Slashdot Mirror
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.
They've already used that on people. Another "nonlethal" weapon that will
a in+weapon
hideously kill at close range.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=microwave+p
The most interesting things from that product sheet: 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.
My work here is dung.
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.
"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.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
It does that because microwaves are centimeter waves, and will heat a hell up a of a lot more than just your skin.
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.
Marques Johansson
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.
The enemies of Democracy are