Slashdot Mirror


US Deploys 'Heat-Ray' In Afghanistan

Koreantoast writes "The United States military has deployed Raytheon's newly developed Active Denial System (ADS), a millimeter-wave, 'non-lethal' heat-ray, to Afghanistan. The weapon generates a 'burning sensation' that is supposedly harmless, with the military claiming that the chance of injury is at less than 0.1%; numerous volunteers including reporters over the last several years have experienced its effects during various trials and demonstrations. While US military spokesperson Lt. Col. John Dorrian states that the weapon has not yet been operationally used, the tense situation in theater will ensure its usage soon enough. Proponents of ADS believe the system may help limit civilian deaths in counterinsurgency operations and provide new, safer ways to disperse crowds and control riots, but opponents fear that the system's long-term effects are not fully known and that the device may even be used for torture. Regardless, if ADS is successful in the field, we'll probably see this mobile microwave at your next local protest or riot."

13 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. You can protect yourself from the ADS by stalkedlongtime · · Score: 5, Informative
  2. Very troubling by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been known for over fifty years that microwaves, at just a few milliwatts per square centimeter, cause cataracts. That's why there are rather tight limits on microwave exposure around radar and telecom equipment.

    Spraying microwaves around and possibly inducing mass blindness is not going to look good in the history books.

    1. Re:Very troubling by couchslug · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Blinding the enemy is definitely a war crime."

      NO. Using weapons to specifically blind the enemy is a crime.
      If you blind them with fragments or fire as a consequence of trying to kill and maim them, that's perfectly acceptable.

      If you blind a tank crewman whose head is exposed by painting the tank with a laser designator in order to shoot the tank that's perfectly acceptable.

      If you use a weapon whose specific purpose is to blind an enemy rather than blinding some of them as collateral damage, that's a crime.

      Citation:

      "Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention), 13 October 1995

      Article 1 It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.

      Article 2 In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.

      Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.

      Article 4 For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. In the US in 3, 2, 1 ... by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM
    Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) used in Pittsburgh.
    Expect the heat-ray very soon.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. It'll be just like plastic bullets by andywebsdale · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cops or soldiers that use them will work out how to make the weapon have far worse effects than were intended.They *always* do.
      For example, trapping fleeing civilians against a wall or fence so that they can't esape, or more than one beam focussed on one person. (Incidentally, one technique with plastic bullets or baton rounds is to ricochet them off the street, so that they shatter and rebound up into the victims face)
    Like tasers, they say that they're a 'non-lethal' alternative to guns, but in reality they still use guns the same as they always did, but now use tasers when they would just have grabbed someone & handcuffed them, or just spoke to them.

    1. Re:It'll be just like plastic bullets by cavePrisoner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a soldier, I have to say that making the thing do more damage was the last thing that came to mind. We have plenty of things that do shit-tons of damage already. But when we catch an 8 year old running command wire to an IED, you kind of wish there was a way to stop him without ripping him in half with a .50 cal round. Something like this might be nice from time to time.

  5. Extensively tested by MalHavoc · · Score: 5, Funny

    The 'burning sensation' was developed and extensively tested based on the US military's prior experience in the Red Light district of Amsterdam and Eddie Murphy's stand up comedy.

  6. Re:Bah. by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a binary choice.

    An investment in intel won't necessarily stop riots, especially riots calculated to provoke violent retaliation without regard to own-side casualties. Less-lethal weapons won't produce bloody martyr cell phone footage. :) Smart opponents want martyrs, especially when the martyrs aren't their own operative and are just expendable locals they may not care for anyway or actively dislike.

    Intel isn't something you can (always) buy. though that IS a good idea if done carefully.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  7. Re:"Put your hand in the box." by __aaxtnf2500 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ever felt one of those sensory illusion devices that has a stack of parallel tubes with alternating hot and cold lines? The hot lines are not enough to burn you, but when you put your skin across the stack, your heat sensing system interprets the feeling as intense burning. Closest thing I ever felt to the black box.

  8. Re:Concerned that it could be used for torture? by Xelios · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of things can be used for torture, but the list of things that leave no evidence of torture behind is much shorter.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  9. "safer" means used more by DaveGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "safer" a weapon is, the less the restrictions and controls over it's use, and the more often it is used.

    As we have seen with tasers, people begin to see them as a tool which achieves their objective with minimal repercussions. There follows a normalisation process resulting in usage becoming considered appropriate even in situations where other forms of violence would be considered unacceptable. Like when trying to stop a student making a scene as he is leaving the premises as requested. Tasers were touted as a less violent option to bullets, instead they seem to be used as a more violent option to wrestling (and, if you go by Youtube, talking).

    Even if the technology is 100% safe and cannot result in permanent injury, it is still the exercise of pain and violence in controlling civilians and must be very tightly controlled. Instead there seems to be very little interest in the misapplication of violence by officials if nobody dies.

    Seriously, making people feel like they are on fire in order to "disperse crowds"?

  10. Re:I'm a bit concerned... by Marcika · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tin foil hats will have to be outlawed, like bulletproof vests.

    Only criminals need tinfoil hats. You ain't no CRIMINAL, is you?

    You might mean it as a joke, but the Germans are a step ahead of you here -- anything that can serve to protect you against police violence in a protest has already been outlawed for the last twenty years as a "protective weapon" (the law is 17a of the Versammlungsgesetz).

    They have outlawed padded clothing that protects against beatings, mouthguards that protect against police knocking your teeth out, masks that protect against teargas and ballistic vests that make it harder to maim you from a distance. Outlawing tin foil hats is the logical next step.

  11. Re:Horrible by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I prefer case 3: our politicians don't put the world's best killing force in a position where killing people is not appropriate.

    Our army is not trained in non-violence; they are trained to kill people and blow shit up. When killing people and blowing shit up is not on the menu, then they should not be involved in the situation.

    Once we begin your scenario, where our military is facing down a bunch of civilian protesters, everyone has already lost. It should be police forces facing them down, because that is police-work. It doesn't matter if we have an ADS or a magical calm-the-fuck-down ray - our military should not be involved in the situation at all.