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.
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.
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.
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.
I like muppets.
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.
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.
...sounds like the terrorists have won already
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
Launch every sig.
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.
Sounds more like a tool to use on demonstrators who aren't armed, just pesky.
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
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.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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 ; )
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?
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?
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.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
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.
If you're having difficulty imagining the high likelihood of abuse of this sort of technology, then you're part of the problem.
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.
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.
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.
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!
FGD 135
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?
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.
The enemies of Democracy are