Many thanks. I didn't see that companion article earlier. Appreciate it.
The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven...
These waves are not "shorter in wavelength than microwaves", they ARE microwaves (W-band frequency range). The accepted microwave domain among electromagnetic radiation is between ca. 30 and 0.3 cm wavelength. And on shorter wavelengths comes infrared radiation, not X-rays as TFA might suggest.
Did this line "The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves" hurt anyone else's brain? A better line would be "longer wavelength than infrared and light, but shorter than microwaves". A microwave oven at 2.45GHz has a 12.2cm wavelength in free space. One could consider the long IR band to start at around 30um, or about 10 THz. The spectrum continues to shorter and shorter wavelengths with visible light around 500THz (600nm yellow-orange), then ultraviolet up to about 30PHz (30,000THz at 10nm) before the x-ray band.
Was the statement true? Yes. But it doesn't really provide the reader with any useful information. Instead it leaves open a spectral window of about 7 orders of magnitude. Similar misunderstandings of this type are the same reasons why many people think that microwave radiation, such as that from cell phones, are the same as ionizing radiation such as hard x-rays and gamma radiation. Yes, it is all electromagnetic radiation, but someone is seriously missing the point.
/rant
In Soviet Russia the microwave cooks you!!!
You can't take the sky from me...
Sone WTO protestors showed up planning to riot some did not. The quality of their information in this regard was dubious. The events in both Seattle, Miami, and Italy were marked in large measure by an unwillingness on the part of police to draw the distinction or to wait until there was actual evidence of crimes being committed before "swooping in". In some cases the justification for tear-gassing an otherwize nonviolent and legal group was the claim that they had 'intended to' commit crimes. This is not a legal justification. Similarly the claim was made that such groups were, like Iraqi houses, harbouring would-be attackers. This is also a dubious claim given that many of the nonviolent groups (e.g. United Auto Workers) drew a clear policy of *not* harbouring any of the destructive crowd.
If you have evidence to the contrary by all means share it with me but the evidence that has been provided in the past has been litte more than post-hoc claims and does nothing to change the fact that in most cases nonviolent groups were attacked not the other way around.
There is also a related strain in this with the "Free Speech Zones" that have eruped around the Presdent lately. Now because of "evidence of likely crimes" protestors (especially those oppositional to the President) have been locked into large steel cages at his events. This same thing was done for both the DNC and RNC events befoee the last election. The claim was that since unspecified evidence existed that some people might do bad things everyone who opposed the star of the show needed to be jailed (in this case jailed en-masse for a fixed period of time) even though they had not committed any crime.
Such actions do nothing to enhanse free speech or protect people. All that they do is futher segregate society and draw a line between the cops and the population. All they do is give meat to the arguments of the violent crowd that, since we will be jailed either way what does it matter?
Since you mention the Million Man March consider this. 40 years ago when similar marches were attempted they were met with the tear gas, the guns, the firehoses, and the senseless attacks. At that time they were being locked up or attacked because the cops 'had information' that some of them were planning violence. Said actions only raised levels of violence on both sides and made the arguments of people who advocated violence seem that much more attractive.
People often forget that Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, for all their nonviolence, still spent a lot of time in jail, and a lot of time getting attacked by people in uniform.
Why even waste your time discussing this topic? Even if millimeter-wave devices were used for domestic crowd control tomorrow almost none of you would get off your fat assess and do anything about it. And hold up just a second before you race to mod me down - you know in your heart that it's true. To the few among us who actually make real effort to protest such things I commend you. To everyone else who has passively sat back and had 'discussions on the Internet' about everything the US administration has done over the recent years, either stfu or do something about it. I'm tired of the hypocrisy in your comments, of which I share the same guilt even in this very post, but it has to be said.
*Skin Cancer*
... Sun Burn
Surely Im not the only one who thought about this. "Red blistering"
-b.
I've seen even small-scale actions that should never have gotten violent descend because the riot cops got so restrictive or violent (causing pain is violence, even if it is "nonlethal" as far as I am concerned) that the critical mass hits, and gets ugly.
Conversely I've seen good situations where the cops are careful and make it clear that they don't have oppression on their minds. In those cases the few who do want violence are quicky ostracized and free speech continues. These are usually the cases where the riot team is not involved and/or kept on a tight leash off to the side.
This I'm not so sure about. The reason being is that there is a difference between the ones who get ugly and the ones who do not. It is difficult to distinguish in a Mob but I have seen far too many cases of cops going after everyone, or just the wrong ones who didn't 'bring it on themselves' just because they are there.
Case in point, at a sit in last year outside an Army Recruitment center the riot dogs were used to menace (and I believe in one case bite) people just walking down the sidewalk as well as the people engaged in the entirely nonviolent protest with little rhyme or reason. Clearly the people handling the dogs didn't care to make the distinction.
"while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gom_Jabbar
Fuck that. I'd be worried about the effect of this weapon on my testicles.
That is how America is Free. We let you fuck up, then punish you. Isn't your home or business insured? Isn't your car insured?
I'd rather carry a little extra insurance and know that free speech is not being preemptively squelched because a few of the 'haves' might take a loss.
To me, the issue is that freedom isn't free. It costs us some of our security. Using these tools against people BEFORE they have broken the law is wrong.
Blar.
Doesn't metal kind of, uh, heat up and spark like crazy when you put it in a microwave? that doesn't sound like very effective armour to me.
Exactly why you don't put metal in a microwave or wear non-ferrous metal in an MRI (MRIs transmit RF energy with a wavelength of about 36 cm). Millimeter waves are in between the two, so you would probably get very hot, very quick.
How do you like your tinfoil hat now?
Shields, on the other hand, might be effective. Hold a piece of sheet metal in front of yourself in contact with the ground and you might be better off.
science is a religion
I can't hear it. If I turn my speakers up, I can hear the distortion in my speakers, but I'm not really hearing it. I know, because when I turn them down, I don't hear anything, but one of my colleagues can, and yells at me to turn it off. :D Hm, let me try that again. Yep, still works. :D (I only play it for a second or two. I'm not that mean.) Actually, from about 20-30 there's a significant drop-off in who can hear it, so don't be surprised if you're not really hearing it. Get a similarly aged (or younger) friend to help you verify whether or not you're hearing it.
And yes, there are people over 60 who can hear it, too. Very few, however.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Isn't this basically infrared light? It's a longer wavelength than the stuff emitted by your typical remote control or Wii sensor bar, but it's still basically just infrared, is it not?
I think you are talking about a Tasp.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
The use of the term "Non-Lethal" weapons should be banned. The proper term for tasers, beanbag guns, batons, and the like should be "Less-Lethal", as almost anything can be lethal if used correctly, or incorrectly. I would much rather take my chances with a taser than a .357, but I never want to microwaved. Good thing I do not attend protests -- who knew being apathetic was a good thing.
What, you think the police are going to take Polaroid snaps of all the troublemakers, and compare them with faces when they charge an unruly mob with batons? That it's easy to pick out the problems in a melee when people may be running around? Or that rubber bullets don't ricochet or miss -- and sometimes kill in the process, given that they're rubber-coated bullets?
People also can and do suffer long-term injury from batons, rubber bullets, and Tasers. This... less likely.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The use of firehoses for crowd control is frowned upon if not outright illegal as a human rights violation since their use in the race riots of the 1960's. Those weren't lethal either.
Can anyone explain why weapons that would incense the human rights activists in the US or Canada are being deployed overseas? Aren't people overseas considered human by the administration(s)?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Joke aside, I totally agree with your post.
Wrap your entire body in foil before the protest. Seriously.
All this because those people making these things happen actually believe there's a huge difference between Us and Them... and that "Them" are somehow entitled.
"You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too."
And then, along with dozens of others, you're trampled to death.
Coming to a library near you!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"...but how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?"
And how long before someone (foreign or domestic adversary) will disrupt the presidents speach making him look like an idiot while forced to say goodbye to his podium?
The interesing question at this point: how can we detect the use of this weapon? Is the beam visable with some special glasses?
At least the Iraqi's will not complain in a language the Americans will understand...
*zap*
how do you feel right now?
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
"Active Denial " is the perfect name for Bush's entire Iraq "strategy" since the "beginning".
Have they been using a projection device from DC, Texas or Kennebunkport all along?
--
make install -not war
Coming to a library near you!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
from the set-phasers-to-blister dept.
Using Einstein's face as a logo for stories like this is a bit inappropriate.
I would suggest Eward Teller instead.
I agree completely with the submitter!
Its like guns, theyre great for wartime, but I'm afraid of what comes next. SWAT vans full of them??
Buy your kevlar vests before the government bans them!!
Comparing the wavelength of X-rays to Microwaves is like saying an amoeba is smaller than an elephant. These millimeter waves would be at the extreme end of Infrared or very beginning of microwaves.
Obnoxious viewpoints being crammed down our throats aren't the sole domain of the "liberals." Peaceful demonstrations do not restrict anyone's freedom inasmuch as they are a part of freedom which anyone should be entitled to.
As far as conservatives and marching go... from what I've read, it seems "conservatives" prefer to keep their meaningful events comparatively private. And as far as the guns go... well, I live in Alaska. As a state, we're an odd breed which is not done justice by the simple label "conservative," especially not in keeping with the overloaded new meaning of conservative. We have many, many guns up here, and we know how to use them. Don't force your prematurely tired redefinition of liberty and conservativism on us.
Oh, wait, why don't conservatives march? Because they don't have the balls to stand for what they believe in, which is mainly personal profit. Churchgoers of all stripes march, and they often do it very well indeed. Right-to-lifers march (and kill). But conservatives? They do their work in the back rooms and boardrooms where none of the ugly truths need to be mentioned.
"Obey the whims of the liberals." WTF?!? If you're right, it's a free country! If you're not, join the next fucking march and try to change the situation!
IHBT. Woot.
In the instance I was referring to, the people who got trampled are those who formed a chain across the access road leading out of the auditorium (which was, handily, out on a peninsula). The individuals each made their own decisions to go and sit in the road so that the attendees could not leave in order to bring attention to the issue. That is what I meant by "bringing it upon themselves."
These same people could have easily chosen to scatter, remain behind the fence or simply leave once the debate was over. They chose not to do so. I was trying to put it - I think appropriately - in a way in which I wasn't absolving anyone in particular of responsibility for what happened. The protesters (while non-violent) were very clearly being intentionally disruptive. The riot squad - while not directly inciting any of the actions of the protesters - was arguably responsible for the dramatic change in mood which had a situational effect on the protesters, rather than directly influencing their choices.
(Side note: I saw this as I was heeding my self-preservation instincts and pulling the barricades across the road a little ways behind them. No reason to let a good distraction go to waste.)
Ignoring your third paragraph, if the crowd was un-responsive to the mm wave then they'd just revert back to the old tried and true- water hoses and tear gas.
Problem with teargas is that you need protective gear for your guys too.
Iraq has been invaded for thousands years by someone or other. This is important to understand what is happening in Iraq.
Iraqis gave us a chance, but we blew it. No plan and no orginization. Had there been a plan, and had the contractors done what they say they did we would be having the degree of issues we are having today.
After 2 years, they basically sad "My life is worse now, time to drive them out." After thousands of years, they know how to fight people in their land.
Now there were some insergants during the first 2 years, but no more then expected from the then current number of religious radicalls.
Iraq is very complex, and going in was a mistake. Going in without a plan was disasterious.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you're sane, I'd argue that we're in a frightening environment no matter your place on the multidimensional political spectrum.
I am a fiscal conservative, an environmental conservative (I often think, "that word, it does not mean what you think it means"), and a civil liberties freak. I label myself as a leftist because I believe the first two points of my platform can be accomplished through enlightened application of the third.
But part of the problem is that the political spectrum in the US is distorted almost beyond belief. We can't even talk rationally about our positions without explaining them in detail, because political campaigning has so skewed the meaning of most of our vocabulary. When I say "conservative," I mean something quite close to the accepted dictionary definition of many years. I don't mean that I support the status quo or the prevailing religious viewpoint. But if all I said was that I am conservative, you might think I'm a warmonger and your mistake would be understandable.
We are dealing with a terrible dearth of honesty and clarity in public discourse.
[|]
"...longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves..."
Well, they've just described upwards of 99% of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun. And while it is certainly true that this is shorter than the microwaves that cook your food (well, this is slashdot, I should say *most* people's food), it is still within the range considered to be microwave radiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_spectrum
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
I think that this could be the perfect weapon if you use the idea of the phaser. Stun mode to cause disconfort and pain and kill mode to cause permanent lethal burns. This may not be as ethical as the phaser in Star Trek but it is in the right direction, perhaps this is an early predisesor of the Phaser.
Also this can be an exelent cost saving solution compaired to the cost of 50 cal. or even the stanard 5.56 x 22 Nato rounds. It all adds up.
Anonymous -Former Canadian Soldier-
This is meant to gain control of an area not just for crowd control. It doesn't matter if people are in a house or whatever, they will leave when this is turned their way. If this had been used in Fallujah then the city could have been taken in a matter of hours. Everybody good or bad would be forced out. Then you set up checkpoints and let people back in slowly and only once you secure the city and make sure there aren't any illegal weapons caches. It would have simplified the process a lot. As it is some none to bright commanders decided to use some WP grenades in a "shake n bake" operation. Now White Phosphorus leaves scars.
I can't wait for them to use these weapons on protesters outside the "free speech" zones at every G8 meeting. The world is going to hell in a hand basket via corporate domination, and now they have yet ANOTHER tool to coerce the masses into abysmal lives of servitude and obedience.
I for one DO NOT welcome our new follow the dollar overlords.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
You can't take the sky from me...
So does this mean its ok for me to turn my microwaves re emitter on the cops if theyre violating my civil rights? I mean, if they disperse quickly, no harm done. Or maybe a co2 laser in the face? If they close thheir eyes and peacefully turn away, no harm done. I jsut picture the cops using this going "Im not touching you, Im not touching you!!!"
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Nah, they stick your head in a microwave. /Wish I was kidding. //Cops and their gangs have done this since 1985
If you don't get the message you get a lobotomy next.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Uh-oh.
The US Environmental Protection Agency knows it, doctors know it. Radiation causes cancer. The only variable is how much. I would venture to say that they amount of concentrated radiation that is being blasted out of a cannon causes enough radiation to have long term side effects. If you don't believe me, ask the EPA, "Cancer is considered by most people the primary health effect from radiation exposure."
Everything was fine with Abu Grahib before the pictures got out...
It's like this: Water cannons don't look good.
A big shapeless antenna, just sitting there, however... possibly behind a tarp, in a nondescript truck... pictures like that won't cause public outrage.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yup that is true. However, colonists were able to defeat the world's most powerful army to found a nation. The trick is not to fight an oppresive governemnt on its terms, but rather on the terms of the resistance. While the police and various agencies can bring the full power of its arsenal upon protesters gather in a known area where they are expected, they cannot do the same everywhere. Roadside bombs in Iraq are a prime example of this. The D.C. beltway snipers are a prime example of this in the Police States of Amerika. While the U.S. government has a diamond hard composite material shell, it has a soft lard interior. One can look at the lard-assed politicians in office who are flank by their security details or police escorts to see the truth in this statement. One can also look at the totally porous border and the millions of miles of unprotected infrastructure that provides the support for the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen. The weapons that will likely be used against the government will most likely be very low tech. These weapons can be as simple as Bic lighters, cables, or even commonly available firearms. These items may be used just as effectively against infrastructure as against people. How much protection does the U.S. have against 10 thousand angry people armed with lighters and a few rifles? Not much!!!
The government depends on the servitude of the people to support its military and police. People are generally happy until they are made hungry, thirsty or otherwise uncomfortable. Once the comfort level of the population is significantly diminished, demand for positive change will increase. As the government cracks down more and more on people advocating for this change, news of this crackdown will be spread via computer networks or other means. Once the government is villified enough and people are uncomfortable enough, they will revolt. People will participate in this revolt in different ways. Some of these ways will include direct action, spreading the message, providing material support, or simply looking the other way when something occurs.
The fall of the U.S. government is very likely within the next three decades. In the U.S. the common people (which the government depends on) have many enemies. These enemies include Islamic extremists, government officials (local, state, and federal), foreign governments, foreign intruders, and most of all the common people themselves. Geoge Washington himself invisioned these battles all across the country. He knew that when the republic (rule of law) gave way to democracy (rule of man), things will go down hill fast. This is exactly what is happening in the country today.
Do you know why pain exists? It's so you have some motivation to move away from the source of said pain. When something is causing you extreme pain, you are going to move until it stops, not sit around until it causes you serious harm. (This applies to the above too.)
Additionally, to quote the article:
It's unlikely it'd even penetrate far enough to be any more of a worry to pregnant women than to anyone else.
Yes, I'm sure that they, with their 10 years and $40 million, never thought of that; it's remarkable that you, with a few minutes, $0, and no experience whatsoever with the weapon, could so easily spot such a flaw.
Wearing a conductive suit would negate a taser completely, if the electrodes were both in contact with the suit.
Although, I admit I'm unclear on the definition of "asshat".
RELAX NG is truly wonderful, but my favorite feature is RELAX NG Compact which allows you to write the schema without using XML at all. RNG and RNC are functionally equivalent, but RNC removes all of XML's verbosity in exchange for a context-free grammar. It's superb for rapid prototyping.
I wonder if a mirrored surface would be an effective countermeasure?
licet differant, aequabitur
This millimeter wave can be blocked by, oh, a thick jacket. Rebels, previously without a cause, now have a reason to don leather jackets.
Nether were able to block the effects of the beam - having wet clothes INTENSIFIED the beams effects. I think you'll need a microwave like sized grid to protect against wavelengths this size. The metal paint - eh - that'll heat up too - remember the photoelectric effect, as per Einstein.
I like the idea of a variable focus length metal parabola, so that the beam can be deflected back at the beamers.
..........FULL STOP.
If it excites water you'd damn well better have some eye protection. The eyes have a ton of water in them, and if you were to cause rapid heating in them you could cause intense pain in the sensitive corneal area and possibly permanent problems with the eyeballs' innards. This weapon is terribly inhumane, as prolonged, intense exposure could easily cause blindness. I do not want somebody pointing such a thing at me and making my eyeballs pop.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
No way man, just because they're slightly lower than Microwaves, doesn't mean they aren't going to cook your ass slightly slower than a microwave.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Rav
"Manufacturing" images of atrocities. I like that. Because, you know, no atrocities or civilian casualties occured, they simply made it all in photoshop.
... So yes, there is some manipulation of reports, as I said, the battle for the TV is more important than the actual battlefield. And no, no one is claiming that everything shown is faked, just that there is a serious effort to overstate and to falsely attribute some casualties to US forces. Both sides are lying, however with respect to civilian casualties I tend to believe the side whose soldiers endanger themselves to avoid such casualties as opposed to the sides that *intentionally* set off bombs in crowds of civilians.
Actually some bombing damage was photoshoped, CNN had to retract a bunch of photos. Also there were some images of a wailing woman pointing at rubble saying her family was under there, different locations, same woman, same rescue crew,
My Lai was an aberration, and US soldiers endangered themselves to stop it, unlike the VC and NVA, or whom going into a village and assassinating the politically unreliable or uncooperative was a standard procedure.
They Do Something!
It isn't as if it "could be perverted into" a horrible torture device. It IS a torture device. It causes excruciating pain, and leaves no marks. It will be used (if it isn't already) for interrogation. In Iraq first, and eventually it will be purchased by police departments stateside.
6 &did=110, and time and time again I read of police torturing confessions out of people. Police do this. In every country. Every police officer? No, but that distinction won't matter when it's you feeling as if your arm is being cooked.
Then you'll hear from suspects that it was used on them, and the police departments will deny it. Eventually it'll happen to a telegenic white person, and there'll be a congressional hearing (assuming the Democrats are still in office) and they'll discover that US police departments are using them to torture confessions out of people. Everyone will act shocked, condemn the "few bad apples" and it'll continue as before after a brief pause.
Understanding of this issue is divided starkly into two camps--those who understand that power is abused, and those who think power is only abused by that other political party, the one they don't like. I know that humans are who they are. I spent part of my morning reading http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=
It isn't that particular police officers are "bad people" but that people can't be trusted with this much power. Give any population of human beings the power to inflict great pain without being caught, make it convenient for them to use it because doing so will get results, and the results will always be the same--people will do the wrong thing if doing so is in their best interests. Call it original sin, whatever, but power corrupts. It's part of our nature, and can't be negated by optimism or indignant "cops are good people!" responses. People invariably take it as an insult to good cops they know, because they think that evil in this world is due to a few bad apples, not to an innate, insurmountable flaw in our nature. It's that naive optimism that prevents us from acknowledging the limitations to what we can trust people with, and leads us to keep inventiing torture devices like this. This is one of those cases where optimism causes more harm than good, and a bit of cynicism would result in a lot less human suffering.
Ok so the military has a new toy. What did they test it on? If this weapon does make to local authorities to use, what kind of effect will it pose on healthy people? What effects will it have on people with various health conditions? What is gonna happen to the person with liver, heart problems, or the ones with pace makers. I know these are what if's, but isn't that enough to be slightly concerned?
"Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check?"
"even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects." mutants, zombies?? they grow an extra 15 feet and gain super human powers?
"You also make a nice, bright, shiny target for a taser if you really seem to be resiting the call to leave an area, and wearing a giant conductive suit around tasers seems like one the less bright choices you could make."
You have made a nice reference which brings up the potential for police to abuse new tools. We've seen it happen with Tasers... your comment even seems to accept their use as a motivational device.
How long until every squad car has some sort of pain-field generator on it to move hookers off a street corner or to get kids to stop skateboarding outside office buildings? What limits will there be (or are there now) on when and under what circumstances pain can be inflicted on people to control them?
Beside that, your comment smacks of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear..." Police in many cities have demonstrated that they are fully capable of taking peaceful gatherings and turning them into violent, chaotic messes with little or no provocation, so a permit for a demonstration (a laughable idea to begin with) means nothing regarding protection from police violence.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
This kind of thing (assuming it ends up used on crowds) often ends in the form of a lawsuit. Firing one of these things on a large crowd of people will eventually find the exception to the "non-lethal" rule, a wrongful death lawsuit will be filed, won, and the device banned from such uses.
My house was recently burgled. I want a denial weapon to adjunct my burgler alarm. The new Denial of Service attack!
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
There's a big difference between "wet clothes" and a layer of water-containing material. It's pretty simple here: if the radiation cannot penetrate the outer layers of skin, having a virtual "outer layer of skin" must block it.
As for forming a "grid", the metal paint on cloth *forms* a grid out of the fabric. It wouldn't be converted to heat, at least not directly, but electricity. It would build up an electrostatic charge on the outside. Since it's grounded, the current would be conducted into the ground.
Your parabola idea has a fatal flaw: it'll only reflect back a tiny portion of the beam. It will hardly have a measurable effect on return.
Your mother's sturdy; she can work in the mines. And I'd make an excellent pet.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
And the we'll see if you practice what you preach.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What I find truly disturbing is that a user feels compelled to post information that IS ACTUALLY USEFUL as an AC, because he knows he'll get flamed and modded down eight ways from Sunday on Tinfoildot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
all though i have not read all the posts i have yet to see anyone say what i think is ovious.. if it is small enough to be used as some of the people have described(not for riot control) then how tracable would it be?
would "they" be able to trace me and if not i have a few idears
* would i be able to remove that anoying cat from next door and the bird that sings at 5am in the tree next to my bedroom
* remove the children vandaliseing my proptry (my fenss is a particular target)
* no more Mr.NiceGuy in office wars
and finally any police that try to stop me protesting should hope an effective armor to protect them selves because in th tight riot formations they will no where to run!
How long before brave young american men and women are using this device on evil ragheads tied to a chair in Abu Ghraib? Years? Months? Weeks? Days? Hours? Minutes? Seconds?
Fortunately, we won't be seeing any of that in the bleeding heart liberal media, now that cameras have been banned.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
They are called PHASER weapons or PHASERs...a well established name!
Don't tell me that these gadgets will never be abused. Just look to the socalled tazer or taser: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_police_ taser_pregnant_driver.htm or http://www.nbc5.com/news/4179137/detail.html. An instrument that causes intense pain but doesn't leave a mark on the victim? How will we know that it won't be abused by the police when we know what they do with their other 'non-lethal' gadgets?
The current major security issues in Iraq would seem to be daily car bombs, death squads, infiltration of the security forces by militia and impending (or actual) civil war. I don't see how this device helps to solve any of those problems.
If you only watch TV, rioters from Eugene burned Seattle to the ground in '99. But if you were there or read studies (like the conservative Rand Corporation's, my fave ) you learn that maybe a hundred people came at mid-day intending to break windows and do property damage--that's your riot. But 30,000 people were there non-violently starting at dawn. And the cops started tear-gassing and pepper-spraying and all kinds of violence hours before any windows were harmed.
They assaulted non-violent crowds for blocking streets to prevent a meeting of what many saw as an undemocratic organization. I was there, and we fully intended that some of us would be arrested and the rest were ready to support us as we went off to jail singing "We shall overcome" or whatever, right? But the Seattle Police Department decided not to arrest people and instead used up their stock of chemical weopons by mid-afternoon and had to send to Montana to get more. And the next day they officially suspended the constitution and decided to arrest hundreds of people for singing the Star Spangled Banner and holding copies of the Bill of Rights in public. They were out of control.
That was not a riot (except on the part of the police, and hours later a small group of protesters), and the fact that people think it was only shows how little our media covers anything but sadly broken windows and smiling politicians. Meanwhile, the WTO has basically collapsed, and they're making a "24" style movie about the protests. I won't forget what happened those days, plenty to be learned from it.
Wonderful! I'm sure all those folks in the crowd have a solid understanding of the physics of this weapon, and upon encountering the sensation of being burned alive straight through their clothes, their first thought will be, "this weapon operates via electromagnetic radiation... so brickwork won't protect me, wooden structures won't protect me, cloth fibers won't protect me... but metal, aha! metal will block this vicious EM radiation, so I won't waste time trying to take cover behind anything non-metallic". Then the thoughtful crowd member, with both eyes wide open (after all, he knows the corneal damage will heal soon enough), will scan the area for a car or other large metal object to duck behind, and live happily ever after.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
I never respond to /. articles but it seems dozens of people posting and getting modded up got it so wrong. I'm seeing mass torture, escalating violence, and other problems with using this device. I'm also seeing people saying how Tasers are horrible too. This device (and the taser) is a good thing and here is why...it gives the army and the police more choices. Like it or not but the police and army WILL decide when a crowd needs to be dispersed no matter the tools they have to do it. They need to keep the peace after all. When they make this decision its better they have more tools to do the job.
Lets say two towns in the US have crowds getting out of control. In Town A, the police have only clubs, fire hoses, and guns. In Town B, the police have clubs, fire hoses, guns, tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags, and this new wave weapon. Which police department do you believe has the better chance on solving the problem with minimal long term and short term impact to the police AND crowd? If I was caught in that mess as either a policeman or in the crowd I would wish for the police to have the tools to make better choices. Sometimes rioting crowds just need some encouragement to disperse. Other times its an all out battle and you need every tool to get out of that mess without the loss of human life.
I grew up in East Lansing and remember riots after basketball games. Riots occur and this is another tool to keep help solve the problem.
from an Iraqi's POV? Yeah, future's gonna suck big time.
The entire world would declare war on the US.
Heck, so would most of slashdot.
We're almost to 3k dead. Where are the WMD's? Why was the name changed from Operation Iraq Libration? (OIL) How do you tell when the president and his operatives are lying? (Their lips are moving) Why is Bush such a liar? (politics)