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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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

[*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?

Don't Forget!

[Life2Short]

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.