US Military Tests Non-Lethal Heat Ray

URSpider writes "CNN and the BBC are reporting on a US military test of a new antipersonnel heat ray. The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene. The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested. The government is also appealing to the scientific community for help in creating another innovative military technology: artificial 'black ice'. They hope to deploy the 'ice' in chase scenarios to slow fleeing vehicles." We discussed the military's certification to use the device last month.

Comments

I hate vultures.

[silentounce]

"The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested."
 
You're worried about the soldiers, right?

Re:I hate vultures.

[parasonic]

You're worried about the soldiers, right?

I would be. Millimeter waves (microwaves) can do a lot of unpredictable things. I know that from some research, cops that shoot traffic radar for a long period (e.g. 20 to 30 years) frequently (daily or weekly) have a much higher tendency to contract cancer than those who don't.
 
That is over a long period of time, but we are talking about powers of microwatts or milliwatts at most from 10-34GHz being absorbed. I'd argue that this "heat ray" throws decawatts at a body.
 
There will be repercussions.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea. There reporters are expendable, and most likely will not get the facts correct anyway.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Viper Daimao]

Wired (which I remember covering directed-energy weapons back in 2004 and 2005) recently wrote up an easy-reading article that covers most frequently asked questions about ADS, like:
"Does it cause lasting damage?"

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.
And if the military is willing to try it out on news reporters (volunteers all), as they did in the breaking story, they're pretty confident.

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.

"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the report says.
[...]
[T]he Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard.
"Okay, no lasting damage usually, but how long does the pain last?"
The pain ceases as soon as the beam's no longer on you.

Yet the ADS, like every nonlethal weapon, is heavily scrutinized because of the potential for abuse ("Will the version in the field be as harmless as the one used on reporters?", etc.) and because, presumably, exotic new technologies like this are hard to sell to a skeptical public. Hence, the reporters themselves being subjected to the weapon.

Then, of course, there are those who oppose any new weapon almost on principle. But after reading similar comments at several sites, I have to ask, Why?

Why oppose battlefield (or riot zone) use of the ADS, which can allow our servicemen and -women to stop a suspicious person at long range rather than (A) let the person close distance and potentially harm our troops, or (B) have our servicemen shoot (lethally) first and ask questions later?

It's precisely these ethical and operational questions that lead me to believe that directed energy has a big part to play in future combat operations. Especially once these weapons get smaller (even as small as rifle-sized, perhaps with a battery in the backpack), there are all kinds of potential military applications.

If you can disable people all around a combat zone without killing them--perhaps so you can get in, detain a high-value target and get out--you don't really have to (for example) discriminate between innocent civilians and enemy combatants who dress like civilians. Instead of killing anyone who gets too close to a vehicle convoy (hey, you don't know if he has a bomb strapped to him, or a gun hidden in his clothing), just zap 'im for a few seconds at a few hundred meters (much further than bombs and much effective small arms fire usually reach) and keep moving. Furthermore, if you can make a combatant stop and drop without putting a bullet in him, you're more likely to be able to detain and question him.

That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?

Heck, if they can miniaturize it, why not allow it in more mundane civilian/police applications? A short shock of pain is better than being shot, and as the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout illustrated, bullets aren't always as effective as something like the ADS could be.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Incongruity]

Can you cite a recent peer reviewed study? -- I'm not trying to flame you here, but your comment made me do a bit of digging and the most recent study that I could find was Breckenkamp, et al., "Biological effects on human health due to radiofrequency/microwave exposure: a synopsis of cohort studies." published in 2003 in Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 2003 Oct;42(3):141-54. and their conclusion was:

In most of the studies, an increased risk for various types of cancer was found in exposed study participants, although in different organs. The overall results were, however, inconsistent. The most important limitations of the studies were the lack of measurements referring to past and current exposures and, thus, the unknown details on actual exposure, the use of possibly biased data as well as the lack of adjustment for potential confounders and the use of indirect standardization techniques. Due to these limitations and the inconsistencies of the results it has to be concluded that the studies give no evidence of high frequency emissions causing cancer.

Basically, while you can point to individual studies that show exposure increases cancer risk, there is no over-arching pattern that has been reproduced from one study to the next and therefore it becomes a real possibility that methodological errors may have caused incorrect results in those studies. At the very least, it means that the story isn't as simple as you're portraying it and more research clearly needs to be done.

Re:I hate vultures.

[arth1]

Why oppose battlefield (or riot zone) use of the ADS, which can allow our servicemen and -women to stop a suspicious person at long range rather than (A) let the person close distance and potentially harm our troops, or (B) have our servicemen shoot (lethally) first and ask questions later?

Why indeed oppose a weapon that causes excruciating pain but doesn't leave any kind of mark, which you have no chance to run away from, and which is far more useful against groups of people standing in the open than against individual enemies? I can't imagine...

By the way, when'll the handheld "tough questioning" model be coming out?

Re:I hate vultures.

[COMON$]

Why not just build a huge satellite and fire the sucker off at entire nations from space? Ok ok, bad flashbacks of popcorn exploding from houses.

But seriously, I would rather have a heat gun pointed at me than tear gas next time I feel like rioting.

Re:I hate vultures.

[smadasam]

I think you are misinformed. At high frequencies like this "heat ray" will not even penetrate 1mm into the body. If you would like to be more informed read IEEE C95 standard for RF bioeffects. It would talk a ridiculously long exposure to have serious effects, and the whole point is to have people run away and not stand in the beam. Much lower frequencies are what cause more damage, internal damage. I think resonance for the human body is more like 75 MHz, so closer to that range, you would see the body absorbing most of the energy.

Re:I hate vultures.

[hador_nyc]

That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?

Exactly. The standard is not perfection, but the alternative. In most cases, their only alternative is a gun. Sure water cannons are great when you have access to lots of water, but that isn't the case in Iraq for instance.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Viper Daimao]

So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.

Re:I hate vultures.

[delt0r]

I would be. Millimeter waves (microwaves) can do a lot of unpredictable things. I know that from some research, cops that shoot traffic radar for a long period (e.g. 20 to 30 years) frequently (daily or weekly) have a much higher tendency to contract cancer than those who don't. Do you have something to back that up? rather than just a "i know..." kind of data?

In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data!

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're having difficulty imagining the high likelihood of abuse of this sort of technology, then you're part of the problem.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot, of course he objects to soap!

Re:I hate vultures.

[SirKron]

OK, miniturize this to the size of a mace spray and every celebrity will buy one to combat the paparrazi. Get out of my back yard you slug! Zzzaaappp...sizzle.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

can be misused

I take it you're all for giving mass-murdering psychopaths guns too, since they "might" kill people with them.

Let me know when you find some evidence that it might not be abused, and I'll quit griping about this.

Re:I hate vultures.

[DrWho520]

(hey, you don't know if he has a bomb strapped to him, or a gun hidden in his clothing)
What are the chances this might set the bomb off, especially if it is a low-tech bomb? I, personally, have no problem with this.

Re:I hate vultures.

[displague]

I read an article about this elsewhere and they mentioned that it has been tested on 10,000 people without a single injury requiring medical attention.

Re:I hate vultures.

[xappax]

A short shock of pain is better than being shot

If someone were going to shoot me, I'd much prefer that they hit me with a "pain ray" than a bullet. That's so obvious it goes without saying, which is why most people tend to think that non-lethal weapons are a good thing with no downside.

There is a huge downside. Non-lethal pain-inducing weapons have a massive potential for abuse. Let me relate a few stories:

I saw some cops who had caught a shoplifter outside a supermarket. They had him in cuffs and he was being verbally obnoxious, though not physically dangerous. He made an admittedly very offensive racial insult at one of the cops. She walked right up to him, got out her mace, and blasted him right in the face. He collapsed choking, vomiting, unable to breathe, but the EMTs on the scene were prohibited from helping the guy because it was a non-lethal weapon: his health wasn't actually being threatened.

A student at UCLA who committed the non-violent, non-threatening offense of refusing to show ID, was restrained and shocked repeatedly with a taser. It was caught on video, and the cops were very obviously using the taser as a tool for forcing compliance, not defending themselves against danger. The officer's comment in that article "If he was able to walk out of here, I think he was OK," is especially telling about the police attitude toward taser use.

Non-lethal weapons have the potential to be used in the same way as lethal weapons - namely using force to prevent someone from harming you. But they can also do something that lethal weapons cannot - they can be used for what is effectively torture: the inflicting of serious pain for very minor reasons. Lethal weapons cannot be used this way because shooting or stabbing someone has a very severe, permanent, and noticeable effect.

Officers or soldiers who shoot someone have a lot of explaining to do. There is an identifiable wound, a permanent harm done to them, and because it's easier to hold someone accountable for shooting someone, officers and soliders are much more reserved and judicious in their use of lethal weapons. By contrast, non-lethal weapons are used essentially at a whim, because the perceived severity of their action is both to themselves and the public eye, much lower.

Non-lethal pain-inducing weapons are torture - there's simply no way around it. There are undeniably certain circumstances when torture is preferable to execution, but we must think very carefully about how and where we introduce tools of torture to be used by our military and police - their use must be taken every bit as seriously as lethal weapons.

Re:I hate vultures.

[BendingSpoons]

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied... Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.

That's all the reassurance I need. Start frying those protesters, boys!

"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the report says.

If this isn't just the height of ingratitude. Here these poor weapon-makers are, just trying to blast a drugged monkey in the eyes with a heat ray, and the brute keeps shutting his eyes! If the monkey had any sense of decency, he'd keep his chin up and help progress roll forward, instead of forcing these upstanding citizens to tape his eyelids open.

Re:I hate vultures.

[edwardsdl]

So what then do you recommend? Weapons are an unfortunate necessity (it's true, whether or not you believe it). While this does have potential for abuse, torture is not its intended purpose. The developers clearly had good intentions when designing this. Not every soldier or law enforcement official is out to rape, pillage, and kill you.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Viper Daimao]

I doubt that is the case or this stuff would be used to blow up IED's already.

Re:I hate vultures.

[kmac06]

The cops that shoot traffic radar don't get cancer from the radiation, they get it from God smiting them for doing the most asshole job for 20-30 years.

Re:I hate vultures.

[denzacar]

I'm not even going to go into is it humane. Or how it can be abused.

But, did anyone else notice that the basic idea is that you start of with targets already at least 250 meters away?
Plus, reading into article reveals that the ray is intended to focus on single targets. Oh yeah... really useful. Just have five guys run towards the vehicle form different directions.
It won't trip them, or push them back when it hits them like a water cannon would. They will feel intense heat.
So, you target potential human bomb A, while potential human bombs B,C,D and E continue to run towards the vehicle. And, while target A is in pain (unless he is on some kind of pain-dulling drug) they feel nothing.
So you switch to target B. Now target B feels the pain (maybe... unless he or she is drugged up to the gills) and maybe stops advancing, but the target A is up and running towards you again.

And all that if the targets start out from the distance of 250 meters or more.

As a crowd suppression and dispersion tool, this is going to be practically useless.

But as a tool for torture? Top notch product!

Re:I hate vultures.

[blugu64]

"But seriously, I would rather have a heat gun pointed at me than tear gas next time I feel like rioting."

Doing anything weekend after next? I've got the itch for a good riot.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Knuckles]

And if the military is willing to try it out on news reporters (volunteers all), as they did in the breaking story, they're pretty confident.

Yes, sure.

Re:I hate vultures.

[electrosoccertux]

So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits. How about perfectly legal, safe, controlled protesting?

That's what I see this being used for. Gov't doesn't like
a). What they're protesting about (IE the protesters are right, the gov't knows it, and doesn't want the word to spread)
b). How many people are involved (same fear as above, word could spread)

So just use a non-lethal weapon that leaves no mark to get rid of the people with no consequences!

That's the issue here, there's a much smaller barrier to disbanding legal protesting than there was before existence of this weapon.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can disable people all around a combat zone without killing them--perhaps so you can get in, detain a high-value target and get out--you don't really have to (for example) discriminate between innocent civilians and enemy combatants who dress like civilians.

Ah, the rarely used but highly effective "Star Trek" strategy: stun them all and sort it out later.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Torvaun]

What's the difference between this and tear gas in this case?

Ability to be used indiscriminately on crowds?
Tear gas: Check
Heat gun: Check

Lack of long term side effects?
Tear gas: Check
Heat gun: Check

Still obvious on camera?
Tear gas: Check
Heat gun: Check

If you've got a video going, waves of people cringing and crying out is going to be just as obvious as a billowing cloud of gas. We will be able to look at the tapes, and say that this is what happened. With no pain when it's not actively in use, if someone's still writhing around, they're still being zapped. This is an obvious thing.

The consequences for the government has not been changed.

Re:I hate vultures.

[AK Marc]

So just use a non-lethal weapon that leaves no mark to get rid of the people with no consequences!

Yes, because the 1000s of eye witness accounts, the videotapes of the guys using it, and the government documents that leak out authorizing it will not convince anyone of wrongdoing.

Re:I hate vultures.

[AK Marc]

If you're having difficulty imagining the high likelihood of abuse of this sort of technology, then you're part of the problem.

No one said they can't envision it being misused. If you can't imagine all the misuses of a screwdriver, then you are part of the problem.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Illserve]

That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?

Not necessarily. The subtext behind the development of nonlethal weaponry includes a weapon that the military can use on its own civilians without crossing a certain line. At the moment, existing non lethal weapons are lethal enough that they tend to cause a death or two in a big mob (witness the Boston Red Sox winning the Pennant, a girl caught a rubber bullet in the face and died).

The ability to forcefully disperse mobs without causing media-sensation deaths takes us one tiny step closer to a very... gradual.....police state.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are different groups in the military trying to develop this type of weapon, so my response may not apply to this specific case. This type of weapon has been extensively tested on people, and every person that is involved in developing at least one type of this weapon (engineers, technicians, program manager, etc.) has been radiated on. The only direct comment about this program that I can provide is "It Hurts." As for long-term effects, I am not a doctor, but in the last few years of testing, we have seen nothing harmful.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.

As standard-issues police/MP armaments? FUCK YES I OBJECT. We're not talking about a generic "tool", we're talking about something specifically designed to be a weapon, given to the police for that express puprose. If a cop was caught walking around with a bar of soap in a sock, there might be some questions asked. But his microwave torture device? He's supposed to have that.

There'll be plenty of other posts on the subject, just like there were in the last article on this weapon, but I'll say it again: The difference between a lethal and non-lethal weapon is not just that you'd rather have the non-lethal weapon used on you, it's also that the police are vastly more likely to use the non-lethal weapon on you!

Especially a weapon that leaves no marks, and thus no proof after the fact that the weapon was in fact used. You don't think that'll be used more recklessly by police than their sidearm any use of which requires extensive justification and accounting for every shot fired? "Huh, those protestors said we used our microwave pain rays? They're lying! Just like they're lying about the first guy to throw a rock being a plain-clothes cop!"

This isn't someone re-purposing a bar of soap and a gym sock as a torture device -- which, if a cop was found walking around with and using, would cause some questions to be asked. This tool's benefit is the same as its downside.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I wonder is how easily the device could be modified if the enemy were able to take it....

Re:I hate vultures.

[Mawginty]

I'm not sure that the consequences of not having non-lethal weapons are worse than the consequences of having them. The reason being that more flexibility governments have in the use of force the more incentives they have to use force. In other words, when you take away all the costs associated with beating people up to get your way you end up beating up a lot more people a lot more often.

In the short term bullying people around to advance an agenda might seem useful, but eventually those people get pissed off and no amount of suppressive violence will keep their rage in check. Also remember this technology is going to start being deployed in 2010. Do we still want to be in Iraq in 2010?

On the whole I think it's better for violence to have real consequences so that it is used when there is no other option. If at all feasible it is always better to use diplomacy and weapons like this microwave gun reduce incentives to diplomacy.

Re:I hate vultures.

[KurdtX]

While I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, I think you're assuming this new technology is going to make cops more likely to retaliate against the petulant people they have to deal with.

As Rodney King showed, cops really don't need anything high tech to abuse their powers, and in a more general sense, any public servant abusing their power is nothing new. You can draw up all the cases you want about cops abusing x new technology, but if they didn't have x, they probably would have used a club or elbow to the stomach, which generally has the same effect that they're trying to produce. Don't blame the technology.

So the question you're really trying to pose is would new technology increase the number of abuses? Personally I don't think so, although I don't think they'd go down either. If that's a wash, then will it help cops in situations where they otherwise would have pulled their gun? Absolutely.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Viper Daimao]

As standard-issues police/MP armaments? Which it isn't.

But I'm going to put you in the "oppose any new weapon almost on principle" group I mentioned in my first post.

Re:I hate vultures.

[644bd346996]

One has to wonder if this will work in iraq. If the air is already 130 degrees F, will this device make a difference? Or will it heat up people too much and induce heat stroke or burns?

Re:I hate vultures.

[BatMacumba]

"The developers clearly had good intentions when designing this."

Hmmmm... A military that not only monitors peaceful protesters, but aims to inflict non-lethal, excruciating pain on them.

Among the 'Oppressions' mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independance:

'He <the King of Great Britain> has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.'

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

Which it isn't.

But I'm going to put you in the "oppose any new weapon almost on principle" group I mentioned in my first post.

Because you can quibble about the word "standard"? Are you really saying this falls in the same category as soap in a sock? It's intended use is to inflict pain, and will be delivered to police and soldiers for that express purpose!

You're just putting yourself in the "pigeon hole all opponents without even reading their posts" group. "On principle" my ass. Read my post. There are legitimate reasons to be worried about a weapon like this, you're the one with the knee-jerk reaction.

Re:I hate vultures.

[hador_nyc]

One has to wonder if this will work in iraq. If the air is already 130 degrees F, will this device make a difference? Or will it heat up people too much and induce heat stroke or burns?

I'm no doctor, but that seems reasonable to me. My impression is that it increases the ambient local temperature on the skin X number of degrees, causing the effect. By that logic, I could see it giving people minor burns, but probably not heatstroke. Still, I would think it would not be worse than a sunburn, and either way, that's still better than a bullet.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think resonance for the human body is more like 75 MHz, so closer to that range, you would see the body absorbing most of the energy.

A 2-meter conductor on a ground plane resonates at 75 MHz, so I assume that's where this number came from. This number tells you nothing about higher frequencies only that lower ones will not be absorbed much.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Dan D.]

What's interesting here is that you're mentioning cops as an example and he's mentioned soldiers. For cops, lethal weapons are used rarely (or supposed to be...) and subdued means constrained by handcuffs... for a soldier subdued means dead. So from the perspective of cops its an escalation that makes them lazier about how to get a subject into handcuffs (and thus shouldn't be given to police) for soldiers, however, it allows them to avoid killing people (without putting themselves at as much risk as current methods), which is nice in an occupation situation. Seems to me the only problem is how to keep it in the hands of only military for the rest of time.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

For cops, lethal weapons are used rarely (or supposed to be...) and subdued means constrained by handcuffs... for a soldier subdued means dead.

That's a fine point, but in Iraq our soldiers have become de-facto cops by necessity. And they have certainly subdued plenty of people without killing them; we aren't filling the detention centers with corpses. This is good because we're trying to establish order and you don't do that by shooting anyone who steals a pair of sneakers, but it's bad because it means that we're giving this weapon to people who lack the training a traditional police officer gets that at least in theory would make them more reluctant to escalate to a pain-inflicting device. If they're used to thinking in terms of lethal force, they would consider a mere pain-ray a complete non-issue and I imagine would be even more ready to use it than a police officer.

Soldiers in a battlefield are one thing -- and they probably wouldn't use this weapon. Soldiers patrolling the streets of an occupied city are no different than cops, only more heavily armed and less well trained. I don't see this weapon helping the situation.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Instine]

not only are we likely to see casualties. Probably fairly inocent ones at protests that get 'out of hand'. But Get what will save you? Thats right A TIN FOIL HAT!!!!

Seriously. A little foil in clothes will stop those nasty rays. As will many other things. So the ones looking for trouble will defeat the technology very quickly. The ones minding there own business at a ralley the government doesn't like, will be treated worse than cattle...

Re:I hate vultures.

[silentounce]

I don't think it means what you think it means.
Let me 'splain... the king allowed the military units in the colonies to be the dominate force. They didn't have to answer to the Governor. And in many cases they were the civil power.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

He made an admittedly very offensive racial insult at one of the cops. Well I guess he shouldn't have been mouthing off in the first place.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Valdrax]

Well I guess he shouldn't have been mouthing off in the first place.

Well, I guess that in your mind that justifies any use of force, doesn't it?

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't even want to start thinking about the amount of torture that can be done with non-leathal weapons. I can do things to you with a spoon that would make you beg for death. (Think rotational force at either end of the digestive system for a simple starter.)

I'm going to guess you are now going to oppose spoons being allowed to the military.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Hubbell]

Rodney King was NOT police brutality.
He was high on cocaine and pcp, drunk as hell too, just crashed his car after running from the cops going 90mph in a residential neighborhood, and was REPEATEDLY attacking the officers around him even before they started beating him. The only way to safely subdue him was to literally beat him into submission. In case you don't know what PCP and Cocaine do, PCP dulls nearly all pain, is prone to making someone who gets really high on it extremely paranoid and violent, and is like a nonstop adrenaline rush, if someone is really whacked out on it they can take a gunshot and not even notice it until they collapse from blood loss. Cocaine also numbs pain and makes someone violent. If Rodney had just stayed down instead of constantly getting up, he wouldn't of had to be beaten.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

I'm going to guess you are now going to oppose spoons being allowed to the military.

That's because you're a fool who hasn't listened to a word that I've said.

I oppose spoons being given to the military for the express purpose of being used as torture devices. The day I see riot police brandishing spoons and threatening to harm protestors with them is the day your argument makes a god-damn lick of sense.

This weapon is not some random tool like a tape measure or a screwdriver that could hypothetically be re-purposed for torture, it is a torture device as designed and when used as intended. That is its function -- inflicting pain on human beings en mass and from a distance.

Re:I hate vultures.

[treeves]

That's not a plausible mechanism - increased risk of cancer is a probabilistic thing while Einstein said "God does not play dice" therefore. . .

Re:I hate vultures.

[xappax]

You can draw up all the cases you want about cops abusing x new technology, but if they didn't have x, they probably would have used a club or elbow to the stomach

I get the meme about how technology is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil, etc. In fact, I agree with the implication that it's not the non-lethal pain inducing weapons themselves that are causing these incidents of torture - it's authority figures who abuse their power.

However, there is a very important difference between an old school "non-lethal beating" and a high-tech heat gun nerve frying: Old methods look bad. Seeing cops or soldiers wail on someone provokes an emotional reaction, but high tech weapons don't look as brutal. Similarly, if you've been beaten unfairly, your bruises, broken bones, etc. are highly visible evidence of your bad treatment, and make it easier to hold the attacker accountable. And let me tell you - one of the main things that keep cops and soldiers in line is their fear of being reprimanded by the public or their superiors. As a rule, the easier it is to get away with abuse, the more it will happen.

The improvements that higher tech pain inducing weapons bring are usually:
- Causes greater pain, and
- Doesn't cause permanent damage

So I agree that authority figures torturing people with little reason isn't a new phenomenon, but everytime a tool is developed that makes it easier for them to do it to get away with it, we should be very concerned.

Personally, I can absolutely see uses for these weapons, and wouldn't want to stop their development or production, but I think that the use of non-lethal weapons by authority figures should be monitored and accounted for just as closely as their use of lethal ones.

Re:I hate vultures.

[jafac]

I guarantee this weapon will be abused - for torture, and curtailment of free speech rights.

And I guarantee that there is not a damn thing anyone, any activist, or politician, or bureaucrat, or DoD safety-manual writer can to to stop it.

This weapon is a bad, bad thing.
And it is coming to a protest, or detention center near you.
  (what, you don't think that our privatized prison system won't want these for riot-control? You think that's ALL it would be used for?)

And they will be sold to tinpot dictators the world over.

And the bad guys will also figure out how to make these. And maybe the Somalian or Pakistani version won't be as well engineered for the target's safety as this version is. Maybe they'll come with a control knob that turns this into a lethal weapon.

The jackboot is now obsolete.

That said; this technology is also a very, very good thing, because it will also be used to save lives.

My particular beef is that human beings can't be trusted with something like this.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Dan D.]

Not to put too fine a point on it (or to try to talk military/political strategy), but I agree. But I think the problem in Iraq isn't that the soldier shouldn't have non-lethal options. Its that the soldier shouldn't be a cop (special forces, etc. notwithstanding.) Its two different jobs (as you pointed out, different training,) and in an all volunteer army, its best to make the at least common job (special forces, etc. notwithstanding) as easy as possible so that the widest number of people are capable of doing it.

Re:I hate vultures.

[edwardsdl]

You're joking right? So the government monitors protesters - while this may be a bad thing, it hardly lends itself to the conclusion that they want to torture all peaceful protesters. Do you want to try to run this by me again, perhaps with some semblance of logic this time?

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

But I think the problem in Iraq isn't that the soldier shouldn't have non-lethal options. Its that the soldier shouldn't be a cop (special forces, etc. notwithstanding.)

Absolutely. The lack of trained MPs has been one of the major criticisms I've had of the Iraq plan ever since the conventional war ended. Of course Rummy wasn't expecting to actually have to stick around long enough to do police work, so why should he need MPs? /forehead slap

Re:I hate vultures.

[denzacar]

Wo-HO! Parent post just got me my first negative karma.
Who would have thought it would be THAT easy.

Re:I hate vultures.

[dennypayne]

So make their use auditable. Fit the devices with a recording device similar to a "black box" flight data recorder (flash memory, whatever) that cannot be tampered with by field officers. Require an explanation for each use. At least then there's some of the accountability back. Denny

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

A student at UCLA who committed the non-violent, non-threatening offense of refusing to show ID, was restrained and shocked repeatedly with a taser.
Way to misrepresent the situation. He wasn't restrained/tazed for refusing to show his ID. He was asked to leave because he didn't show his ID in an area that required him to do so. When he refused to leave, he was dealt with forcefully. What should they have done, cordoned off the area and waited until he felt he was good and ready?

The cops are not your chauffers. They are there to enforce the law and if you have a problem with that, you shutup and wait until you get to the courtroom (which was setup as a separate branch of government for a reason). Until that point you comply with everything they say.

If you want to assign blame for the amount of force that would be used, well, it is honestly because of people complaining about exactly that. There is a lot less liability now for cops to taze/pepper spray someone from a distance than to physically engange them. That's also why you'll get tazed instead of the billyclubbed--that latter looks just horrible when presented on police videos to juries (but of course it really a more pleasant experience than 150,000 volts from five guys).

I saw some cops who had caught a shoplifter outside a supermarket. They had him in cuffs and he was being verbally obnoxious, though not physically dangerous. He made an admittedly very offensive racial insult at one of the cops. She walked right up to him, got out her mace, and blasted him right in the face. He collapsed choking, vomiting, unable to breathe, but the EMTs on the scene were prohibited from helping the guy because it was a non-lethal weapon: his health wasn't actually being threatened.
So, he shopped around for some response from the cops, and he got it. Sounds like a fair deal to me. If he hadn't gotten the attention that way, it is a reasonable expectation that he might have felt compelled to escalate his efforts physically until he got what he wanted. In that case, it's better for everyone to diffuse the situation earlier--the cops don't get assaulted and he doesn't get shot.

Cops deal with some real psychos. People who glue razor blades to their drivers licences so they can slash them at traffic stops. Non-compliance is always a safety issue.

Do you personally deal with sociopaths often enough to vouch 100% that the guy those cops were arresting was all talk and nothing more?

Re:I hate vultures.

[Monsuco]

That's what I see this being used for. Gov't doesn't like
a). What they're protesting about (IE the protesters are right, the gov't knows it, and doesn't want the word to spread)
b). How many people are involved (same fear as above, word could spread)

Yes, but the government is also well aware of the fact that protesters hold no real political influence as nobody listens to them.

Re:I hate vultures.

[shadowbearer]

  When one considers that it can be scaled up nearly infinitely, it would seem to me that it ought to fall under international law regarding area effect weapons that shouldn't be used on civilians.

SB

Re:I hate vultures.

[mateomiguel]

but... it is designed to replace guns, which are designed to inflict DEATH on human beings in masse from a distance. Choose one, DEATH or PAIN.

Re:I hate vultures.

[BatMacumba]

Logic has nothing to do with the use of 'non-lethal' weapons on peaceful protestors. 'Non-lethal' weapons (the majority of which have killed people) are infamous for their use to break up demonstrations, peaceful or not. So: if this weapon is devloped, it will be used on protestors, just as rubber/plastic/capsicum bullets, water cannons, tear gas, truncheons, tasers, etc. etc. have been used.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Dabido]

As soon as I saw this article I had visions of Fry covering his testicles in pain the first time it's tried on him, and not the second time.

Re:I hate vultures.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I don't know about where you live, but over here it NATURALLY gets to 130 F every once in a while. Making people uncomfortable would hardly break up most of the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life displays that I have seen; those people don't leave despite being pressured into a small area on a hot day with no water and the police telling them to leave.

Re:I hate vultures.

[edwardsdl]

I am absolutely in agreement that this will be used for ill, but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned. There are bad folks out there, and unfortunately they are in positions of power. That's simply a fact that we must accept about our world - there is nothing that can be done about it. I can understand how people have this knee jerk reaction when they see so often the misuse of power - then see the culprits dodge punishment. Once again, there is little we can do about it - it has and will continue to happen forever. We can't let our fear of bad people impede the progress of useful technology. The vast majority of people who will be behind this weapon are probably not out to maim, torture, or kill. While I am sure I will disagree with the manner this weapon is used in the future (like breaking up a peaceful protest for no good reason), that doesn't outweigh the good that it can and will do.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Anonymous Coward]

She walked right up to him, got out her mace, and blasted him right in the face. He collapsed choking, vomiting, unable to breathe, but the EMTs on the scene were prohibited from helping the guy because it was a non-lethal weapon: his health wasn't actually being threatened.

You contradict yourself.

Re:I hate vultures.

[bladesjester]

Do we still want to be in Iraq in 2010?

We still maintain a military presence in Korea, and that happened when my grandfather was in the military....

For that matter, we're still in Okinawa, and World War 2 happened before Korea. Last I knew, one of my girlfriend's friends was stationed there with her husband.

We have this interesting habit of maintaining military presence wherever we happened to have a war.

On a related note..

[GreenEnvy22]

The volunteers for this test report they are very happy with their sun tans, but have severe cases of "farmers tan"

split opinion

[Lord_Slepnir]

One one hand, a bunch of Iraqis with burns they can claim was caused by the Great Satan's hellfire gun is about the last thing we need. On the other hand, it's better than giving them a sudden case of lead poisoning.

Re:split opinion

[Eudial]

One one hand, a bunch of Iraqis with burns they can claim was caused by the Great Satan's hellfire gun is about the last thing we need. On the other hand, it's better than giving them a sudden case of lead poisoning.

How about getting out of Iraq and leaving those poor people to mend their shattered country themselves?

Re:split opinion

[dave420]

Someone should have told that to those asshats using WP on unarmed civilians.

Re:split opinion

[CRCulver]

How about getting out of Iraq and leaving those poor people to mend their shattered country themselves?

You're assuming that the Iraqis want to mend their shattered country. Most would be perfectly happy fragmenting it along ethnic lines. The only reason the U.S. is keeping it together is to avoid pissing off Turkey (by creating an independent Kurdistan) and to avoid giving Iran the gift of a nice Shi'ite client state.

Re:split opinion

[BecomingLumberg]

You are right- We should let the sectarian violence rage completely unabated. I am not saying we should have gone there in the first place (although I do think Hussein got his right), but the fact remains that we are there now. Leaving would only be worsening things. Sure I would love to have the friends I have serving over there back home and safe, but I would not have them come home now and just let Iraq go to shit. Maybe you should go back to selling mattresses.

Re:split opinion

[ZeroExistenZ]

What makes Iraqis the enemy again?

Re:split opinion

[be-fan]

The irony here is that at least with Hussain there, we didn't have to worry about these things. The interests of the United States were better served with a low-level dictator in place than the current unpredictable and uncontrollable situation. Of course, we did not expect the dictator to be replaced by general chaos, but it seems that we did not realize that Hussain was the thing plugging up the dike.

Re:split opinion

[Skrynesaver]

While Turkey (and Iran) would prefer to avoid an independent Kurdistan, I have an alternate reading of the Shia/Sunni split being inimical to US interests, imagine that whoever has their hand up the arse of the Bush puppet has a long term plan, now picture if you will a long drawn out proxy war between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, imagine both sides competing in the sale of oil in order to arm the respective sides in an escalating civil war, imagine china and the west providing them with all the rope they need.

It's just about possible that some controlling interest has thought this through to this position, alternatively it was pointless destabilisation of a crap but functional country that has led to a long term civil war.

Re:split opinion

[gaspar ilom]

Your insulting post -- and dismissiveness of Iraqi grievances -- is exactly why "they hate us." (...For good reason, if your attitude is reflective of Americans in general.)

Re:split opinion

[l_mannell]

Of course, if the U.S hadn't backed the coup overthrowing Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, the Ayatollah probably wouldn't have become politically active; would not have been exiled; and would not have led the Islamic Revolution in '79. The Iran-Iraq war would not have happened, Hussein would not have been supported, as there was no theocracy to fight, and there would have been no reason for the U.S to be currently involved in Iraq, and thus there would be no issue of Shi'a theocracies.

Re:split opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I would love to have the friends I have serving over there back home and safe, but I would not have them come home now and just let Iraq go to shit.

Right. We wouldn't want to let Iraq go to shit. How fucking stupid are you?

Re:split opinion

[iminplaya]

...but it seems that we did not realize that Hussain was the thing plugging up the dike.

We knew exactly what his puropse was. That's precisely why we kept him there for 25 years. And the shah for 26 years in Iran. And Pinoche in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, Somoza in Nicaragua...the list goes on. You can blame the damn media for exposing our real intentions and hypocrisy about fomenting "democracy". So now we will foment chaos and destruction to "prove" that we were right in supporting these hooligans, and that you need an iron fist to keep the peace. Right now, all that chaos is very good for the bottom line. As the old joke goes, When you write the check to pay your taxes, remember, there are two L's in Halliburton.

Re:split opinion

[araemo]

Don't forget that the most profitable oilfields are in a part of the country that would be unfriendly to the US, given the ethnic group that mostly inhabits that region.

Re:split opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving would only be worsening things.

Of course, you understand that you don't have the slightest right in the world to make that decision. You're not an Iraqi, are you? Then butt the hell out.

"Let Iraq go to shit?" That's already happened. FYI, many Iraqis say they were better off living under the rule of Saddam.

Re:split opinion

[Johnny5000]

Most would be perfectly happy fragmenting it along ethnic lines.

I asked a buddy of mine who had been in Iraq about splitting it up among ethnic lines, and
he said a major problem with this would be Baghdad- they'd have to wall the city off
like Berlin to keep the peace.

Re:split opinion

[Cornflake917]

Yeah because if we stay in there for another decade, lose another few thousand U.S. troops, and kill another hundred thousand Iraqi's, then Iraq will magically transform into a democratic nation with peaceful people.

Did you even study Vietnam? You can't force people like the ones who live in Iraq to be peaceful, lest you become another Saddam Hussain.

Re:split opinion

[Lumpy]

Dude, these people hate each other...

Not your schoolyard hate, but the, "I hate you and your family I will enjoy killing your children!" kind of hate. Nothing can stop this kind of hate and anyone in the way will get the same treatment.

Personally, I say stand back, arm both sides ti the teeth and tell them, "let us know when you are done."

Re:split opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because it is up to us to handle those savage beasts, either by gun or by heat ray. There is no other option, no middle way between the extremes. No sir.

Re:split opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Number of casualties if the US stays in Iraq until "the job is done": infinite
Number of casualties if the US pulls out today: a whole whack-load within the next few years, after which things will return to their natural order.

Re:split opinion

[Malakusen]

Different race and religion, same as has been making "that guy" the enemy of "these guys" since we came out of the trees and started forming tribes.

Re:split opinion

[blugu64]

If's are one of the most intresting things in history, Personally I blame the Spanish for this whole mess, if they could have just defeated the British in 1588, then America would probably not have risen to prominance, and we'd all be speaking spanish.

Re:split opinion

[LukeCage]

You would rather leave your friends to die or be horribly injured in a hostile foreign land rather than bring them home? For one of the worst policy debacles in American history? Either those friends of yours are ficticious or you are literally human garbage.

I guess it's easy to "stay the course" with other people's lives.

Re:split opinion

[Chris Burke]

Of course, we did not expect the dictator to be replaced by general chaos,

Of course there were two sets of reasoning behind the expectation, and it is the difference between them that has led to this sorry affairs.

We, the people expected that there would not be general chaos because we also expected that the military had a plan for maintaining order while working as quickly as possible to fill the power vacuum.

The architects of the war, specifically Donald Rumsfeld, expected there would not be general chaos because he also expected that a fully-formed democracy would fall from the sky, everyone would love us unconditionally, there wouldn't be an insurgency, and therefore he didn't need to have that plan thingie.

Not that everything would have been open arms and roses if we had an actual plan based in reality, but we might not be describing the situation as "general chaos". The damage done to the Iraq war by Rumsfeld is incalculable, and it doesn't matter how much better Gates is, he can't undo that damage. Bush and military leaders are talking about how we can't afford to fail. Well, sorry boys, we failed three years ago when some moron stood on a ship with a big banner that said "Mission Accomplished", and he believed it.

Re:split opinion

[tritium6]

Most [Iraqis] would be perfectly happy fragmenting [Iraq] along ethnic lines

1) I need to see some data to support this before believing it
2) Why doesn't this data exist?

Re:split opinion

[CRCulver]

The fact that the country had to be artificially formed by brutal British colonists and kept in place by authoritatarian rulers isn't proof enough that its existence isn't natural?

Re:split opinion

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Dude, these people hate each other...

Correction: Some of them do. If they all just hated each other and wanted to eat each others babies I'd be all for leaving them to it. But unfortunately there is a large part of the population who are just ordinary people like you or me.

Re:split opinion

[tritium6]

What are you talking about? The question was whether Iraqis support partitioning the country, not whether its existence is natural...

Re:split opinion

[be-fan]

Of course there were two sets of reasoning behind the expectation, and it is the difference between them that has led to this sorry affairs.

And by "we", I meant "them, not me". I could've told you this was coming back when the invasion was first announced. Why? I'm Bengali. I know first-hand that freedom has jack-shit to do with peacefulness, and that democracy is just a system of government, not a solution to all the political and social problems that are present in a country.

This is something that George Bush and many Americans fail to understand. There was a really choice quote in his State of the Union address this week:

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance."

Bullshit. Studies have actually shown that democracies are no less warlike than non-democracies, they just don't fight each other. Iran is the most democratic government in the middle east, save for Israel. Its government was put into place by a popular revolution, and its infrastructure for elections is very established (read up on the political situation in Iran, and the backlash against Ahmadinejad's party in various elections). Of all the Islamic countries in that region, it's the one that looks most likely to look like a free democracy in the next few generations, without our intervention. However, that doesn't stop them from seeing the United States as a bitter enemy! And of course we can't forget Great Britain, the oldest existing free society, and their history of colonial rule and historical ideas of racial and cultural superiority.

Ultimately, it's not democracy that makes Westerners, well, Westernized. It's a couple of thousand years of shared culture, history, and civilization. Democracy is an expression of the underlying mindset of the West, not the underpinnings of that mindset. It took the West a long time to get its societies to the point where they could support democracy. It took France a 150 years to build a supportable Republic, and France had one of the longest traditions of liberal Enlightenment thinking in Europe! How could anybody be stupid enough to think that we could have pushed Iraq to do it in a few years, much less a few decades?

Re:split opinion

[Sarisar]

I thought most people in America already spoke Spanish...

Re:split opinion

[MrNaz]

The rest of the world isn't sure what American's speak, but it sure as hell isn't English.

Re:split opinion

[Chris Burke]

I could've told you this was coming back when the invasion was first announced. Why? I'm Bengali.

Well not to pat myself on the back but I knew it was coming too, and that's with my piss-poor American public school education. ;) Quick, list of countries whose people were grateful to be invaded and occupied by a foreign power! Hmm...

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance."

Haha! I didn't watch the speech, because I can't stand to hear the man speak, and I didn't read about it either since I knew what he was going to say.

That's just a twist on a clasic Bush line. He used to give a much more direct and even more ludicrous statement when he was explaining why terrorists would want to attack the United States: "They hate us for our freedom." Oh man, that one had me rolling in the isles. Also crying, because a person who believes that (not that Bush necessarily does, but many believe it because he said it), then they have absolutely zero chance of ever understanding terrorism.

My personal favorite example of how ludicrous this whole line of thinking that Democracy will make everything okay is when the Palestinians voted in Hamas. The West's reaction was basically: Oh shit, you weren't supposed to be that free!

Ultimately, it's not democracy that makes Westerners, well, Westernized. It's a couple of thousand years of shared culture, history, and civilization. Democracy is an expression of the underlying mindset of the West, not the underpinnings of that mindset. It took the West a long time to get its societies to the point where they could support democracy. It took France a 150 years to build a supportable Republic, and France had one of the longest traditions of liberal Enlightenment thinking in Europe! How could anybody be stupid enough to think that we could have pushed Iraq to do it in a few years, much less a few decades?

Yeah, my history education was shitty and Euro-centric, but damn do I find it amazing that so few of my fellow Americans seem to remember this simple fact. Just like so many don't seem to appreciate how great our debt to France is. Is it any surprise that they also thought that getting rid of Saddam Hussein would turn Iraq into Oklahoma overnight?

Re:split opinion

[MrNaz]

Most often, war is a battle between a few people in positions of power who are able to co-opt ordinary people into fighting for things they know little of and care even less about.

Take the average American G.I. for instance. Does he (or she) know anything about political theory, middle eastern history or what exactly he is fighting against? I doubt it. Most of them just think that they are fighting Saddam because of WMDs, or perhaps some nebulous notion of "giving freedom to Iraqis". They aren't aware that the biggest winners are corporations like the massive engineering firms, energy companies or construction conglomerates, and that the US military has just been co-opted to serve the business interests of the very few at the apex of the militant capitalist system.

Useful Against Insurgencies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like what we need for our boys and girls over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of dropping a bomb over the evildoers' heads, or not even fire for fear of collateral damage, this weapon would be the solution.

I know the kneejerk slashdotters will come out of the woodwork against this, but would you rather have dead people or civilians? It's funny how you guys love technology except when the military invents it.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[drooling-dog]

Military technology is only as good or as evil as the deciders who determine when and against whom it will be used. Many of us have become increasingly uncomfortable with that lately.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[*weasel]

Technology is neutral.
If you're uneasy with how evil our leaders are becoming, it doesn't really matter whether they develop new technologies or not, does it?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[spellraiser]

Yeah, it's a good idea in principle.

Except most of the time the US soldiers don't even know who the bad guys are until they strike. It's not like you have the bad guys standing in a crowd of people shouting: 'Ha ha! You can't shoot me because I'm using human shields!'.

No, the insurgents in Iraq are very much like the ones in Vietnam of old. Just a part of the crowd until they decide to strike.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Dr Reducto]

It's not like you have the bad guys standing in a crowd of people shouting: 'Ha ha! You can't shoot me because I'm using human shields!'.

Actually, that's a quite often used tactic, and a fundamental tactic of guerilla warfare (being able to look like a civilian at will means you get to determine when and where you will fight battles). This can be used against the children who throw rocks at American humvees trying to goad Americans into shooting them. Also, it can help against incidents where teerorists flocked to a Mosque and then callled up a thousand women and children to flock to the Mosque to prevent Israel from bombing the place (this happpened in Palestine, not Iraq, but is still very applicable)

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[kalirion]

It all depends on how the device is used. Here's a very plausible scenario: there's a mostly peaceful demonstration, and a few of the demonstrators start throwing rocks. The forces which are there to keep order turn the device on the crowd. Everyone feels like they're burning alive, there's a stampede to get away from the pain, and dozens of people are trampled. Hell, even if there is no stampede, you are basically torturing people most of whom have done nothing wrong. Yes, it's torture even if it leaves no injuries.

Also, I recall reading somewhere that all who volunteer for being hit by the device are told to remove all metal objects from their persons. So what if someone in the crowd has metal jewelry - would end up welded to their skin?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[beakerMeep]

Wow. way to pidgeon hole people with concerns about this. That almost sounds like a "why do you hate our freedom?" argument or a "you're either with us or against us!"

actually, I think most people are going to be FOR non-leathal warfare technology, and I cant imagine why people would be against it. Personally I look at that thing and to me it *looks* impractical. a giant laser sitting on a truck like that with 500 yards range seems like a great target for someone with an rpg. But I dont know enough about it. Which is why I might express this concern in a "kneejerk" reaction against this. you know, in order to learn more by asking questions and raising concerns.

either way this looks like a promising step forward. I just dont see why you felt the need to try and frame the conversation so black and white like that.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[TheLink]

Why is it so promising?

The reason why the US is having problems ( in Iraq or wherever) is not really because of technology. It's because the people in charge are either evil or incompetent.

It's like a company with lots of employees that hate the Management. And now Management decides to buy expensive technology to fix that...

"The floggings will continue till morale improves".

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Anonymous Coward]

"but would you rather have dead people or civilians?"

I choose people. Because you can include civilians in that count. Basically, have your cake and eat it too!

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[mgblst]

Yeah, just train it on Iraq, and get everyone to move out. No problem getting all that oil, now.

Did you ever imagine that you are the evildoers??

Maybe they can use a mirror, to deflect the rays back at the evil doers.

BTW, WE all know that the military invented the Internet (DARPA), unlike you. And we don't really hate the internet.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Johnny5000]

If you're uneasy with how evil our leaders are becoming, it doesn't really matter whether they develop new technologies or not, does it?

There are degrees of evil.
A lot of the objections over this sort of thing come from the fear that this weapon (and other less-lethal weapons) may be used against crowds of peaceful demonstrators.

The somewhat-but-not-completely-evil authorities might not feel entirely comfortable firing lead into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, but be perfectly fine with using a heat-ray against a crowd.

Of course, the same effect could be achieved with older technologies like fire-hoses, teargas, rubber bullets, etc. These have been used in the past as weapons against peaceful demonstrators in order to silence them, so there's no reason to believe the heat-ray wouldn't be used as well.
So, if there are potential dangers to being on the receiving end of this technology, it's probably best that we find them out now, before it is used against large groups of civilians.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Loconut1389]

Wonder if it would set off ammunition in a weapon being carried?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Malakusen]

Future AQ recruiting video, using footage from Iraq:
Cold-hearted armed and armored U.S. troops in armored vehicles cooking screaming Arab children with a heat ray.

Brilliant.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[kalirion]

Or blow up cell phone batteries?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people are going to be FOR non-leathal warfare technology, and I cant imagine why people would be against it

If non-lethal weapons were used instead only in place of lethal weapons, I'd be fine with it. However, the history of these weapons is that they are used far too often. They have been used to torture people when there would be no justification to use a lethal weapon.

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[NeMon'ess]

How would compare the heat ray to tear gas in terms of torture?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[BatMacumba]

Who is moderating this crap? Donald Rumsfeld?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Anonymous Coward]

Future AQ recruiting video, using footage from Iraq:
Cold-hearted armed and armored U.S. troops in armored vehicles cooking screaming Arab children with a heat ray.

Brilliant.

Yeah, fuck it. Next time we have a Falujah situation we'll just drop some new and improved fuel-air explosives and take the whole town out. I mean, if you're going to have bad propaganda, why not earn the rep that goes with it?

Dipshit.

Has it occurred to you that maybe soldiers don't enjoy shooting people and that they'd like a few tools in between "let them pelt us to death with rocks while a suicide bomber sneaks up" and "kill everybody"?

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[Malakusen]

Yeah, fuck it. Next time we have a Falujah situation we'll just drop some new and improved fuel-air explosives and take the whole town out. I mean, if you're going to have bad propaganda, why not earn the rep that goes with it?

It's good that you mentioned Fallujah. What happened there? Most Americans knew nothing before the Blackwater contractors were killed in March 2004. However, the real problem goes back a year before that.

The damage the city had avoided during the initial invasion, was negated by damage from looters, who took advantage of the collapse of Saddam's regime to help themselves. The looters targeted former government sites, the 'Dreamland' compound and the nearby military bases, who stripped buildings of anything of value including floor tiles, window frames, and door frames. Aggravating this situation was the proximity of Fallujah to the infamous Abu G'raib prison, where Saddam, in one of his last acts, had released all prisoners. While many prisoners of the Ba'athist regime may have been political opponents, this act freed both political prisoners and criminal prisoners alike.

Citizens of Al Fallujah had to defend their own homes and property from these looters and criminals in the absence of peace-keeping authorities. The new mayor of the city--Taha Bidaywi Hamed, selected by local tribal leaders--was staunchly pro-American. When the U.S. Army entered the town in April 2003, they positioned themselves at the vacated Ba'ath Party headquarters--an action that erased some goodwill, especially when many in the city had been hoping the U.S. Army would stay outside of the relatively calm city. A Fallujah Protection Force composed of local Iraqis was set up by the U.S.-led occupants to help fight the rising resistance.

On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building opened fire on the crowd resulting in the deaths of 15 civilians and the wounding of 53. The events leading up to the event are disputed, with American forces claiming they were responding to gunfire from the crowd, while the Iraqis deny this version, although conceding rocks were thrown at the troops. A protest against the killings two days later was also fired upon by US troops resulting in two more deaths.

The shootings created widespread anger against the occupation. Over the next year, various Sunni rebel groups, including foreign terrorists aligned to al-Qaeda, entrenched themselves in the city, using it as a command base and a symbol of defiance against the multinational forces and the interim Iraqi government, to whom sovereignty was returned in July 2004.

If the CO of those troops had possessed a teensy bit of tactical sense and diplomatic ability, Fallujah, all of it, would have never happened. Cooking kids, or even cooking hardened terrorists, would not have solved the underlying problem.

Has it occurred to you that maybe soldiers don't enjoy shooting people and that they'd like a few tools in between "let them pelt us to death with rocks while a suicide bomber sneaks up" and "kill everybody"?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_re_us/so ldiers_charged

Nope.

On a tactical note, why are they there to be pelted by those nasty rocks? Additionally, AC, why aren't the soldiers in their vehicle, with rocks bouncing harmlessly off of the armor and/or bulletproof glass? Why are they even in that part of the world? Maybe you haven't thought this clever plan all the way through, in which case you're well-prepared to join the Bush Administration.

Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when somebody is subjected to this weapon for, say, 30 to 60 seconds? I'd imagine it'd be quite lethal then.

After the Abu Ghraib scandal, I think it'd be quite possible for groups of soldiers from Kansas, Alabama, Oklahoma and similar backwater American states to use these weapons repeatedly on prisoners or civilians they happen to encounter. And I don't doubt for a second that a very painful death would await such people, especially when the American soldiers hold down the trigger on this device for a minute or more.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[androvsky]

Wow, stereotype much?

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[m0ok1e]

Just an FYI, it is against military law to fire upon someone who is helpless to defend themselves, like someone chained to something. It doesn't really matter how long they hold down the trigger, the people in the focused beam will run away from it as fast as they can. The video I saw of the tests indicates that, and the weapon does not penetrate buildings or metal, etc, so there is respite from it if you can run. Also, this thing requires A LOT of battery power to operate, and I don't think the intention is to operate the thing at full power for more than a couple of seconds, or in quick bursts. I believe it will entirely deplete the battery if you run it for a whole 2 minutes.
You CANNOT, and I mean CANNOT stand in the way of this weapon without having your natural instinct kick in and make you run the hell away from it. It is simply not possible.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[RMH101]

You can't always run away. What's the spread of this thing? What about if it's applied to an enclosed space? Presumably it has some significant range, too: imagine this fired into a densely-populated, enclosed space such as a football auditorium, or an outdoor demonstration in a fenced area? This doesn't sound good, at all.
Debates that reference a secret, military technologies supposed battery life can be dismissed out of hand as we just don't know what the figures might be: and surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could JUST PLUG THE THING INTO THE MAINS SUPPLY.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You CANNOT, and I mean CANNOT stand in the way of this weapon without having your natural instinct kick in and make you run the hell away from it. It is simply not possible.

YOU try to run away when locked in a prison cell, or chained to an "interrogation rack".

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how useless your comments are?

First, this is a weapon like any other weapon. It can be used poorly and is ultimately a tool of the person that wields it. There are hundreds of more effective and less detectable methods of torture that could be used via 15th century technology. Do you think this is any more dangerous than 100,000 19 year olds running around with machine guns?

Second, stereotyping different states as "back-water" and making baseless assumptions about the humanity of our soldiers is not just ignorant, its potentially harmful. Just because you politically disagree with the war in Iraq doesn't mean you should punish those who have volunteered to serve this country with your disdain. Soldiers do not make policy, and 99.9% of them have no desire to torture anyone. These people are doing a job that is noble, and that requires a lot of sacrifice. If you keep attacking the soldiers instead of the policy then pretty soon we're not going to have anyone volunteering to protect our country from the real dangers of the world.

You are undoubtedly a symptom of the real problems this country faces. You are an ignorant elitist, who bases assumption on conjecture instead of reality. You assume that you are better than everyone else, and that somehow you are the embodyment of humanity, when nothing could be further from the truth. Why any sensibile person would take your comments seriously, or place any merit in them is beyond me.

Please respond in a way that allows me to further stereotype you, so that I can continue to make my point.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Headcase88]

ACs always stereotype.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how ignorant people such as the parent love to drop key names into things without checking the facts. The two charged so far in Abu Ghraib, 10 year prison sentences, were from California and Kentucky. And the Kentucky born individual was raised from the age of 2 in West Virgina. Pull your head out and stop dropping buzz words for your ignorant opinions of the central states of which you have no clue.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[geekoid]

Based on the limited tech spens, I would say it is to be deployed remotly. Probably dropped from the air.
If that's true, then hooking it up to the mains isn't going to happen.
And you owuld need to hook it into something more powerfull then your 115 in a house. making it even more difficult to find a convienant spot to do that.

Mostly likely use is the drop it into an area, people flee, the military comes in to secure said area.

Also could be deployed from a tank, or other completly enclosed vehical.

People seem to overlook that the military is looking for non deadly ways to to their job. This is a good thing.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[KDR_11k]

JUST PLUG THE THING INTO THE MAINS SUPPLY.

Where do you get a mains supply from in the middle of a road? This thing is vehicle mounted and an alternative to a big water tank and a high-pressure nozzle. Would be equally or slightly less nasty when used on dense crowds.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Rogerborg]

Military? You actually think this is intended for military use? Wow. You don't think that perhaps it'll primarily be used by domestic "law" enforcement for mass pain compliance?

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ermm, he said "similar backwater states". California and West Virginia rank pretty low in national education. As do Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Kansas isn't so bad (in the top 50%), but it's not top 10.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank06.htm

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see nothing in his post regarding education and the term "backwater" is commonly used by elitist pricks as an area that is culturally stagnant or behind. I don't recall when the last time I heard California referred to as "backwater" although there are likely some spots up north that may qualify.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, this is Slashdot. (read lots of people commenting on things who A. never read the articel, B. are not experts in the field that the articel is abouit, and C. most of the comments are from high school kids during study hall)

15th century devices, yes the 4 winds (the device that ripped someone into 4 pieces and tossed them in seperate directions) was very humaine. The heat ray device is to drive people away not get info out of them. If one wanted to torture someone there aew many more painful ways to do it that will not kill someone. Pull out the fingernails, Crush the fingers and hands. Not going to kill but it is sure going to hurt and leave a mark. Removal of fingers/toes without anything to numb the pain. Have to watch the bleeding but it is possible to do all of these and not kill the person. I don't think I have even scratched the surface of ways to torture people.

It really looks like you think that you are better then everyone else. The first one to point it out is usually the guilty one.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water boarding is an effective form of torture that doesn't leave physical marks, just marks on the body. The overall point was that the existence of this new weapon doesn't make torture more accessible. I suppose water is more scarce in a dessert climate, so maybe water torture is more scarce there.

I am no better than anyone else here, and I have human flaws as much as anyone. I am not the smartest person in the room. Yet, that doesn't mean I won't bring someone back to reality when they start confusing conjecture with fact. Just because you believe a certain group of people are "back-water" that doesn't mean its fact. Also, sociopathic behavior is not indicative to your socio-economic background. It's usually due to a mental disorder.

The "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument kind of fails at this point.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It really looks like you think that you are better then everyone else. The first one to point it out is usually the guilty one."

No, he had it right. You're an arrogant little prick.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[malakai]

Military? You actually think this is intended for military use? Wow. You don't think that perhaps it'll primarily be used by domestic "law" enforcement for mass pain compliance?

No, I don't. And if you do, you don't live in the United States. The law enforcement officers you seem to think as master villians are our brothers and sisters.

Stop believing your own delusions, this isn't a police state and you are not relegated to hiding in your attic when the evil-poilce in all black uniforms with large insignias and face masks come knocking on your door.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[BandwidthHog]

this isn't a police state

But there’s no harm in exercising a bit of vigilance, right?

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[Rogerborg]

Given that you're clearly on crack, you might very well find yourself visited by the paramilitaries. They "knock" with a shotgun, by the way.

Re:Non-lethal, huh?

[RMH101]

Where do I get a mains supply from? Um, howabout an inverter hooked up the the 12V electrical system of the vehicle it's mounted on. Do I have to think of *everything?*?

Don't Forget!

[Life2Short]

I think if the University of Florida has taught us anything, you have to thoroughly soak your target first.

Re:Don't Forget!

[Fist! Of! Death!]

And if giant alien Sponges attack (square-panted no doubt) we will be amply prepared to repell them.
Of course imparting a skin temperature of 54 degrees C in the middle of the desert day is more likely to cool the crowd than over heat them.

Popcorn

[The_Mr_Flibble]

How long after this thing is deployed will we see video's on you tube with soldiers using this thing to make popcorn ?
And how long after will we see drunk soldiers holding the popcorn whilst it's being made ?

Fear and cancer

[Turn-X Alphonse]

What happens when people learn this is bullshit and go "Nice, but you've just got a bullet in you"? People deal with panic attacks and heat rays can't do much more than make you panic you're about to die.

Secondly, how long until we discover this causes cancer? Microwaving people is obviously really unsafe, so making them feel their about to set alight must be pretty damn shitty on the old body.

Thirdly, this + metal = ?? If it is real heat it's going to REALLY hurt.

Re:Fear and cancer

[Apocalypse111]

Unlike most cases where I would immediately pipe in about the safety of microwave radiation as compared to other, higher power (or ionizing) radiation, in this case the questions of safety are justified I think. The reason that cell phones are safe is because, even though they are a microwave-using device right next to your head, the amount of radiation hitting your body doesn't penetrate the first couple layers of skin, and raises the temperature by less than walking out into the sun. This, on the other hand, pumps out enough juice to cause 130 degrees of pain. I can't imagine that enough microwaving to cause this kind of temperature increase wouldn't also penetrate deeper into the body, possibly heating other organs that really ought-not to be heated. Also, if I recall correctly, there was some evidence that microwave radiation in elevated amounts (as compared to the background) over time can increase the incidence of cataracts. In that case, even if we aren't giving people a higher risk of cancer, we might be making them blind. Sure, we can handle cataracts in the western world, but I imagine it'd be a different story in some of the places around the world where this system would be deployed.

Oh yeah, and that metal thing... yeah, that could be bad.

Re:Fear and cancer

[leathered]

Secondly, how long until we discover this causes cancer?

A very long time I imagine, because unless they're not telling us something I assume the radiation is non-ionizing. No accepted study has proved that non-ionizing raditation causes cancer.

Re:Fear and cancer

[TechForensics]

Microwave radiation even in modest amounts can produce lasting symptoms. Consider Ross Adey and the Lida machine (North Korean brainwashing machine). I personally knew a man who had been subjected to this technique as an Army Intelligence operative in Korea, and he was perpetually spaced. Not convinced? Look here.

Re:Fear and cancer

[Lord Ender]

Yeah, if only there were human-like animals on which to test this device during the R&D phase? If such a thing existed, we could check if it causes permanent damage before subjecting it to the awful criticism of the internet nerds.

It's too bad.

Re:Fear and cancer

[Apocalypse111]

Hey, don't jump all over me buddy, I was simply voicing my concerns in light of the fact that we've seen no studies about the long-term effects of exposure this weapon. If tests should show that it is relatively safe, then I'm all for its use and its inclusion in the police and military's "less than lethal" weapons arsenals. This weapon/tool could save lives, its very promising - I would just like to see proof that it is safe (or at least relatively safe) for wide deployment before that happens.

Re:Fear and cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

>What happens when people learn this is bullshit and go "Nice, but you've just got a
>bullet in you"? People deal with panic attacks and heat rays can't do much more than
>make you panic you're about to die.

Ummm....people panic. They typically don't "deal" with it. They run away. That's the whole point.

Knowing that "it's just a heat ray" doesn't necessarily do away with the psychological impact. It's like telling some people "it's just a spider", or "it's just a snake". It's difficult to rationalize away some fears. For some it is impossible.

Many of the most effective weapons of war aren't very effective from a lethal point of view...they're just scary and erode the moral of the enemy.

Re:Fear and cancer

[Lord Ender]

1) I'm not your buddy. I have very few friends.
2) You beg the question (I used it correctly, you ignorant fucks!) of whether they tested it. I would be seriously surprised if they did no long-term tests of this tech on monkeys; yet, you assume they did none. Either you know much more about military contractors than me, or your you're a dumbass. [[incidentally, "dumbass" is not in the default firefox dictionary. YOU SUCK, Mozilla.org!]]

Re:Fear and cancer

[Apocalypse111]

1) If you make no effort to be friendly, you'll have a hard time making friends. Your behavior thus far proves this, but you can't say I didn't try.
2) I'd be surprised if there wasn't any testing going on now, but as of yet, there has been no tests to determine if there are long-term side effects. As far as military contractors go, I have a close relative working for the same contractor who built this system, and while he cannot relate the nature of his work to me, he has told me of the failings of their internal decision making processes and office politics at length. Bottom line is, never be surprised at what military contracting companies do and don't do in the name of making a buck. As with any industry, the most important decisions will always be made by the person with the least relevant knowledge.

if i recall correctly

[circletimessquare]

the military had a great new weapon in the form of a liquid that would foam and solidify a few years back. so an urban crowd is getting uppity. rather than shoot them, spray them. voila: instant immobilization, no worries of permanent damage or death... well that's just the thing. in a real crowd situation, someone's mouth would get sprayed. then it's a tracheotomy in a few minutes or death by suffocation

so what will happen with the OUCH ray is that someone will get hit in the eyes, and be blinded. or with the black ice, as any hockey player/ fan will tell you, someone will do a perfect backward fall and wind up with a concussion or brain damage

all i'm saying is that the nirvana of the perfect nonlethal crowd control/ imlpement of war is not very easy to obtain. all you do is trade in one kind of potential for damage/ death for another kind of potential for damage/ death. tragedy is not so easily avoided. we don't live in a world where improbable and deadly accidents never happen, and we don't live in a world where everybody has agreed that violence ion the name of advancing yout agenda isn't the answer (no matter what your ideology, from the right or the left)

Re:if i recall correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

The military is not saying there will be 0% deaths with nonlethal weapons technology.

What they are trying to do is minimize injuries and fatalities.

Use some of the NL stuff on a crowd, maybe you do wind up with a fatality or two. Still better imho than unloaded a few clips, which would assuredly cause more harm.

I get tired of hearing the, "It's not perfect, so it's worthless" argument, when we should be accepting of steps in the right direction. (Not that I'm applauding manufacturing in the first place...)

Re:if i recall correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why the military don't just use laughing gas as an anti-crowd tactic. It's hard to do ANYTHING when you're stuck in a fit of laughter (the first time I tried to get high I thought my throat was going to pop out as I kept laughing and all my friends followed suit). Plus there's the added benefit of contagious laughter and making people rethink why they're being violent in the first place... perhaps they'll all end up hugging instead!

Re:if i recall correctly

[Jesus_666]

True. The concept of nonlethal weapons has the problem that they never really are. You have to find some definition of "nonlethal" which you can live with


In case someone else reads Robert Jordan's Wheel of time series, the Aes Sedai have the same problem: They have sworn an unbreakable (because magically enforced) oath to never produce a weapon "with which one man can kill another". This would even rule out firewood, if you interpret "weapon" as anything which can be used to attack someone. Of course, one can apply a more loose interpretation, but we enter a real grey zone when we get to the point opf nonlethal weapons - people still could die from them, but they aren't supposed to kill. In theory you could really fuck with an AS' mind if you convinced her to construct a nonlethal weapon and then demonstrated its lethality...

Re:if i recall correctly

[Cornflake917]

all i'm saying is that the nirvana of the perfect nonlethal crowd control/ imlpement of war is not very easy to obtain. I don't think anyone is saying that this weapon is the perfect nonlethal weapon. But if you got insurgents firing at you from a crowd mixed with innocent people, I'm sure using this weapon would be better than unloading machine gun fire into that crowd.

I think the more effective, nonlethal tools we have in our arsenal the better. Yeah, innocents might still get injured or killed, but the alternatives aren't any better.

Re:if i recall correctly

[computer_chacham]

The Geneva Protocol and Chemical Weapons Convention prohibit the use of chemical weapons. Sorry.

Re:if i recall correctly

[jafac]

all i'm saying is that the nirvana of the perfect nonlethal crowd control/ imlpement of war is not very easy to obtain. all you do is trade in one kind of potential for damage/ death for another kind of potential for damage/ death. tragedy is not so easily avoided.

Of course, when, in our "civilized" country, a significant percentage of people favors just shooting protestors - the idea of a "less than lethal" weapon that occasionally proves lethal, just doesn't elicit all that much concern.

Remember Soylent Green? The "Scoops"? This little baby will COOK the food first.

Nothing new : Search 4 pain microwave weapon

[gd23ka]

They've already used that on people. Another "nonlethal" weapon that will
hideously kill at close range.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=microwave+pa in+weapon

Re:Nothing new : Search 4 pain microwave weapon

[kalirion]

So which of the links that show up say anything about death? You know, for those of us at work who don't have time to watch an hour of video.

Re:Nothing new : Search 4 pain microwave weapon

[gd23ka]

They're in praise of a device that is non-lethal IF used at a "safe" range for
a "safe" duration on a "safe" subject... they're not talking about what happens
if it gets used in a real-life crowd control situation at close range and/ot on much
longer than "recommended".

Oh but I forget... you're the kind of guy who builds his bizeps with a taser ROFL.

Raytheon's Silent Guardian

[eldavojohn]

The weapon is called the silent guardian. It's made by Raytheon and that site has a short video just showing it off with a product sheet.

The most interesting things from that product sheet:

Targeting: Stationary firing position with 360-degree coverage
Integrated sensors with joystick control
Single-man operation

System Setup: Automatic target tracking
Modular architecture
Secure antenna stabilization platform
able to operate in 40 mph winds

Mission Profile: Less than 2-second retargeting capability
Shoot-and-scoot capability
Less than 2 seconds to switch from standby mode to armed

Contractor Support: Complete logistics support package available to include:
- Return and repair maintenance
- System training
- Web-enabled supply support
- Supports Army two-level maintenance system

And I personally think the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it.

Re:Raytheon's Silent Guardian

[jimicus]

Stationary firing position with 360-degree coverage

Wonderful! So you can shoot yourself without turning the gun around.

Re:Raytheon's Silent Guardian

[3.14159265]

"And I personally think the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it."

Shout and shoot. Definitely. Because talking and listening never got nobody nowhere.

Re:Raytheon's Silent Guardian

[lemon_dieter]

Hook up a Wii-mote with integrated laser sight in lieu of joystick. Instead of bluetooth, hard wire it. Faster and more accurate than joysticks, in my opinion. Can I work for Raytheon, now?

Re:Raytheon's Silent Guardian

[BatMacumba]

This post is about as "informative" as a pentagon press briefing.

Microwaves not ionizing

[Anonymous Coward]

Microwaving people is obviously really unsafe,

Microwaves are not ionizing like Ultra-violet, X-rays and other higher energy shorter wave-length radiation. If they really did cause cancer, folks are around airports and other radar (Microwave) installations would have a much higher incidence of cancer than the general population.

Re:Microwaves not ionizing

[kalirion]

Aren't powerful enough radar dishes known to cause birds drop dead out of the sky?

Re:Microwaves not ionizing

[KDR_11k]

I do recall soldiers suing the government because they got cancer from their radars.

Re:Microwaves not ionizing

[compro01]

yes. due to heating, not radiation poisoning.

put a glass of water in the microwave. it boils after a couple minutes. now remember that your body (and the bird's too) is mostly water and the radars are many times more powerful than your oven. also keep in mind that you don't need the water to boil to kill what the water is in.

Re:Moo

[tomstdenis]

Screw the military, I want one now. ... mumbles about it being -22C outside ...

Tom

"Non-Lethal"???

[Anonymous Coward]

...sounds like the terrorists have won already

Re:Moo

[slughead]

The name is Joe. G.I. Joe.

More like Goonies. Remember the asian kid and his 'slick shoes'?

Test it on me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the government would follow me around for a few months testing this thing on me, it's friggen cold right now in New England!

Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[rcb1974]

Couldn't an organized crowd just pull the metal screens off their windows and use them as shields? Last I checked, those work great against microwaves. You could even make clothing made of flexible metal mesh to block the incoming rays.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[m0ok1e]

The first part or your suggestion is true, they could just pull metal screens, and block the rays, if everyone in the crowd thought ahead and brought their metal screens, and they would have to know exactly where the beam was coming from. Also, they would have to avoid letting even their hands around the outside of their metal sheilds. However, the clothing option is simply not a good one, they would have to make a full body suit with almost no penetration through the "mesh." So helmet, gloves and shoes, even jock-strap. Also, how many crowds do you know that can afford to "suit up" with this type of clothing, which, last time I checked still didn't stop the bullets.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[zyl0x]

Have you ever put tin foil in a microwave? It doesn't look too.. um.. wearable.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Headcase88]

Just another reason to put on those tinfoil hats.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Primal Curve]

Flexible Metal Mesh?

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[w33t]

Who modded the parent "Overratted"? This is a good question, I was wondering if someone was going to ask this. It's common knowledge that blocking Microwaves is a pretty simple endevour. I could see a full body suit easily being made for a suicide bomber in a burka (fully covered). Once the ray is turned on the bomber would be immune to it's effects and could then walk up and destroy himself and the operators - if they didn't shoot him first :)

its also interesting to think that people with a congenital insensitivity to pain would be completely uneffected by this device.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Fist! Of! Death!]

That is actually the millitary's masterplan. Once the infidel scum are out in the middle of the desert wearing full metal armour they will self-baste and then Uncle Sam can save those horrendous Heat-Ray(tm) power bills!

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Simetrical]

Couldn't an organized crowd just pull the metal screens off their windows and use them as shields? Last I checked, those work great against microwaves. You could even make clothing made of flexible metal mesh to block the incoming rays.

Military tests apparently show that even the tiniest gap in the clothing will give you basically the full effect. Anyway, what are you going to do about the eyes, nose, mouth . . .

At any rate, the worst that this means is it's not totally effective and you have to shoot the guy. Oh well.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Red Flayer]

Emphasis mine:

Military tests apparently show that even the tiniest gap in the clothing will give you basically the full effect. Anyway, what are you going to do about the eyes, nose, mouth . . .

 
The source you identified states a few square inches... not the 'tiniest gap'.
 
Several companies make cotton fabric with a flexible metal mesh covering the entire exterior surface -- ever see modern sabre fencing? It would be trivial to make entire uniforms of this material, and a fencing-equivalent mask could be used for the eyes, nose, mouth etc.
 
The biggest concern would be heat exhaustion, IMO.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Simetrical]

The source you identified states a few square inches... not the 'tiniest gap'.

Several companies make cotton fabric with a flexible metal mesh covering the entire exterior surface -- ever see modern sabre fencing? It would be trivial to make entire uniforms of this material, and a fencing-equivalent mask could be used for the eyes, nose, mouth etc.

Actually, it said "a small exposed area", "any gaps", and gave "tips of your fingers" as an example. That implies, to me, that the amount of skin that needs to be exposed is quite small. But regardless, it will definitely be a pain in the neck to dress up like that, especially since it means you'll just be shot instead of burned . . . I can't see it catching on. But we'll see, I guess.

Re:Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[Sinical]

The operating frequency is 94GHz vs ~2.4GHz for a microwave oven: this is a 3mm wavelength (lambda*f = c). So you need something with a gap of no more than ~1.5mm. That's a pretty fine mesh.

I bet it would bounce off a sheet of aluminum (aluminium) pretty good, though. However, and I'm not real clear on my diffraction physics, I think it could "turn the corner" on the edges pretty quick, so there wouldn't be much of a shadow, i.e. you can bounce some back, but you can't easily hide behind a flat sheet.

I bet a portable shitter (if made out of aluminum and not fiberglass), would be a pretty good defense. However, you can't have an opening to see or shoot from... hrm, maybe a rubber gasket sprayed with a metallic paint or something? Transparent aluminum would be choice for a window.

way too easy to thwart...

[mwilliamson]

Hmm...lets see. Cover some cardboard with aluminum foil and make a shield or use a metal trash can lid then step behind a building. I really don't think the effects of this thing will last long as soon as the enemy becomes aware of it, and exactly what do to avoid it. Chaos and people scurrying makes cover for return fire. The enemy isn't going to stop fearing lead, but they will stop fearing this thing rather quickly imho.

Re:way too easy to thwart...

[surprise_audit]

I don't know that it would even be necessary to hide behind anything. I mean, right now the most likely place to deploy this thing is Iraq, and that's mostly a big fricken desert. What does the normal daytime temperature get up to, especially in the urban areas?? Are people even going to *notice* a heat ray??

Re:way too easy to thwart...

[maxume]

Heat transfer happens by conduction, convection and radiation. Normally, sweat evaporating is going to cool you off a bit; when microwaved, that same sweat, along with the moisture in your skin, isn't going to feel real good.

And if you can't flee...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably been asked before, but what happens if people hit by the heat ray are unable to flee? Do they end up cooking to death?

I'm just thinking in situations where people are, say, backed into a dead end alleyway or incapacitated by being crushed in a crowd of fleeing rioters crying "It burns! It burns! Run away!".

Here come the hypocrits

[onyxruby]

Just wait, a non lethal weapon was developed that won't kill people. Now people will complain that it causes pain. Well, what would you rather have, pain or death?

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

My darling, darling boy. If you knew anything about pain: real, intense, constant pain, you'd know that death is sometimes a welcome thing.

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[zyl0x]

Would you rather be tortured for weeks, only for the people torturing you to kill you regardless of what you tell them, or would you rather they just kill you right away? Believe it or not, some people would much rather have death than an indefinite amount of pain.

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[kalirion]

Think tasers. Now we have police officers using tasers at the first sign of the suspect being uncooperative. Sometimes they don't even give the suspect a chance to cooperate. This microwave thing is basically a long-range taser that can hit multiple people at once. What do you wanna bet it will be used that way?

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[haddieman]

My darling, darling boy. If you knew anything about pain: real, intense, constant pain, you'd know that death is sometimes a welcome thing.

And where does it say that this thing is supposed to cause "intense, constant pain"? My stepdad's spine has been slowly fusing together for years. If you want to know about pain just ask him. I'm sure he would take a few seconds of a burning sensation over the constant pain that he is in now in a heartbeat.

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[URSpider]

Just wait, a non lethal weapon was developed that won't kill people. Now people will complain that it causes pain. Well, what would you rather have, pain or death?

The answer to your question is pretty obvious (I'll take the death :), but that's not the issue. The concern is that soldiers wielding a supposedly non-lethal weapon will have radically different rules of engagement. A weapon like this will end up getting used hundreds or thousands of times more often than a lethal device. But, if this heat ray causes a 0.1% increase in occurrence of skin cancer (for example) in its targets, then there will be deaths attributable to its use.

I have no particular objection to soldiers using it in combat, but wait until this baby shows up at the next WTO meeting or Republican National Convention.

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when this array is turned on some rioting crowd? Will someone collapse from pain or whatever in the middle of your riot, then be cooked alive? Or will this new toy cause stampeding, and therefore cause deaths in a more old-fashioned way?

There's a reason students of these devices are taught to call these "less than lethal" weapons and not "nonlethal", which is the fact that it's not really hard to kill someone with a "nonlethal" weapon. Rubber bullets in the wrong place? Dead. Person with a pacemaker TASE'd? Dead. Wrong dose of tranquiliser? Dead. Sleep gas in a theatre? Hundreds freaking dead of drowning.

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[TheLink]

I think people are complaining about it because instinctively they are thinking something is wrong somewhere, but most just can't put their finger on it.

Say you have a company with lots of employees that hate the Management. Instead of addressing the real issues, Management sacks a whole bunch of people, and buys expensive technologies to "control the rest of the complainers", and says "hey at least we aren't sacking them".

So far I have not seen any sign of changes in the priorities or hearts of the "Management", and to me the focus on these sort of technologies just shows me what their true priorities are and the way they think.

In a war you kill people. But this technology is not for a war against soldiers. It's not for defending buildings or people, since this won't work against armed people out to kill or destroy.

What you see here is a Government that is spending money on _technologies_ for a "war" against civilians. I call it a war, because it seems to be such a popular word nowadays - war against drugs, war against terror, war against crime, war seems so popular no wonder we have so much of it.

Lastly, how much is that machine going to cost? USD1 million? USD5 million?

If it's that expensive given that this machine is likely to just piss protestors off, cause a stampede + various injuries and they'll just come back another day more prepared, you could achieve a similar thing by scattering thousands of USD100 bills away from the "protected" area... Not saying this is a good idea, just saying it's about as stupid and effective at solving the "problem".

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what would you rather have, pain or death?

Cake!

Re:Here come the hypocrits

[Chris Burke]

You are extremely naive if you think it comes down to that simple binary choice.

Hint: Consider cases where someone would not use lethal force, but would be willing to use non-lethal high-pain-inflicting force. In law enforcement, that's a larger percentage of cases than where lethal force is used -- even if the non-lethal weapon isn't available.

Stopping Fleeing vehicles try a HERF Gun

[HighOrbit]

see Build Your Own HERF Gun
and
HERF Gun: Make it in your basement

Supposedly the High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) burst will disrupt all the electronic components in an engine. My understanding is that the Coast Guard is already using these to stop fleeing motor boats (sorry no link) and the air force is researching a HERF weapon to knock all the electronics in a area USAF Detachment 8 Continues US Research Into EMP-Microwave Weapons

Re:Stopping Fleeing vehicles try a HERF Gun

[AK Marc]

Supposedly the High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) burst will disrupt all the electronic components in an engine. My understanding is that the Coast Guard is already using these to stop fleeing motor boats

Then I'll have the fastest drug-running cigaratte boat with diesel engines. We don't need to stinking engine electronics.

Heat-ray aside...

[Apocalypse111]

I like the idea of the black-ice spray. Less destructive than spike strips, and with the spray-on reversal agent, more selective. Also, when have people in the middle east seen ice? They wouldn't know how to drive on it, and its not like they're going to send volunteers to Minnesota in the winter to take a defensive driving course.

Re:Heat-ray aside...

[Half a dent]

"...and its not like they're going to send volunteers to Minnesota in the winter to take a defensive driving course"

If they did, would they just want to be taught how to drive on ice but not how to park?

Re:Heat-ray aside...

[Apocalypse111]

Both cases cause the vehicle to go out of control - have you seen what happens to a vehicle when it tires are blown out by a spike strip? The difference is, as soon as the car gets off the sprayed surface (presumably they're not going to cover the *entire* ground surface between the road and the building) it has traction again, and can stop. During the time it is on the black-ice, however, its capabilities will at least be reduced enough (compared to the fully-functional pursuit vehicles) to allow for a faster and easier resolution to the situation.

Here's what I wonder, though

[Moraelin]

Here's what I wonder, though: on who will it be used?

On enemy soldiers? If someone is dead set on ventilating your brain, what's to stop them from using some kind of shielding? If it's millimeter wave, it's still possible to block it, for example, with a fine enough metal mesh. You can see through it (poorly) to aim the gun. Plus, guiding a weapon via a periscope isn't exactly a new idea. Any tank or APC includes such devices.

Will it protect against a sniper in Iraq? Well, no, because if you knew where the sniper is, and had LOS for such a device, then you also have LOS to counter-snipe him. In practice they can still shoot once or twice with impunity, then be gone before you even figure out where he was.

So they're going to help, how? Preemptively microwave everything in sight, including kids, pets, retired seniors and everything, just so a possible sniper gets inconvenienced too? Not entirely practicable or sane.

It seems to me like this kind of thing is only useful for one thing: against demonstrators which weren't armed to start with. Yeah, giving a few of those burns will soo make it clear that the USA is there just to bring them democracy and freedom of speech.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[rlp]

OK, here's a scenario for you. You're in an urban area surrounded by a (possibly hostile) crowd of civilians. Suddenly, someone in the crowd starts shooting at you. You don't want to continue to take fire. You don't want to fire into the crowd. So you use this device. Result - individuals in the crowd are angry at you. Shooter gets away. But, 1) you didn't kill any civilians, and 2) insurgents can no longer meld into crowds and attack effectively.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[phayes]

Stone/Molotov throwing mobs have become a major problem in many countries. While often lethal to bystanders and more rarely to the authorities, they aren't considered to be valid targets for firearms in most countries until it's too late.

Having a non-lethal tool to dissuade these mobs from getting out of hand is a better solution than allowing them to kill or being forced to kill them.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[KDR_11k]

It's used like a water thrower except for environments where people would just try to take the water home in buckets.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[Kierthos]

This is clearly (i.e. this is the paranoia speaking) for use against American civilians once the anti-government riots start in earnest. I mean, come on... like the people using this wouldn't be shot at by any sort of armed insurgents or terrorists? But hey, civvies with bricks and pipes... a much easier target.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[TheLink]

Uh just yell to your crowd address system: "Everyone! That guy in the crowd has got a gun! Take cover!" and take cover. If the rest of the people in crowd are the usual civilians, they'll try to disperse ASAP.

After 5-10 minutes (depends on size of crowd) if there are still a few able bodied people in the area, you can get your snipers to start pointing their guns at them (if they aren't already).

The ray gun isn't going to save anyone in the crowd from a gunman in the crowd. And seriously, it's not going to save you from a gunman in crowd if he knows you have this ray gun.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[zazzel]

So I'm trying to imagine *any* military or police uses this kind of weapon on me, the demonstrator. Now, for a second, just ignore my (dis)honorable intentions to protest. What happens when someone uses this kind of weapon on me, probably abusing it the way tasers are already being abused in certain cases? Well, I'll make sure as hell this weapon can't harm me any more (tinfoil, anyone?). And next, I'll probably be in a good mood to use any combination of intelligence, technique and force to make sure the asshole who's been using this kind of weapon on me gets "what he deserves".

So, now you're no longer restricted to heating dinner using microwaves, but you're making sure I'm becoming the enemy you're so afraid of. Full of hate and dangerous.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, great idea that will totally work. Or why not just get the guy on you team with the best shot to search quickly for the shooter and just have him shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand. That is probably the best, safest way of dealing with the solution.

Isn't it hot in Iraq already?

[richieb]

I thought temperature in Iraq was already 130 degrees...

Temperatures

[ZOMFF]

Considering that the average temperature of bath water is ~110F, 130F doesn't seem like it would be too uncomfortable for a soldier. Considering the temperatures most soldiers face (especially those deployed to the desert) I'm sure they are exposed to similar temps by the environment alone + gear. The question I have is will the microwaves react differently to a metal object as opposed to human skin? IE: cause the gun/weapon a soldier is holding to become very hot causing the soldier to drop it, rather than causing the skin to burn.

Re:Temperatures

[KDR_11k]

Last I've seen it this thing is mounted on the roof of a HMMWV so no need to worry about soldiers dropping it.

Re:Temperatures

[ZOMFF]

What I was implying is the targets of the microwave gun will have THEIR weapons heated up to such a temperature that they drop them.

Re:Temperatures

[Anonymous Coward]

A typical hot bath is around 104F (40C). I used to work in physical therapy and giving people hydroptherapy, that was the standard, although some people couldn't stand water that hot.

Look it up in the plumbing codes, 110F is usually the max allowed for lavs, baths, and showers.

Try washing your hands in 130F water - you probably can't, it'll give you serious burns in less than half a minute. 120F will burn you within 5 minutes, 140F a couple of seconds.

Re:WTF

[DrStrange66]

An uncomfortable 130 degrees. Who the hell are they kidding. I love how America gets to decide how bad what we're doing to someone really is.

Isn't it already 130 degrees in Iraq? They won't even notice they are being beamed. They'll just think it's another heat wave. ;-)

Re:Moo

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is also appealing to the scientific community for help in creating another innovative military technology: artificial 'black ice'.

Apparently this was the test run.

Ok..soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

This really won't work as a deterent during the Iraqi summer, instead you will have thousands of people swarming around this "Weapon" to cool them off by about 20 degrees F.

Is this well thought out?

[Lance_Denmark]

Oh great! So these terrorists hate America and try and kill coalition soldiers and we respond by giving them a free suntan. This makes me sick.

Re:Is this well thought out?

[Johnny5000]

So these terrorists hate America and try and kill coalition soldiers and we respond by giving them a free suntan. This makes me sick.

If it makes you feel any better, most of the "free suntans" will likely be given to civilians, not terrorists.

The U.S. Millitary Should Stop.....

[8127972]

..... taking it's weapons ideas from Sci-Fi. This one comes from War Of The Worlds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-Ray

If this keeps up, we'll have a "Death Star" before you know it.

that's just the thing

[Moraelin]

Anyone the army actually wanted to give lead poisoning, it will continue to give a lead poisoning. If someone is shooting an AK-47 or worse yet a Dragunov at you, you don't want him just forced to dive around a corner. One way or another some soldiers will still have to hunt him down, sooner or later.

The only people against you'd want to use a non-lethal weapon is, well, people you don't want to give a lead poisoning in the first place. Like civilian demonstrations. That's what worries me. It's not a weapon of war, it's a crowd control device. Same as rubber bullets and water hoses, only a level meaner: when was the last time you heard of those used in a battle? It's not the kind of thing you'd win an offensive with, it the kind of thing you'd use to keep people from protesting against a puppet pro-USA dictator.

Re:that's just the thing

[BecomingLumberg]

What of people rioting outside of an embassy? That would be a good use for this weapon.

Further, if terrorists are disbursed among civilians, you can use this weapon to stop everyone, grab the assholes with the AKs, and everyone else lives. Minimal collateral damage.

Also convenient when assaulting a critical location with entrenched enemies that you don't want to blow up (power plant, oil refinery, etc). You can incapacitate the bad guys without blowing the building up - big win for all of the innocents that rely on the building.

Re:that's just the thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, why would a Dragunov be worse than an AK-47?

Re:that's just the thing

[Moraelin]

Just curious, why would a Dragunov be worse than an AK-47?

Because the Dragunov is a sniper rifle, while the AK-47 is noisy and awfully inaccurate over 300m. So with a Dragunov you can either ventilate someone's brains from considerably higher range and they won't even know where you were, or pin a patrol with a couple of bullets for longer than you could with an AK-47 and 3 full clips. Snipers do a better job at keeping someone pinned than a heavy machinegun does.

Torture

[MrSteveSD]

The use of this device would effectively amount to torture. Using it on a crowd of protesters you want removed would be equivalent to going around and Tazering all of them. Passive resistance does not justify the use of torture.

Re:Torture

[k1e0x]

It will be used on protesters in the US, just give it time.. we just gotta "test" it in Iraq first.

Re:Torture

[Rogerborg]

We've already lost that argument. See "drive stun" and an explicit UCPD policy on torturing suspects into compliance in the context of Mostafa Tabatabainejad (among others).

Re:Torture

[Ogive17]

So what happens when your "passive" resistance turns into burning cars or throwing rocks? Should law enforcement let things get out of control or start throwing lead into the crowd?

Non leathal weapons work because they cause momentary pain, not permanent damage (like getting shot). Using your arguement of torture, we'd have to get rid of pepper spray, tazers, stun guns...

Re:Torture

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure there's an international law or two saying not to make a device whose sole purpose is to cause pain.

Re:Torture

[Peter La Casse]

The use of this device would effectively amount to torture.

Watering down the word "torture" accomplishes nothing good. Any device can be used for torture; circumstances matter.

Re:Torture

[zippthorne]

Not to mention guns. Having a sidearm only increases the risk that the officer will use it against suspects or in self-defense rather than talking things out with people who are really just misunderstood. Nope, police and military troops should only have a good, sturdy pair of fuzzy mittens. And the threat of a 50 megaton nuclear bomb*.

*as long as the threat is not backed up with an actual nuclear bomb and the will to use one is known to be nonexistent.

Re:Torture

[tbischel]

The problem is, they all ready use things like rubber bullets and tear gas as part of riot control. As far as the probability of getting a serious injury, would you rather be hit by this ray gun or a rubber bullet? If I were asked to roll the dice, maybe I take the ray gun, because while there are no guarantees that it is perfect, it is reducing my risk relative to what is already available. There is a lot to say for at least moving in the right direction.

Re:Torture

[MrSteveSD]

The situation I am thinking of is a group of peaceful protesters. Inflicting pain on that group of people to gain their compliance is torture. Torture does not have to be thumbscrews.

Re:Torture

[Peter La Casse]

"Atrocity" or "oppression" would better describe using weapons against peaceful protesters.

I'm not sure what better alternatives exist to this weapon. What is the best way to disperse a crowd of nonviolent people who don't want to disperse? (Assume for the sake of argument that you need to disperse them, for example to prevent a competing government faction from sending in troops with real guns.) A weapon that causes temporary pain is surely better, when you don't actually want to kill the targets, than a weapon that kills.

Re:Torture

[MrSteveSD]

I'm not sure what better alternatives exist to this weapon. What is the best way to disperse a crowd of nonviolent people who don't want to disperse?

The more convenient it is to disperse protesters, the worse it is for democracy. Imagine if the police could just click their fingers and make all the protesters instantly reappear back in their homes. If that were possible you would never actually see any protests anywhere. The UK government has already pre-emptively dispersed protesters by banning any "unauthorised" protests within half a mile of Parliament, and that's bad enough. We can do without very visible "pain-ray" vehicles situated at protests, intimidating people and frightening them away from their democratic right to protest.

If there was an effective and official way for the public to express its views, we wouldn't need the ability to protest so much. In Switzerland the public can actually instigate a referendum all by themselves, a power which most populations can only dream of.

This will replace waterboarding

[Anonymous Coward]

A device that causes searing physical pain whilst not creating any visually noticeable effects. This will replace waterboarding.

Re:WTF

[CreatureComfort]

by hooking his jewels up to a car battery and he told us what he thought we wanted to hear.

There, FTFY.

Remember kids, torture is a great way to learn new fairy tales, but a horrible way to actually get any kind of reliable information.

Huh?

[lendude]

"The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene." Why the f*ck would they drop their weapons and flee the scene? If they can flee the scene, they'd wanna hang onto their weapons wouldn't they? And if they can't flee the scene, unless the beam can cover the whole mass at once, they might be tempted to use their weapons? And if they can't flee the scene, they are pretty much constrained anyway?

Sounds more like a tool to use on demonstrators who aren't armed, just pesky.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping a grip on 130 degree metal is probably no fun.

Re:Huh?

[lendude]

Depending on the viewpoint, a cardboard placard on a wooden stick is a weapon, but it sure as shit ain't gonna heat up to 130F anytime soon.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

you spelled "civilised" wrong in your sig.

Re:Huh?

[lendude]

ffs - not every country in the world uses 'z' as a substitute for 's':

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilised

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to know a little secret? The "goal" is more about spending tax money than anything else. It's about increasing revenue. It's about setting a new precedent for future spending.

Have you ever noticed how government never seems to have enough revenue, even though the US government now represents the most expensive, most powerful world empire that has ever existed in the history of organized coercion? Have you ever noticed how each year, we are subject to thousands more laws than the year before? Have you ever noticed that the power elite of today holds orders of magnitude more power, and receives orders of magnitude more revenue, than the power elite of years ago?

There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. The reason is that more government benefits the power elite, just as more market share benefits Wal-Mart.

They're expanding their business -- the business of government. At your expense. Just as they've been doing since well before you were born. Just as they'll be doing well after you're gone.

You're not in the administration business, are you?

What it'll be used for

[jonatha]

TFA (or one similar) cited a grunt in Iraq who says it's common practice for insurgents to feign auto trouble in order to have time to scout US positions.

This would be used to convince them to move along....

Re:What it'll be used for

[Rogerborg]

Oh, genius. So, let's indescriminately torture innocent people whose cars have broken down in order to mildly inconvenience the 1% who are hostile. Truly, it will bring the War on Hearts and Minds to a speedy conclusion.

Re:What it'll be used for

[TheLink]

And this is why the US is having so much trouble in Iraq.

The people in charge are either evil or incompetent.

They take over Iraq (lying about the reasons). They don't listen to the experienced generals. They then tell the surrendered Iraqi army, "get lost!". Then they send young "cowboys" into the crappy situation, so the cowboys end up shooting random Iraqis just to "teach them a lesson"/"Show them whose boss"/"avenge my best buddy Joe" etc.

All the problems are not because of the lack of technology.

Lastly what's with all this War on Hearts and Minds, War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Crime? Sound just like those Jihad-loving bunch.

Sauna?

[3.14159265]

I guess these guys never heard of it!...
Anyway, better look for that tin foil hat, it might help!

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

[srl100]

Oh, actually the goggles help quite a bit.

Crowd control today ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long before this technology is used in secret detention facilities as a way to "gather valuable information" in the war on terror.

This is the US army we're talking about, yes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The one with the in practice SOP of "shoot if it moves cos if it isn't an enemy, it will be the next time you shoot".

wow

[hyperstation]

remind me again why i bother to pay taxes in this country? this is sick, and will almost certainly be used against US citizens eventually.

Artificial black Ice was also invented in Sci-Fi

[genegeek]

In the sci-fi book Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, ice-9 was a crystal that could be dropped in water to instantly crystallize it. Of course, by the end of the book it gets dropped in the ocean and we all (almost) die.

Black Ice?

[lbmouse]

Didn't Bally Midway invent this stuff in the early 80's?

"Iraq" is a stalking horse

[Rogerborg]

This will be used on peaceful protesters in the US, and will be sold to other repressive regimes for use against their own citizens. There is no use for it in Iraq.

Re:"Iraq" is a stalking horse

[phayes]

There is no use for it in Iraq.

So the cases where civilians were mistaken for hostiles when approaching troops but didn't recognize that they were perceived as being a threat and were shot like the italian reporter are all figments of our imagination?

It seems to me that a non lethal, surefire means of communicating GO AWAY! that makes people go away without killing them would be very useful to the troops in Iraq.

Re:"Iraq" is a stalking horse

[Rogerborg]

And do we give a fuck about that Italian reporter? We do not.

I'll clarify: it won't be used in Iraq. We can't equip our troops with the basics that they already need. You think we're going to ship them expensive and unproven (2 grunts and a bunch of journos doesn't qualify) vehicles that will be off little to no use in actually defending our grunts?

Re:"Iraq" is a stalking horse

[phayes]

And do we give a fuck about that Italian reporter? We do not.

Spoken with all the sensitivity of a true borg... Given how much flack the US caught over this specific incident in Europe & how much the USA needs allies to avoid an ignominious unilateral retreat, yes we do give a fuck.

As for your clarification, given that the device must have cost a non-negligible amount of money to develop and test, I'm supremely confident that it will get deployed to Iraq & used. The sophomoric carping of a few civilians is not going to stand in the way of a general with a mission & a budget. It won't be the first weapons system that gets debugged while in active service.

Here it comes

[eebra82]

I'd love to use this on Al Gore during his sleep while playing the theme song from An Inconvenient Truth.

US Military Inventions

[iOsiris]

US Military Spending/Research/Innovation must be focused towards stealing ideas from video games.

Re:US Military Inventions

[Anonymous Coward]

It did work somehow for Microsoft, so, Why not huh ? ;)

Black ice

[smoker2]

They hope to deploy the 'ice' in chase scenarios to slow fleeing vehicles."

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but how do you deploy the 'ice' in front of a fleeing vehicle if you're chasing it ?

If you've got someone out in front anyway, then you don't really need the 'ice'.

Re:Black ice

[geekoid]

IT's not uncommon forpolice to try and manipulate the chase.

If soemone is zipping down the freeway you have a god indicator where to deploy this.
Another use would be outside of banks, just to watch robbers fall on their ass as the try to fly.

Re:Black ice

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way they deploy spike strips in front.

Re:Black ice

[ohearn]

If they are developing a launch mechanism, then you could shoot a canister of the stuff over the fleeing vehicle to deploy in front of it.

Also this would work wonders if you are the one being chased in a situation and need to disable the vehicles chasing you. I know this is not the case very often in Iraq right now, but it could be very useful for future operations.

Re:Black ice

[flyingfsck]

Come on, don't ruin a prefectly good defence contract by pointing out the obvious flaws...

Re:Black ice

[Chris Burke]

I'm wondering who's the genius who thinks black ice slows vehicles.

Okay, if you deploy it in front of a turn you can make them crash, but if that's your goal sever tire damage strips or just shooting at the tires would work just as well. Or hell, shoot the driver, unless you're so confident in the general use of airbags that you consider making someone in a high speed chase crash qualifies as "non-lethal force".

I don't get it.

[wongaboo]

Maybe I'd have to experience it but I don't get it. They are putting out press releases saying this thing only penetrates 1/16th of an inch of skin, is ultimately harmless, but uncomfortable. Won't any trained adversary prepare for this, deal with their discomfort, concentrate on not dropping their weapon, take a knee and shoot the operator of this "discomfort" causing weapon? I'm not opposed to non-lethal weapons but it seems to me like immobilization (think tasers, rubble bullets, mace, etc) is key.

Re:I don't get it.

[Dachannien]

Won't any trained adversary prepare for this, deal with their discomfort, concentrate on not dropping their weapon, take a knee and shoot the operator of this "discomfort" causing weapon?

Perhaps you underestimate the amount of pain caused by this device. Also, it's supposed to be vehicle mounted, which makes it a lot harder to kneecap the operator.

Re:Here come the hypocrit(e)s

[RealErmine]

pain or death?

I'll have the chicken.

Yikes.

[Ihlosi]

Considering that the average temperature of bath water is ~110F,

Yikes. That's a fairly hot bath (43 degrees celsius, yikes). You probably can't stand this for long, and if you have too many of these baths, you might end up infertile (if male). The latter might not be a concern since this is slashdot, though.

I agree

[wiredog]

We should just use the good old fashioned lethal weapons. Much less chance the people we are shooting at will get cancer 20 years from now.

Re:I agree

[giminy]

Much less chance the people we are shooting at will get cancer 20 years from now.

Sure it's true that the lab mice don't get cancer 20 years from now after being shot in the face. Mouse physiology is quite different from ours, though.

In short, I don't think we've done enough carefully controlled human trials with bullets to make your claim. I'd suggest some form of double-blind experiment, shooting several thousand subjects from various socioeconomic classes with blanks and with bullets, and see what the effect on cancer rate is. I'll volunteer for the control group, which doesn't get shot at all. Providing a baseline for the population is probably the hardest job, as it takes the longest amount of time.

Reid

Re:I agree

[chameleon3]

I don't think we've done enough carefully controlled human trials with bullets to make your claim. I'd suggest some form of double-blind experiment, shooting several thousand subjects from various socioeconomic classes with blanks and with bullets, and see what the effect on cancer rate is. I'll volunteer for the control group, which doesn't get shot at all. Providing a baseline for the population is probably the hardest job, as it takes the longest amount of time.

Unfortunately, the scientific method requires random assignment in order to prove causation, so you can't volunteer for a group. You'll have to take the coin flip like the rest of them :-)

and needless to say, your participation in your own idea for an experiment negates the 'double-blind' nature of the experiment

btw, yes IAASR (I Am A Science Researcher)

PS I know that your post is meant to be a joke, but you'd be surprised how many students entering my Research Methods class don't see the problem with letting participants volunteer for their condition!

Re:I agree

[solafide]

However, if we allow the participants in the study to choose their treatment, we have to factor in the possibility of response bias in our results, possibly demonstrating no perceptible difference between bullet application and no bullet application rates of cancers. Thus we must randomly assign participants to a treatment.

Re:I agree

[rollercoaster375]

In order to get a true statistic, we'll also need to put both groups into 'clean' rooms, and keep the same physical activities and diets between both groups. Still want to volunteer for the control group?

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Cowpat]

we should stick with the lethal weapons. 'the authorities' are far less likely to use them if they're lethal - if they're non-lethal they think 'oh, it doesn't matter when I use this' and just fire away. The simple fact is that the threshold for deciding the escalate the situation to shooting someone is no higher now that TASERs are available than when they weren't, but now TASERing someone who won't shut up is easy to do and impossible to verify for evidence purposes. Take, for instance, the Iranian-American student who got TASERed 6 times a few months back because someone police officers decided to use their TASERs as 'motivational tools' to try and make him stand up. Would they have knee-capped him with a few rounds of 9mm if they only had guns and no TASERs?
What will we see with this new weapon? When the crowd in the 'free speech zone' starts getting more vocal than you like, in the old day's you'de just have to have put up with it. Today you can just shoot them with a heat ray until they quieten down and hey! it's non-lethal so it doesn't matter!

Re:I agree

[davester666]

But this might reduce the incidence of lead poisoning...

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

btw, yes IAASR (I Am A Science Researcher)

no really, it should be the other way around. You use the long version, with the acronym in parenthesis, and thereafter you may use the short version..

btw, yes I Am A Grammar Nazi (IAAGN)

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to get a true statistic, we'll also need to put both groups into 'clean' rooms, and keep the same physical activities and diets between both groups. Still want to volunteer for the control group?

This is simply not true. If it were true, the scientific method would not work. Random assignment is supposed to eliminate any other variables that would systematically influence the results.

Re:I agree

[giminy]

Yes yes.

How about if we shoot the patients in the 'real bullet' group in the eye, making it a single-blind experiment? I think that should satisfy the journal's expectations of accuracy in scientific reporting.

I also think that membership in a control group like this is okay. This isn't a placebo group (the blank bullet people are). I'm just there as a benchmark as 'average citizen exposed to neither blank bullets nor lead bullets'. I'm part of the baseline. I demonstrate whether or not the blank bullets have any effect on cancer rates. Because they might.

Reid

unintended consequences and baked Alaska...

[ofcourseyouare]

I agree that "the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it"; and certainly this sort of non-lethal weapon could help prevent the "mourning war" or vendettas which (I think) you mentioned in an earlier excellent post on a related topic.

However, I do think one unintended consequence of non-lethal weapons is what we saw with Tasers when that student was expellend from the university library a couple of months ago. In that case, it seemed to me that if the guards had not had tasers, they would not have escalted to beating him with nightsticks, they'd have had to just haul him out physically. Because they had a non-lethal but very unpleasant weapons, they escalated to that wheras otherwise they might have been more patient.

Something similar might happen with this. You have an unruly crowd: rather than just wait it out as you might currently, instead you microwave them with this device. Thus the non-lethal weapon can result in more force being used rahter than less.

Having said that, if this is being used instead of rubber bullets let alone metal ones it's difficult to see the problem.

And of course it could vastly simplify the manfacture of baked Alaska ; )

Re:unintended consequences and baked Alaska...

[ben there...]

However, I do think one unintended consequence of non-lethal weapons is what we saw with Tasers when that student was expellend from the university library a couple of months ago. In that case, it seemed to me that if the guards had not had tasers, they would not have escalted to beating him with nightsticks, they'd have had to just haul him out physically. Because they had a non-lethal but very unpleasant weapons, they escalated to that wheras otherwise they might have been more patient.

I was about to post something very similar. The thing is, if you give militarized police forces more non-lethal weapons, they're going to be more likely to use them when they wouldn't have used any weapons. In this case, it is a weapon that when used, has an effect very similar to torture.

Now if there were really any chance that they were going to use this weapon in a combat scenario, which is what most of the posters have suggested so far, it sounds fine, right? Better to use this than kill them, right? But guess what, out of all of the currently existing non-lethal weapons, the only one that has been deployed in Iraq is the sound wave "weapon" used to control crowds, people who, incidentally, they wouldn't have shot. It has also been deployed in the US, for crowd-control on American citizens. It was present at the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC. So far, we have zero evidence that they are going to use non-lethal weapons on hostile targets that would have been shot. And we have some early evidence that the same weapons deployed in a destabilized war region will be used on our own citizens within the US, by our own police forces.

The incident with the taser is an example of what is to come if we continue to accept the use of these weapons. Do you think that their use on unarmed journalists was just a coincidence? Non-violent protest will shortly become a historical footnote, if the history books bother to mention it at all. Giving militarized police forces more (sadistic/torturous) "non-lethal" weapons that they are much more likely to use when they wouldn't have used force at all is something I can't believe so many posters are okay with.

Have you ever heard of a "non-lethal" weapon actually being used against an armed hostile target? Then what reason do you have to believe these weapons will be used instead of weapons? They will be used where currently no weapon is used, for unarmed crowd control.

130F burns

[Anonymous Coward]

If you place you hand under a faucet that's 130F, you will get third degree burns in less than half a minute (quicker if you're young or old and have thin skin). At 125F, it'll take about 2 minutes, at 135F about 10 seconds. And that takes into account the time it takes for heat to transfer from the water to your skin. So if this really heats skin up to 130F directly, you will see a lot of 2nd and 3rd degree burns from this. Less lethal than a hand grenade, but still not so benign.

Favorite Superweapon, Heat Rays, and others

[AtomicJake]

At the same time /. has a poll of our favorite weapons, which would have been funny, if not containing two existing mass destruction weapons. Then, a new weapon, heat rays, makes the front page on /.

Sight, when was the last time geeks weren't impressed by weapons?

millimeter wave rays, not good for the eyes

[Ancient_Hacker]

Anything that heats the skin is also likely to heat the cornea. Microwaves at very low intensity, far lower than can be felt, have been known for 60 years to cause cataracts. It's going to be unlikely that these new waves, which are thousands of times higher than the safe limits for microwaves, will not harm eyeballs.

Re:millimeter wave rays, not good for the eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

So....

it's a stone burner!

Someone call the Tleilaxu.

For cops maybe...

[Chicken04GTO]

Personally I think all of this non lethal weaponry is a waste of time for the military. For the police I can see it. The military's job is to kill people and blow shit up. Not be a police force, not be nation builders. Kill shit, and leave. I know, I know thats just not politically correct anymore. But its also why the Iraq situation will never stabilize. People who like to blow up their own people just because they belong to a different sect of Islam shouldn't be gently coddled with a "heat gun", they should be blown into little bits, in front of all their friends.

Just Remember

[faqmaster]

Just remember: You have to moisten the unruly crowd first, otherwise it will stink the place up for days, and some individuals may even catch on fire!

Meanwhile...

[Fuzzums]

The education budget is cut.
Healthcare costs increase.
The spreading of democracy costs more and more lives.
World population is still increasing while people consume more and more.

Probably we indeed need a lot of these ray-cannons.

The Simpsons quote you're looking for:

[Headcase88]

Grampa: What the hell is that?
Frink: Why, it's a death ray my good man, behold. (Frink fires death ray)
Grampa: Hey, feels warm, kinda nice.
Frink: Well it's just a prototype, with proper funding I'm confident this little baby could destroy an area the size of New York City.
Grampa: But I want to help people, not kill 'em!
Frink: Oh, well to be honest, the ray only has evil applications. You know my wife will be happy, she's hated this whole death ray thing from day one.

With thanks to The Simpsons Archive

Re:The Simpsons quote you're looking for:

[Headcase88]

Ahem. The Simpsons Archive.

SLOW DOWN COWBOY!

Non-lethal?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Now where's the fun in that??

Black Ice? Super Glue...

[flyingfsck]

Spraying ice (or Monkey Snot) on a road won't stop a vehicle. Super Glue will...

Re:Black Ice? Super Glue...

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

Maybe they should try Acme Axle Grease instead! Beep beep!

Mice or Men?

[flyingfsck]

Mice, experimented upon, will develop cancer. So this device will probably not be too good to our furry friends, but I doubt that it will cause the same effect in overgrown monkees.

Reflect

[albertost]

what about a reflector? ... that would be fun :))

Thank you sir can I have another?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how that could work, the Iraqi's hate the US troops. If they zapped them with ray guns, are they supposed to say "thank you kind sir" and start liking you?

More likely, you'll zap people who only mildly dislike you, and that will radicalize them to become full blown insurgents with IED & RPGs.

If all you have is an army, then every problem looks like something to be zapped or shot at or blown up.

Oh, flippin' please

[Moraelin]

What of people rioting outside of an embassy? That would be a good use for this weapon.

Did it ever occur to you that an embasy is, pretty much by definition, in the middle of another country? You know, _sovereign_ country? You won't be making many friends worldwide if the USA's embasies start frying another country's citizens just because they were making a ruckus in the wrong place.

Further, if terrorists are disbursed among civilians, you can use this weapon to stop everyone, grab the assholes with the AKs, and everyone else lives. Minimal collateral damage.

Heh. Dude, no offense, think about it for a second. I don't know what bad action movies or bad video games you've been playing, but people don't just hang around and chat nonchalantly when someone is shooting an AK. The moment someone actually started shooting an AK from the middle of the crowd, actually even before they actually shoot it, the civilians will stampede in panic to get to shelter. You don't need a freakin' heat gun to disperse them, their own "omg, I don't want to die" panic will kick in just nicely.

If you need a heat ray to disperse them, then there wasn't anyone shooting from that crowd in the first place. Any "terrorist" in that crowd didn't have anything more lethal than a slogan on a piece of cardboard, if the rest of the gang didn't already disperse.

Also convenient when assaulting a critical location with entrenched enemies that you don't want to blow up (power plant, oil refinery, etc). You can incapacitate the bad guys without blowing the building up - big win for all of the innocents that rely on the building.

Heh. Now I probably forgot most of what they taught me in the army, but that sounds as just about as pointless as trying to spray them with a water hose to assault that position. What's wrong with it? Off the top of my head:

1. This heat ray doesn't incapacitate, it just makes them take cover. No more. I.e., all it does is suppression. And at that it will cause suppression on the 1-2 you actually _hit_, whereas a single light machinegun will make a whole freakin' company take cover, and occasionally kills someone too.

2. It's just microwaves, so any tanks, APCs, God knows what else, will still be able to shoot at you just as well.

3. For that matter, a simple metal mesh will be perfectly good protection for anyone else who still wants to shoot at you. If you knew that the enemy has these things, you just give your soldiers a piece of mesh with a hole for the barrel of the gun.

Re:Oh, flippin' please

[Anonymous Coward]

> Did it ever occur to you that an embasy is, pretty much by definition, in the middle of another country? You know, _sovereign_ country? You won't be making many friends worldwide if the USA's embasies start frying another country's citizens just because they were making a ruckus in the wrong place.

What if they started to burn the embassy down? Hypothetical situation. What do you do, lie on your back? Fight back? Leave? Appease them?

Re:Oh, flippin' please

[Anonymous Coward]

You kill them in self-defence, dipshit. Can you really not tell the difference between people rioting outside an embassy's walls and people torching the embassy?

Re:They wouldn't realize what they're doing.

[LiLWiP]

I see why you posted as AC. Being from Missouri, I can state that there are a lot of people in my state that are under educated. HOWEVER, having traveled extensively through the states I can definitively state that a MAJORITY of the states have a population of education deficient individuals, and in many cases, some of the states that you did not list as being "backwater" have a greater quantity of complete and utter morons than all of the "backwater" states that you mentioned put together. Look at California for crying out loud. Hollywood alone has more idiots than the other 49 states put together! The military is responsible for teaching the soldiers the impact of these weapons during Basic training. In most cases the soldiers have to experience first hand what weapons of this nature do to them. All soldiers must breathe Mustard gas during Basic. What makes you think that this weapon would be any different? Your stereo-typing of the midwest/central region is appalling. Maybe you should visit the states that you so blatantly insult in your post. We even have COMPUTATORS here in Missouri. And I got me some High Speed Internets to boot!

Re:They wouldn't realize what they're doing.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are describing is called sociopathic behavior, and has little to do with one's education or religious background. Every normal numan knows what pain is, and follows the simple Golden Rule of doing unto others as they would do unto themselves.

If you don't think someone would scream out in pain at having their skin microwaved then you are an idiot. If you don't think these weapons will be closely monitored, and sparsely distrubuted then you are an idiot.

Your attempts to tie sociopathic behavior into a stereotype regarding one's economic or religious background is more evidence that elitism is running rampant in this country. You are yet another elitist making baseless assumptions that have no scientific evidence to back them up. You claim and assume superior intelligence over those you demean when the reality is that people are snickering at your ignorance behind your back.

You are a danger to this country and to its future. You are the same mentality that formed the browncoats and the nazis. This is how lessons in history are ignored.

Ahh yes... more weapons...

[Anonymous Coward]

About the only thing America can build and sell anymore. Weapons to inflict pain, weapons to kill, weapons to wipe out the entire planet.

Makes ya proud, doesn't it?

Re:Ahh yes... more weapons...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely true. America still builds things besides weapons.

For example ... my wife recently bought a sewing machine and didn't want it collecting dust so she bought a white plastic sewing machine case at the same time. When we got everything home, I noticed the sewing machine - the thing that's assembled from relatively complicated parts - was made in China. The plastic case - containing a grand total of two moving mechanisms in the form of metal latches - was indeed made in the U.S.A. It was all a rather vivid example of the decline of American manufacturing.

Just as extra clarification

[Moraelin]

Rogerborg already hit the nail on the head, but here's something to consider: not everyone has a brand-new latest model car. I don't know about Iraq, but if it's anything like Eastern Europe, we're talking cars based on models from the 60's and 70's, and people who save for a lifetime to afford one. In some cases, it _is_ cars that have been badly patched since the 70's, because they can't afford to just buy a new one. We're also talking roads which often, well, to put it _very_ mildly, aren't quite up to western standards.

I'd imagine Iraq would be even worse, what with the war and everything.

So here's an idea for you: what if someone's car did break down? What if someone genuinely took a stroll down the wrong road? You're going to give everyone burns just because _some_ might be insurgents?

At this stage the war isn't won by heavy-handed bitch-slapping Iraqis into submission, but by convincing those people to trust you and give the new government a chance. You _can't_ keep smacking them around for ever, and creating two new insurgents for each one you get rid of. So, basically, "Fucking americans frying you if you even look in their direction" is the last thing you want in those people's heads.

Re:Just as extra clarification

[phayes]

the war isn't won by heavy-handed bitch-slapping Iraqis into submission, but by convincing those people to trust you and give the new government a chance.

As is well recognized by the troops and is reflected in their training (Try looking up "hearts & minds"). What makes you thing that it will be overused indiscriminately on every iraqi they encounter? The military is not going to be using this more than it needs to as it recognizes that too much force is counterproductive.

In situations where it's use is warranted, better a temporary burning sensation than lead poisoning.

Black IC?

[iago-vL]

Is that to protect from the coming data jacks?

It gets pretty cold in much of the Middle East

[blorg]

...during the winter, in the interior. Certainly in Iraq. Colder still in Afghanistan (which in fairness is not in the middle east, but it is the other current war.) It's a fair bet people are familiar with ice.

Re:It gets pretty cold in much of the Middle East

[Apocalypse111]

I stand corrected. I have fallen prey to the mistake of imagining the middle east largely as a sandy pottery kiln turned up to 11. Its still a pretty cool tech, though, if it works as well as they speculate.

Re:Moo

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the military, I want one now. ... mumbles about it being -22C outside ...

Must be that Global Warming, eh?

Nuking people with millimeter waves to 130F....

[uwbbjai]

...think of the future children.

Re:Moo

[tomstdenis]

While I like bitching about the weather I should also point out ... NOBODY said GLOBAL WARMING IS LINEAR.

Why isn't it possible to have cold days with the hypothesis of global warming floating around? it's the AVERAGE temperature that we care about. Not the incidentals. It was -3C yesterday, and +12C all through december. a few days of -22C does not undo the fact that it's been super mild.

At anyrate, I don't care because by time it's a problem I'll be dead, and frankly what did future generations do for me? They're not even born yet, slackers.

Tom

milimeter waves ....

[six]

I love how TFA cautiously avoids the use of the term "microwaves" and refers to them as "milimeter waves" ... it feels so much safer ...

Re:milimeter waves ....

[Vegeta99]

It does that because microwaves are centimeter waves, and will heat a hell up a of a lot more than just your skin.

Re:milimeter waves ....

[Brandon30X]

They call them millimeter waves because thats what they are. I work in a microwave lab, and we call them millimeter waves.
wavelength (in meters) = speed of light / frequency. So 3x10^8 (m/s) / 30 GHz = 1 mm. So anything above 30 GHz are millimeter waves. Anything above 300 MHz are also called microwaves. So as far as terminology goes, millimeter waves are microwaves, just higher than 30 GHz. Just to clear things up, generally, higher frequencies penetrate LESS into the body (skin effect), EM radiation is NON-ionizing, metal screens to effectively block this should have apertures less than the wavelength of the signal (so less than 1 mm holes, thats pretty small). I don't know what frequency they are using, but I would guess 80-90 GHz.
-Brandon

the "It's not perfect, so it's worthless" argument

[circletimessquare]

is not one i'm advancing

for me, i get tired of hearing the "more and new technology solves all of our problems like magic" argument

i don't think you support that notion, because you never actually said that. if i thought you did support that technophilic notion based on your post above, then i would be jumping to conclusions, right?

so don't think i'm in the "It's not perfect, so it's worthless" crowd, or that means you are in the "i'm going to jump to conclusions" crowd

fair enough?

Re:Eyes with contacts aren't safe

[Gandoron]

While this may not cause immediate long term damage to the naked eye. I read something over a year ago that in all the tests, they made the subjects remove their contacts. Apparently, the contacts can melt and bond to the eye. While we might like to believe that no one in the crowd will be wearing contacs...this is just not the case... -G

OBLIG. MLK Quote:

[gaspar ilom]

"What do they think as we test our new weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?"

-- Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence (April 4, 1967)

Re:OBLIG. MLK Quote:

[Overd0g]

Poor deluded Martin. As if the enemies in any war don't try new weapons out. He should have just kept his mouth shut on that day.

Re:OBLIG. MLK Quote:

[gaspar ilom]

It doesn't matter if that is standard practice. MLK is just asking "imagine what they think we test our new weapons on them" -- and and our new weapons today are far more gruesome now than they were back then during Vietnam.

We are ostensibly in a war that involves, partly (if not substantially), "winning hearts and minds" -- remember?

FYI: Perhaps you should have kept your mouth shut today.

Re:OBLIG. MLK Quote:

[feepness]

"What do they think as we test our new weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?"

-- Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence [americanrhetoric.com] (April 4, 1967)

That they really would like a McDonald's in Saigon?

So How do you reflect microwaves?

[stry_cat]

A quick googling implies you should use aluminum or stainless steel to reflect microwaves. It shouldn't be too difficult to get some "body armor" and something to protect your face from this new terror.

Re:So How do you reflect microwaves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh. The armored ones get a bullet instead of some microwaves. Problem solved.

Non-lethal...

[The MAZZTer]

...unless they're carrying sponges!

It's already 130 degrees in Iraq

[wthanna]

On a hot day, it can reach nearly 130 degrees in Iraq.. so if you use this weapon over there, they will look at each other and say "hot day today, Ishmael, eh?"

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

hooking his jewels up to a car battery and he told us what we wanted. hooking his jewels up to a car battery and he told us what we wanted to hear .

There, fixed that for ya.

Untold Details

[diff2uni]

The only difference between this "non-lethal" weapon and a "lethal weapon that produces excruciatingly painful death" is the power level setting on the unit's control panel. If the top layer of a persons flesh is burned over a large percentage of the body, this person will die a horrible death. If the top layer of skin on the eyeballs are damaged, this person will be blinded. This type of weapon will most likely be used for crowd control and probably on its own citizens sooner or later.

Re:Untold Details

[Anonymous Coward]

This type of weapon will most likely be used for crowd control and probably on its own citizens sooner or later.

No it won't.

But if was, I'd nominate you as its first target.

Re:Untold Details

[diff2uni]

Yes it will.

And you are powerless and a coward.

Still to be seen if it works in a real situation!

[j_square]

My experience of millimeter and submillimeter sources is that the MTBF is rather limited, and this would be even more true for a semi-mobile multi-kW 94 GHz system as the Raytheon Silent Guardian. 4.5 tons of transmitter (and power supply) equipment together with sun, sand, and not-always-so-competent soldiers will be factors to consider...

I have got RF burns during my career from 3,5 MHz, 144 MHz, and 350 GHz transmitters as well as 10 um CO2 lasers, and I can assure you that they can been quite painful! I would go for the CO2 laser if maximizing bang for the bucks... However, there are some Geneva conventions that might be violated, but who cares about signatures on papers nowadays ;-)

The countermeasures can be rather low-tech. The wavelength is about 3 mm and thus a metallic wire mesh hood with a mesh size much smaller than this could easily block this (I have tested one of those microwave shielding suits, and yes they work). Water soaked clothes/gloves takes care of the rest of the body. Also you can try carrying around reflectors and hit back at the soldiers. But then they will probably strike back with non-non-lethal weapons. Another obvious weak point is the IR camera in the middle of the reflector. A sniper would easily ruin their day!

Foil hat?

[Aqua_boy17]

But seriously, I would rather have a heat gun pointed at me than tear gas next time I feel like rioting.

I personally am left wondering if a foil hat would be an asset or a liability in this case.

Re:Foil hat?

[COMON$]

considering what tinfoil does in a microwave you may at least go out in style like a giant sparkler.

How does it work???

[Pecholata]

Does it have a overcloked Pentium4 inside the gun to generate the heat ray? mmm probably not, the batterys would just last for a single shot.

Water Vs. Millimeter wave

[Malluck]

Anyone want to speculate if some well wetted clothing would protect you against this thing? It shouldn't take a whole lot to shield yourself from this millimeter wave radiation.

Old news

[phoric]

I blogged about this very thing way back in July 2005..

It's not the heat, it's the humidity

[Hoi Polloi]

"The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F."

The fact that people still go outside in Phoenix AZ in the summer is proof that this won't stop everyone. You need to increase the humidity too. I suggest a setting of "New Orleans in August"

Grounding?

[Overzeetop]

Doesn't the screen need to be grounded to work?

Re:Grounding?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Electric Fields cannot exist in perfect conductors, grounded or not. A screen would only absorb a slight amount of the field (because it's not perfect electrical conductor) but reflect the majority.

Please stop the strawman arguments

[HighOrbit]

The use of this device would effectively amount to torture. Using it on a crowd of protesters you want removed would be equivalent to going around and Tazering all of them. Passive resistance does not justify the use of torture.

Please stop using strawman agruments. The article said nothing about peaceful protestors. I seriously doubt the military cares about a group of people peacefully singing kumbaya around a campfire, seeing how they have their hands full fighting people with AK-47s and RPGs. Let's see what the article said:

The technology is supposed to be harmless -- a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.
Hmm...Peaceful protestors don't carry weapons.

During the first media demonstration of the weapon Wednesday, airmen fired beams from a large dish antenna mounted atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios U.S. troops might encounter.
Hmm... Peaceful protestors are not rioters.

They let volunteer reporters experience it, so the public could know what it really did. None of the reporters have so far claimed they were "tortured".

However, I will grant that the device could be abused. But then again, so could a rubber hose, a car battery, or a bamboo cane.

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[hyfe]

Hmm... Peaceful protestors are not rioters.

The difference* between a peaceful protestor and a rioter is the mood of the commanding officer. Do we really want a deciding factor in wether protestors get fried to be whether the commanding officer got laid last night?

I think the lack of good non-lethal weapons has been a great boon to Western Society. It made dispersing those crowds of godless fuckers campaigning for something you really, really disagree with** that much more difficult. It's a good test for 'do we *really* want to disperse this crowd'.

* Not really, but it shows the problem. The guy deciding on the definition is also the one with the power.

** Including, but not limited to, anti-slavery, women's suffrage, gay rights, white supremacy and anti-war

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop using strawman agruments. The article said nothing about peaceful protestors.

Of course not. When has the military's announcement of a new weapon *ever* mentioned peaceful protesters? They didn't develop tear gas and then announce "It can also be used by Alabama police on black people!". Being a member of a free society, it's my duty to question my leaders, not eat up military press releases.

I seriously doubt the military cares about a group of people peacefully singing kumbaya around a campfire, seeing how they have their hands full fighting people with AK-47s and RPGs.

Correct; they'll just sell this technology to police forces, who will.

Hmm...Peaceful protestors don't carry weapons.

Only if you're full-on Gandhi "never even try to defend yourself when beaten". I know many peaceful protesters who carry objects usable as weapons, purely for defense. (You might as well say "peaceful civilians don't carry rifles".) It's a *feature* of the US Constitution that the police can't easily just walk in and break up a peaceful demonstration -- you remember the whole "assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances" part?

Hmm... Peaceful protestors are not rioters.

The leaders of our federal government have shown a remarkable ability to redefine terms when it suits their needs. I can't imagine many politicians being able to make the distinction between "protesters" and "rioters".

They let volunteer reporters experience it, so the public could know what it really did. None of the reporters have so far claimed they were "tortured".

That could mean any number of things. They might have only invited reporters who were already in favor of less-than-lethal weapons. They certainly had far fewer test subjects than a typical protest would have, which might have made aiming for certain body parts easier. Of course, it may mean that the weapon isn't really that painful, but I've worked on engineering projects before: one small controlled demonstration doesn't convince me.

However, I will grant that the device could be abused. But then again, so could a rubber hose, a car battery, or a bamboo cane.

The difference is that this will be given to police who will use it, like tazers and tear gas, in completely inappropriate ways. That is, the primary users of this are also people who have abused similar weapons in the past, and frequently gotten off with little or no punishment for doing so. If car batteries could (somehow, theoretically) be applied to a crowd of people, and were given only to the police and military for precisely this purpose, yes, I'd be against them, too.

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[MrSteveSD]

Please stop using strawman agruments. The article said nothing about peaceful protestors.

The purpose they state for the use of the weapon in the article is to "make enemies drop their weapons". I feel that is quite a specious argument. That kind of huge clunky device is not really practical for use against highly mobile insurgents who take cover behind walls and buildings etc. We know it will be used against crowds of protesters. This is a crowd control device through and through.

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop using strawman arguments. The article said nothing about peaceful protestors.

You're right, the article did say nothing about peaceful protest.

But the post you are replying to is not talking about how it has been used to date, it's talking about the potential for abuse. Most of your arguments boil down to "that's not what the article said is going on now".

Since it has no adverse side effects (or seems to), its use will be much more casual. The potential for abuse becomes correspondingly greater.

Agreed, the military probably doesn't care about peaceful protesters. But the military aren't the ones setting "Free Speech Zones".

And when you think of it in the "torture" function, consider how much torture is done "so that it doesn't leave a mark" already.

These aren't reasons to prohibit such a thing, because as you say, even WE would consider beneficial/acceptable. But it does warrant close observation.

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[BatMacumba]

Wow. The pentagon friendly "Psy-Op" parent post is frighteningly "insightful". Buy that account on E-Bay, sergeant?

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[Floydius]

Oh yes, how foolish these arguments are. The article only mentioned peaceful protesters... no one would ever think to use a weapon like this in any other way than that specified by the article.

Mark my words, the implementation of a device like this will bring far more negative consequences than positive. It will be turned on the innocent. It will be used to torture people.

Can any object or situation be turned into a scenario for torture? Most certainly. Are weapons designed specifically to cause intense pain more likely to be used for torture? You tell me.

Those who use batteries, canes, and soap-filled socks for torture have already crossed lines that the conscience should prevent. These people will be doing that no matter what they have at their disposal. They have allowed their evil motives to supersede the call of morality or conscience.

What of those not already prone to such abuse? Don't you think this will severely increase the temptation? Already it is clear that some (I emphasize, not the majority by a long shot) of even our ostensibly disciplined armed forces have shown their darker sides in the way they've unnecessarily treated POWs (Guantanamo Bay, etc.) Our CIA has long lead the way in teaching other groups to use torture to gain our objectives (study any Latin American history). Can you not see how such a device would be used for revenge, frustration, or simple cruelty against a local population? If I've already crossed into this degenerate state of mind, I'm much more likely to restrain myself from killing in cold blood than making someone scream for a short period of time.

And what happens when the enemy, whoever that may be, inevitably gains control of such a device? How much more will our POWs be mistreated if we start using torture as a method for protection? Do we care to take this to the logical conclusion? Apparently not. I don't doubt that the inventors of this device are well-meaning. I do doubt that the human heart will restrain from abusing it.

Even if we all agree that this is madness, is there anything we can do to stop it now? I fear not.

Re:Please stop the strawman arguments

[dcam]

Hmm... Peaceful protestors are not rioters.

However in some of the recent protests in the US peachful protestors have been treated rioters. This can become a self fulfilling prophecy: treat peaceful protestors as rioters and they riot.

Degree Celcius conversion

[cciRRus]

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the Fahrenheit scale, 130 F is 54.444 C.

don't forget

[dlt074]

dead people don't complain and sue.

only 130 degrees? sounds like a "chill" ray by Iraq standards.

Re:don't forget

[pluther]

Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of when I heard of this.

According to the last email I got from a friend in Basra, it was 120 degree.

A hundred and flippin' twenty degrees!

Somehow I don't see this as that great of a weapon. "Oh, gee, it's ten degrees warmer now. I better stop shooting as these guys."

I can see this as very useful for crowd control, but not so great for actual combat. Or even for a riot, for that matter, where adrenaline is running high and people won't know which way to run to get away from it. If it takes a few seconds per person to warm them up to an uncomfortable degree, pissed off rioters seem more likely to charge than flee when faced with this.

Good way to keep protestors away from the White House, though.

Or those damn kids off your lawn. I wonder if they'll be marketing this for home use.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Still to be seen if it works in a real situatio

[majortom1981]

Yes but will people in iraq who are using cars as bombs and the like have the money to counteract this. This is more for those kind of people then other nations armies.

Test program

[wiredlogic]

The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested.

Don't worry they probably ran an LD50 on lots of cute little bunnies.

Counter Weapon

[mirio]

Someone remind me to bring a big-ass mirror to the next protest I attend.

The safest thing is to attack, not flee the scene

[giafly]

... because the operator of this thing wouldn't target his own friends.

...and if your friends die?

[bigtrike]

If your friends that are over there now die in service later, will they have died accomplishing anything? In order to stay in Iraq, we better have some sort of plan other than just "stay the course"

If sectarian violence and civil war is inevitable, why waste the lives of our service men just to postpone it a little longer?

Re:...and if your friends die?

[BecomingLumberg]

I hope, with all my heart, that my friends come home. I said in the previous post that I don't think we should be at this point already, but we are here. Although I think the President is a day late and a dollar short, I do agree that the Iraqi government is unable to keep any semblance of order right now. We have been too lenient on them, letting them rely on our support for their protection. We must give them a hard limit to how far our generosity will go.

That said, those of my friends who have died in Iraq did not do so in vain. My friends who died thought what they were doing was right, and my friends who are still there think the same. I have no problems ousting Hussein from power, it should have been done long ago. Leaving right now, I believe, will make Iraq much more of a bloodbath than it already is. Surely, there have been many mistakes, but there is no reason to just add another one to it.

Re:...and if your friends die?

[Illserve]

That said, those of my friends who have died in Iraq did not do so in vain. My friends who died thought what they were doing was right, and my friends who are still there think the same.

This is called the sunk-cost fallacy, it is a common contributor to a wide range of irrational (meaning flawed in this context) decision making, especially gambling.

Re:...and if your friends die?

[BecomingLumberg]

No. If I said we have already lost lives, so we should stay the course, that is sunk cost fallacy. I said I think what we are doing is right (as do the men I know who are over there), so the sunk (unrecoverable) cost is high, but not in error. Nor is our continued presence there.

Re:...and if your friends die?

[LukeCage]

What makes you think we are doing the "right" thing in Iraq? 99% of the people in Iraq want America gone. Period. That was in a poll done by a major media outlet, although the name is escaping me. More than 50% thought life was better under Saddam. That's how bad we are bungling this. Not to mention that it is costing us THOUSANDS of American lives. Not to mention this war is costing TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives. Not to mention that this war is costing us BILLIONS upon BILLION of dollars. Not to mention it reduces our standing in the global community. Not to mention that Saddam was one of 45 dictators in the world and was nothing special. Not to mention it is making us LESS safe, not more safe, and that's the CIA and military's analysis. Not to mention that the escalation (not the "surge") of 21,000 troops is not enough, a joint editorial in all 5 Armed Services newspapers talked at length about this. To turn this situation around we would need hundreds of thousands of troops (a.k.a. a draft), 21,000 is "just enough to lose". Please, please explain to me why a dusty nation in the middle of an unstable region is worth all of this, because I can't logically figure it out.

Re:...and if your friends die?

[BecomingLumberg]

So this is the fight you were really picking.

Re:...and if your friends die?

[Chris Burke]

I do agree that the Iraqi government is unable to keep any semblance of order right now.

Unable or unwilling? When we tried to stop the killings being perpetrated by Madhi Army militias, we were rebuked by Maliki, who depends on Sadr for political support and whose own party has the Badr Brigade militia which has also been accused of sectarian killing. The government is part of the problem not in the sense of incompetence but in the sense of complicity.

I have no problems ousting Hussein from power, it should have been done long ago.

The ideal time to do it would have been right after Gulf War I, when we told the people of Iraq that we would help them if they revolted against Saddam. An actual rebellion supported by the U.S. would have been a billion times better than an invasion by our military, because it truly would have put us in the role of savior rather than occupier. Sort of the difference between France helping the Colonial Army substantially in deafating the British, versus the French Army landing on shore and taking over, promising to eventually let us set up our own government.

Hindsight is 20/20, can't change the past, I know, I know, but the point is there was a time and a place and we missed it. 2003 was not the right time, it was in many ways the worst possible time. For example, it diverted us from Afghanistan, a much better and more important mission. After we were successful in Afghanistan and had pulled our troops out, both freeing up our resources and proving to the world that we could actually do what we said we could do, then we should have considered Iraq.

Leaving right now, I believe, will make Iraq much more of a bloodbath than it already is. Surely, there have been many mistakes, but there is no reason to just add another one to it.

I agree completely that leaving now will cause the violence to get much worse, and thus I am unable to support bringing the troops home immediately.

Here's the problem:

I have seen nothing -- certainly not Bush's "surge" plan which amounts to "stay the course, only harder" -- that will make the statement "leaving now will cause the violence to get much worse" untrue in one year, two years, or ten years.

So I'm starting to lose patience. I'm starting to think that the only thing that will change in however many years we stay is that the body count will be higher and the sectarian hatred even more entrenched. It's starting to seem that no matter what the U.S. is going to have a long post-vietnam-like period of recovery and Iraq is going to have a civil war with its own decades or more of recovery. Unless real hope for success appears, then it only makes sense to start this sooner rather than later. Otherwise we're only building up pressure behind the dam that is going to break eventually no matter what.

Re:...and if your friends die?

[MrNaz]

I think he deserves a reasonable response, if you have one.

I, and I think he does too, think that your friends died for nothing but the hidden political and business agendas of those in power. They were pawns. I don't say this out of smugness, but out of unfathomable sympathy and sadness. I truly am grieved by the death of every man, woman and child that results from the greed of the few.

Pain Ray?

[blankoboy]

Who the hell do they pay to sit around and invent these weapons anyway? I want that job! I'd invent the masturbator ray and test it out on myself all day.

I have a kneejerk reaction to logical fallacies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like what we need for our boys and girls over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yet somehow it's going to end up being used on civilian nonviolent protesters. Maybe in such evil places as Seattle (after, of course, banning any protection to it).

I know the kneejerk slashdotters will come out of the woodwork against this, but would you rather have dead people or civilians?

That's an excellent example of the false dichotomy fallacy. You have two choices: we can have this weapon in the hands of the military, or dead people. You much choose one!

It's funny how you guys love technology except when the military invents it.

That's a strange claim to make against somebody using the internet.

"Black ice provides situational control", Pfah!

[just fiddling around]

Nobody who is used to a nordic climate would say that black ice does anything to stop an attack. Millions of canadians, russians and swedes go to work on icy roads every morning without a problem, even if it is at a slightly slower pace.

Cars start to sway on ice or oil only in movies! IRL a vehicle is a newtonian object: remove all friction and it keeps going in the same direction at the same speed. That means that the pursuit vehicle will keep up with the attacked vehicle until the next corner. And since the attacked vehicle has to slow down for the turn, if it ices the road for the pursuit vehicle it will get accidentaly rammed.

Re:"Black ice provides situational control", Pfah!

[IHC Navistar]

Cars only sway in ice or oil? Then why are there accidents on icy and oily road surfaces? Yes the car is a newtonian object but in almost all cars, except those are 2x4, 4x4, or full-time AWD, only one rear wheel actually drives the car forward. So, if that rear wheel is the only one that has traction, the car whill fishtail or swerve, and the driver will over-correct, which results in even more sliding arouns. Also, the car will only go in a straight direct as a result of Newtonian physics IF ALL of the other wheels have an equal amount of traction. If they don,t then the car will not travel in a stright light because of changes in drag at different points on the car. Since the change is at multiple points at the four corners of a car, tractive changes will cause the momentum of the vehicle to treat that point as a fulcrum and the inertia of the car will be diverted in a straight line relative to the point with the greatest tractive force.

RTFA-The article also says that a counteractive agent is sprayed onto tractive surfaces such as boots and tires that counteract the slickness of the 'black ice'.

I am more of a documentary fan rather than a movie fan, and I still see cars slide on ice and oil, even in live footage. Hollywood conspiracy?

How do you tell the combatants from the innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

In asymmetrical warfare, you don't always know who the enemy in a hostile crowd is. Is that 12-year old holding an AK under his tunic or a loaf of bread? Did you see Black Hawk Down? Might be best to disperse an unruly mob before one of them shoots, causing the US soldiers to mow down 10 innocents.

So funny when some tech nerd starts spouting off on something he knows nothing about - like the actual dynamics of urban warfare. Go back to your Tom Clancy video game.

Someone has a sense of humour

[Anonymous Coward]

Releasing this information on Burns Night....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_supper

Testing

[operagost]

The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested.

Probably pretty well, as the twelve people didn't erupt into flame, dying horribly.

Does it penetrate tinfoil?

[sylvek]

Seriously. Is tinfoil a viable defense against milimeter microwaves?
If so, then the tinfoil hat crowd will finally be validated!

Is it just me or...

[BForrester]

...is this not a humvee/hummer with a massive target mounted on top? Look for version 2.0 where they go all the way and paint a bullseye on the dish.

130F not lethal?

[MrManny]

130 Fahrenheit? I am a little concerned about that. If I recall correctly, proteins undergo a chemical reaction comparable to the white part of an egg at ~42C (which is the reason why a body temperature above this can be lethal). Now I wonder: what are the chances of the heat reaching beyond the skin if exposed to this stuff? And especially: How would your eyes react?

Who the hell modded this informative?

[BatMacumba]

Since when does a military force have any business doing the job of local police authorities? The purpose of a military is to KILL. Period. End of story. When the military does crowd control, bad things happen.

Re:Eyes with contacts aren't safe?

[bubbaD]

Although it also says blinking and looking away protects the eyes, and unless the contacts immediately, instanteously melt(seems unlikely), I think the danger is insignificant.
Nice try though, four-eyes

Probably not legally

[Anonymous Coward]

When WTO opponents protested in Seattle, the Seattle police used tear gas and pepper spray; they also banned the use or sale of gas masks downtown.

If your democracy is willing to turn into a police state, even for a little while, it doesn't matter what common sense defense you can come up with.

Sorry Grandma- you looked like a burka-wearing ...

[bubbaD]

Because the other things you mentioned are close range, slow torture instruments. If you can harm someone from a distance, it's different. Even bullets, through forensics, can be traced to specific guns and from a particular range and angle. Read up on the abuses of stun-guns. Even Mace requires close range and is an easily witnessed attack (by victim and anyone in the area). A long range weapon is a different story.

But will this...

[Bearhouse]

sterilise sponges?

Re:Sorry Grandma- you looked like a burka-wearing

[Viper Daimao]

Did you see the picture of this thing? I think we're gonna know where that burning pain is coming from.

Let me be first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new torturer overlords!

Military of panzis???

[acoustix]

So now we're not supposed to kill the enemy, but instead make him/her feel uncomfortable? Isn't the purpose in military action to kill the enemy and make sure that they don't return to fight another day? I know it's brutal, but dammit people we're talking about war not a slap fight between teenage girls.

-Nick

Tasers are lethal.

[BatMacumba]

Here is just one report.

It's not the weapon, it's society and culture.

[Anonymous Coward]

A 17 year old boy can boink his 23 year old high school biology teacher and society will throw her in jail for 30 years, yet a cop can squirt mace in his eye because he says something intellectually challanging to the cop and the cop skates? Or he might say something intellectually challanging to a mainstreamed microenchaphalic classmate and be suspended from school for bullying. Take this same kid, put him in the army, give him a radio gun, and he's a potential torturer? I tell you what's real torture, hitting folks with Elton John acoustic waves. Given the choise I'd say give me the bullet!

Only after the Iraqis.

[MMInterface]

I'm sure that by the time it had been tested on our soldiers it had already been thoroughly tested on hundreds of Iraqis. Nothing to worry about.

Re:Sorry Grandma- you looked like a burka-wearing

[ravenshrike]

Actually, bullets can only be traced to specific weapons if a highly improbable series of events occur. The easiest way to stop this from happening is for the person who used the weapon to fire a couple of magazines off point blank into a concrete of thick steel wall. This will both deform the bullets shot, and it will line the barrel with lead thus changing the 'signature' of the gun. Now casings, on the other hand, can at least be narrowed down generally to the type of gun, and sometimes the specific gun if something's off with the extractor.

RetroReflector

[eranu]

It's ages since I did physics but if the crowd had metal Retroreflectors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector could the system handle the feedback? Properly made they should direct the microwaves straight back at the transmitting array.

Damage control

[Per Abrahamsen]

The nations who invaded Iraq (mine unfortunately included) of course have a responsibility to clean up the mess they created. Unfortunately, the coalition forces have wasted every opportunity presented until now, mostly thanks to a leadership whose strong ideology have prevented them from listening to the advice from people with military and diplomatic experience.

The least bad of the very bad options that remains would be to negotiate a division of the country into Syrian, Iranian, and Turkish(!) areas if interests. If the three countries agreed on borders, the militant groups would more or less be forced to comply.

This is bad because it would screw those Sunnis and Shias who had hoped for freedom, and worse, it would screw the Kurds who have been the most faithful ally of the coalition. But unfortunately for them, Turkey is more important. It would be similar to the Yalta agreement, where the freedom of millions of East Europeans were sacrificed for the sake of peace with the Soviet Union.

If they're metal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal will get VERY hot under this bugger.
Holding on to such a thing would burn you.

In other words, you'd feel as if you *had* to drop it.

Re:How do you tell the combatants from the innocen

[jtn]

Wait.. you blast someone for their opinion based on a video game, and you use a MOVIE as your reference? I really hope this is either a troll or thick sarcasm, because otherwise, you've just shot yourself in both feet.

Re:Moo

[GR8_GRM_RPR]

Where is Victor Freeze when you need him? Is he still locked up in Arkham?

Correct

[Valdrax]

Sounds more like a tool to use on demonstrators who aren't armed, just pesky.

Correct. You would never deploy NLW in a situation where the target is armed with guns. This is meant to be used on peaceful protesters or, at worst, rock-throwers.

But, hey, maybe if we hand it to certain allies it might mean less children killed by stray stun grenades and rubber bullets.

Re:Artificial black Ice was also invented in Sci-F

[Maltheus]

Neuromancer had black ICE too. I believe it was phrase for the military security software. I wonder if the military is also responsible for the black ice I spun out on the other day.

Energy weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like the beginning of phaser technology to me. I think it sounds like a good idea. Action at a distance is crucial, and tasers don't cut it for that and many other reasons; there have been other reports of success using directed and focussed sound waves. Anything non-lethal which you can use without having to make, instantly, a life or death decision, sounds good to me. Yeah, okay, no doubt cancer and other issues will raise their heads, but how is that, honestly, any different than the other technology we use in our lives, like cellphones?

Speaking of phasors, does anyone else secretly think that Gene Roddenberry was actually a time traveler from the future? I mean, so many of his "inventions" on the show are turning out in the mainstream. Laptops, 3.5" floppies, PADDs, replicators, phasors, yadda yadda.. it's uncanny, and not a little weird. I guess there's hope, after all, that some of his other ideas (philosophical/political) might make it into our future too.

battlefield use of ADS

[SethJohnson]

Why oppose battlefield (or riot zone) use of the ADS, ....?

There are international bans on using light or energy-based weapons against humans in war. Otherwise, it would be quite simple to fight at night and use strobes to blind the enemy. Friendly soldiers could wear goggles calibrated to blank at the moment of the strobe.

Another nonlethal weapon that's banned would be using lasers to blind enemy pilots, etc. This heat/microwave thing probably would be prohibited by the same laws.

Seth

Prediction for 2010

[heroine]

Terrorists will figure out that the weapon isn't lethal. They'll learn to ignore the pain. They'll end up killing more of u.s.. Politicians will call the use of non lethal ray guns an attack on Islam. Voters will insist on electing democrats to pull out of Iraq, but instead be handed tax increases and more entitlement programs. Hillary will blow herself up on Air Force One to protest the war, taking out vice president Dean. Nancy Pelosi will become president.

And all because you made a pitch for a crummy microwave gun.

Limited use?

[WizADSL]

I can't help but think this would only be effective in warmer climates where your "targets" would have exposed skin and the heat would be uncomfortable. Try using this thing in New York or Chicago during winter, you'll just ATTRACT homeless people.

What's Next?

[Raypeso]

Homer- "Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shot bees at you?"

How about some electric sparks ... ?

[deep-deep-blue]

I am just asking myself: how long will take for the iraqi people (or whoever peoples they will use) to find out that some aluminium foil can provide better protection against this weapon, than some hard and heavy metalic table is providing against a classic gung with salt bullets ?!

OBLIG. HG Wells quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"One or two adventurous souls, it was afterwards found, went into the darkness and crawled quite near the Martians; but they never returned, for now and again a light-ray, like the beam of a warship's searchlight swept the common, and the Heat-Ray was ready to follow."

torture

[fredouil]

i am pretty sure it will be great tool of torture.

America has really lost all its values.

This just in...

[dgr73]

Finnish government was offered a sample batch, but chose to reject the use of these devices. An anonymous offical source was quoted as saying: -We tried this on a sampling of volunteers. At first the device seemed ineffective, but after 5 minutes on full power we elicited a response from a volunteer, he said: "Fuck it's cold, let's go to a sauna".

limitations on use...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, the limitation on "authority" and its representatives using weapons is not "How many bad guys are there?" but "How much collateral damage can we get away with?".

As a society we accept a certain death / serious injury rate X of innocent people at the hands of "the man" before we get off our asses and do something about it. For white people who live near us, X is small. For brown people who live far away, X is large. Others are intermediate. The people with the weapons will collectively optimize their behaviour (based on our feedback) to come in just under X, as long as using their weapons more makes their immediate short-term lives easier or safer.

If you make a weapon with a flatter kill curve, you will not reduce the incidence of death / serious injury all that much - weapon use will just increase accordingly until we hit X again.

The only difference is, now there will be a lot more cases lower on the curve, particularly with an evidence-free weapon like this.

Re:I don't think it means what you think it means.

[BatMacumba]

'the king allowed the military units in the colonies to be the dominate force. They didn't have to answer to the Governor. And in many cases they were the civil power.'

Thats what I mean.

received an invitation to the demonstration

[Anonymous Coward]

I received an invitation to the demonstration of this equipment several months ago, the description of it made it far more interesting than this news story- it called it something like 'a less-than-lethal particle weapon that will inspire your opponents to modify their behavior' or something similar, it was really amusing.

Wrong.

[Slashdot Parent]

You are assuming that because tasers look like a gun, that police are using them in place of guns on the force continuum. In other words, the officer is trying to decide between using a taser or using a gun. This is an incorrect assumption.

The taser occupies the location on the force continuum that used to be occupied by pepper spray, which in turn occupies the space that used to be occupied by billy clubs.

Have a friend pepper spray you once. I guarantee that 30 minutes after the fact you'll wish he tasered you instead.

Have a friend beat the tar out of you with a billy club once. I guarantee that 7-10 days after the fact you'll wish he had tasered you instead.

The fact of the matter is that police need to be able to subdue those who are resisting arrest. There is no way around it--it's an integral part of their job. The taser is a great tool for accomplishing this. In fact, I'd say it prevents more brutality than it causes. It gives the cops an effortless way to resolve a confrontation in their favor. That prevents them from getting pissed off. Just ask Rodney King if he would have rather been tasered after resisting arrest rather than the famous videotaped beatdown he received.

What if the enemy gets their hands on this

[darkenbinary]

What worries me about this weapon is the possibility of the technology being stolen/captured by the enemy. If an enemy were to capture such a device what would stop their scientist from making a version that does much more than make you feel uncomfortable. It's quite possible considering the thing is strapped on top of a hummer. It's not like an enemy has never captured a military vehicle. Imagine an enemy strapping one of these to a helicopter and flying over a large city with the "juice" turn up to deep fry. What's going to stop a country like Russia from making their own version and selling it to countries that aren't considered too friendly to us western world citizens. I hope the US is prepared to keep tight grips on this technology.

Hrrrmm

[garote]

The only issue I have with this is that it's invisible. Because while tear gas will make you cough and choke, and pepper spray will drop you and make you vomit, a blanket of invisible rays will have the apparent effect of an angry crowd turning against itself, its constituents furiously crawling all over each other trying to stop a mysterious pain they can't see. Is this really what we're after, in our crowd control scenarios? Turning an angry mob inward to injure and destroy itself? Tear gas and rubber bullets can at least be seen as they're deployed, so people know where to run and whom to blame...

It'll be very interesting when, in five years, we have access to hand-held, even concealable, versions of this. The potential for abuse is absolutely enormous when you can incapacitate someone at range, out of sight, leaving absolutely NO marks. Imagine the "mysterious" accidents we'll start seeing when insane commuters start zapping each other on the open road to get their "spot" back. Absolutely impossible to prove that some jackass caused you to crash by putting you in excruciating pain from two lanes over.

This scenario may sound wacky, ... but I drive Highway 17 in San Jose CA ten times a week, and every day I see drivers who are so psychotic that they would eagerly use such a weapon for such a purpose...