Slashdot Mirror
Heat Ray Gun Fails Final Test; Nixed From War
eldavojohn writes "The heat ray gun to be deployed in Afghanistan has failed its final test and will not be deployed. US military commanders who have had it in the field now have declined to use it. After being tested more than 11,000 times on around 700 volunteers, it failed to achieve satisfaction from the military and will not be deployed."
I guess it didn't have enough settings - I'm sure they were looking for a 'Death Star' setting, for the truly pesky insurgents.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
That we should have been investing in either freeze or death rays.
So does that mean they're bringing them home and will be using them domestically? /tinfoilhat
I'm kinda baffled why anyone in the military thought a heat ray pain gun would help them achieve satisfaction... but who am I to judge someone's kink?
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm sure these things will start showing up in U.S. police departments soon enough.
say it simply gave you an itchy feeling, no more
ok: then the military should have acted like it was an anthrax ray or something horribly nasty. and then let simple fear in the people it was pointed at do the rest of the work: "get the hell out of here, the americans have some scary new technology that causes your eyes to glow/ flesh to fall off in a month/ all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
RTFA. There's nothing in the linked story about it "failing" any test. What happened is that the military decided that no operational need for the weapon existed in Afghanistan.
The ADS does work for crowd control, but generally the military isn't dealing with crowds of rioting civilians attacking their outposts. They're dealing with insurgents fighting with guerilla tactics and IEDs. The ADS is the wrong tool for the job.
They need to find whoever made that stupid decision and hit them with it.
Who knows? I mean, there was a very interesting thread on the last story about how to circumvent it. Perhaps the first thing they did with it was turn it on their own soldiers only to find out that a resourceful individual could easily bypass it with shielding or simple armor? If that's the case, what's the point of deploying more expensive bulky power consuming equipment when you're most likely going to end up using lethal force anyway? They could have identified this as one ineffective step in a cat-and-mouse game ... the details were thin as I submitted this I looked for more sources than the BBC but came up short.
My work here is dung.
It didn't fail any tests at all, it was merely not deployed. I can think of multiple reasons not to deploy this. The biggest being that it is really only useful as crowd control during riots, and even then could be relatively easily taken out. There's also the fact that leaving enemies angry enough to shoot at you alive would seem to be a bad idea. Since the US military, the only people using the tech, would not have enough manpower to roundup all the people they used this against, all it would do is cause greater US casualties in the long run.
"get the hell out of here, the americans have some scary new technology that causes your eyes to glow/ flesh to fall off in a month/ all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"
What, they are going to introduce beer in large quantities?
The "popcorn" setting was ineffective ... everyone knows you cant have a war without popcorn!
"US 'heat ray' gun fails final test"
This morning, when I read this article and submitted it to Slashdot, that was the title. The words "fails final test" were all over the article. Unfortunately Google doesn't seem to offer a cache for it but those words are all over.
The summary isn't wrong, it's just that the BBC changed their story. In the original version the final test was actually putting it to use in Afghanistan. And the US Military Leaders decided ADS doesn't work in that war scenario.
The ADS is the wrong tool for the job.
So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
My work here is dung.
Actually, it failed because they were firing a heat ray at a bunch of desert-dwellers. It's not like these guys are going to go, "oh, ow, it burns!" They live in the goddamned DESERT. Burning isn't a sensation, it's a lifestyle.
It's kinda like using pepper spray on a true spice lover. They're just gonna smile and ask you for the recipe before they kill you.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Ultimately, upgrading your units to use the heat ray is not worth the points cost. Despite the superior strength and AP, you need to be within 12 inches to use it. This is assault range, and at most you are going to get one round of shooting before your opponent closes in. There's an excellent chance you will not get to use it except with bike mounted troops.
The heat ray is ultimately a weapon of opportunity, and you would be better off with the plasma gun for 5 more points. It's rapid fire and gives you a couple good rounds of shooting. Another alternative is a combi-gun with a melta attachment, for all intents and purposes you are going to get to use it the same number of times in a game. Even a standard rapid fire rifle is going to result in more shots against infantry, and the probability of a hit...
oh wait...
this isn't a conversation about 40k, and we are not talking about fantasy SF weapons that don't work. We are talking about real world fantasy weapons that don't work. My mistake!
M
That's 15.7 times each. Being shot with that thing must feel awesome. You'd think the military would have caught on once the volunteers started queueing up for the fifth or sixth time.
To strategic locations across the US to keep Burger King whoppers warm while awaiting to be sold to customers.
The cold ray failed as well.... It seems the troops were firing it at themselves to keep comfortable and keeping beverages cold instead of fighting evil...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Bullets are more reliable, effective, and cheaper.
I was thinking of this heat ray the other day when watching previous for that stupid show Whale Wars. Put them on the whaling ships as a non-lethal, extended range, deterrent to keep people from approaching the boats.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
Not really.
The truth is "conditioning" pisses people off. Useless missions to touch the edge, raze some troops for non-tactical entertainment, and run off are a good way to show the enemy that we're completely evil and have no respect for life. Defending our borders and encampments is fine; but dipping into enemy lines just to do some damage and run is not.
Unfortunately, any useful military strategy involves penetration. While defending our encampments has obvious tactical advantages, those encampments are worthless if they don't support military motion. Thus, our military is of the predisposition to advance through enemy resistance onto a target.
In any non-lethal strategy, we have problems. If the enemy is allowed to retreat, they will increase resistance further ahead: the 500 troops facing us at the next battle become 1000 troops. If the enemy is left for dead, they trap our troops in a pincer maneuver: the enemy troops immediately behind us don't have to mobilize for interception far ahead, and can prevent our retreat and attack from behind when we encounter more resistance. Alternately, we can take prisoners of war; this is a lot of prisoners to deal with though, quickly mounting to several times the number of active troops.
Thus, the only viable military strategy to win a war is to advance through enemy resistance, inactivating troops we encounter-- that is, killing them or butchering them to uselessness (remove limbs). For those being invaded, a repelling defense eventually wears out the political atmosphere and economics of the invader; but a decapitation exercise is a better strategy for either side. In either case, lethal force is necessary: invaders that don't die will continue to attack until you die for quite a while, without eroding the political atmosphere anywhere near as quickly as casualties.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
American beer? That is evil. If you are going to introduce them to beer, at least make it a good beer. :)
Or how about beer with alcohol in it. Introducing the native Americans to alcohol worked out pretty well, for the Europeans.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Send them to law school?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This isn't an ordinary war. It's a house-to-house search for malefactors. Or at least it should be. Clear an area, leave a presence to prevent it from being taken again and to cap anything that was hiding, then move your main force on to the next one. Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
Unless in the process you turn good guys in your pwned sectors into bad guys by acting like the bad guys they once helped you exterminate.
Regardless, in the process you don't allow yourself at any time to fall victim to medieval tactics like pincer moves. Unless you're a stupid cunt.
You sir, need to start sampling beer from the Pacific Northwest. There's none better on earth.
The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
This was not meant to be used against the enemy or anyone else on the "other side". This was intended as a non-lethal crowd control measure.
Shooting into a crowd is bad press and will certainly galvanize a population against you, making them enemies. This "heat ray" eliminates the news story about the 10-yr-old kid who was shot in the head by a ricochet bullet (reported as intentional genocide by the press) with his crying mother screaming over his lifeless body.
So when the angry crowds form over the aid tent that was accidentally bombed, you have three options:
1) Fired into the crowd, dispersing them, but causing more crowds to form all over the world.
2) Hold you position and get torn to little pieces by the angry crowd or the actual enemy who is dispersed among the crowd, encouraging them.
3) Run, encouraging the enemy to stage protests at other strategic locations.
I prefer option four:
4) Utilize something like this heat ray and disperse the crowd in a harmless fashion until the local political leaders get control of the situation.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You believe the war in Afghanistan is like a game of Risk?
There might be a little more to it than that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I've had serious questions about potential issues with this system since I first heard about it.
"It only penetrates the skin the equivalent of 3 sheets of paper thickness..." So what, your eye is very vulnerable to microwaves, and it's going to be directly exposed. That depth can still do serious damage to your eyes.
"It's been tested numerous times on military and journalist volunteers..." Again, so fricking what! You are talking about a limited quantity of people in an area where movement isn't confined with people who know what's going to happen and from where. Just try that on any average mob of people anywhere in the world in normal real world conditions, and you are going to have a huge mess on your hands! They won't clear the target area efficiently, if they can even figure out where/why it's happening. It won't be even vaguely orderly, people will go different directions, collide, get pushed down or fall down, even get trampled. If panic ensues, a likely occurrence for those unfamiliar with this new weapon, you'll probably even have people moving into the target area since they are in a general panic and are UNABLE TO SEE WHAT IS TARGETED! It's well know to those that study these things, areas that are visibly marked are far more effective in keeping people out than any invisible system.
From the situations I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the weapon proponents entire claim that no serious damage will result since nobody will be exposed more than a few seconds is either utter incompetence, complete misunderstanding of even the most basic of human mob reactions, or they are lying through the teeth to make mint on new weapon system. I know which one I'm voting for.
I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy.
I doubt that. You'd have to have numbers, or infinite luck.
The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas, and in most areas the good guys are all too willing to help me out. It's not terribly easy to root out small numbers of them from large populations, but it's doable.
In areas where bad guys are numerous, we switch from house to house picking and choosing to clearing the entire area. This is where war gets messy, but that's why it's war and not something we do for fun on weekends in the Hamptons.
If I bring force and stick to my plan of clearing an area and doing it righteously and keeping it clear, I win. This, on the other hand, is #fail: Insurgents bully bakeries in Marjah, Afghanistan Those guys should be dead, not hassling naan-flippers, or the story should be "U.S. Forces Kill Taliban Thugs Who Harassed Marjah Merchants". Petraeus needs to recognize this and fix what McChrystal didn't.
Medieval tactics are inferior to modern tactics in the same way that Unix is inferior to modern OSes like Windows.
That's cute, but it's wrong. I use both Unix and Windows, precisely because I know their where not to use either of them. Military tactics can be nullified by military strategy, so knowing when not to allow a tactic to come into play means it's me FTW. Like I said. If you're vulnerable to well-studied medieval tactics -- or worse, you're trying to use them on someone who's been through a war college and a few campaigns, then you're a stupid cunt, and he's an even stupider cunt if you succeed.
If you're conducting a house-to-house search for malefactors, GET OUT OF THAT WAR. That should be a domestic problem to be handled by local authorities (with assistance if necessary, but it shouldn't be). If the population is harboring the resistance, that means you do not have popular support of the local population. If you do not have support of the local population in a war zone, you are the bad guys.
This is Afghanistan we're talking about here. They're a bit of a mess to begin with. We can give the locals the tools to build their society with (education, experience, seed funding), but we can't make them shape their society in the way that we choose.
And for god's sake stop giving guns to Israel. The promise of sweeping in and stomping North Korea if they invade the south has been a sufficient deterrent for years. Israel is seen as the spoiled brat invader of the middle east, and for good reason. We'd achieve our same objectives in the region, with far less hatred from the locals, if we just promised to defend Israel instead of giving them the helicopters that they kill Palestinians with. Everyone comes out of that conflict smelling like ass, and by sticking our nose into it we're just feeding the hatred.
I have relatives on the east side of the middle east, who are shocked how little Americans realize that Israel is a big part of the anti-American hatred. It's not the jewishness, or the western-ness. But the behavior of Israel as a government interacting with their neighbors, their invasions, their annexations of territory, suppressions of the Palestines, etc. Our goals for winning hearts and minds, and therefore getting out of the middle east faster with less likely of further terrorist attacks against the US, would be much better served by cutting all military and other aid to Israel, and simply promising military support in cases of an unprovoked attack against Israeli soil.
The ______ Agenda
I think the same thought processes went into Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure you killed a couple hundred thousand people, but the alternative would be the deaths of millions on both sides.
Non-lethal weapons sounds good on paper, but they don't make an enemy go, "Ouch! You won, but you didn't kill me, thank you!" and it doesn't make others who would fight you as well thank you for saving their friends, either. It allows them the opportunity to get revenge. Dead people don't get vengeance. It is sad, but I think if you really think about it, that is the way it is. Reduced fatalities through applied lethal force. Sounds really contradictory, but it's true.
ad astra per alia porci
In case you aren't, you've just tried to critique a concise, insightful summary of what's wrong with Israeli policy (and US) with a bunch of meaningless fluff.
Please, allow me to give you some _real_ anti-Zionist sentiment. Fuck Israel! Fuck those shit-for-brains hardcore fundamentalist asswipes who are still stealing land, shooting protesters, starving children, and crying in public "poor us, poor us." I'm gonna Godwin-by-proxy, but you-know-who with the armbands and the 'stache was a long fucking time ago - there's a lotta dead Palestinians on the roadside leading from now to way back when - that old check has been cashed, spent, shredded, and long forgotten.
So fuck you. Fuck Israel. Fuck sending them money. Fuck sending them military hardware. Fuck backing them at all. Any Arabs wanna invade? Fucking go for it! Not our problem, any more than whenever any random shithole country Alpha invades another random shithole country Zeta. Who gives a fuck? Really?
You know who does deserve our backing? Canada! Heck of a place. Damn decent country. Hardly ever invades anyone. If they do, you know they're gonna say sorry. Not perfect, but who is? We could learn something from them. Like manners.
But Israel? Not so much. Israel, not so friendly. Awfully self-righteous. Smug. Sanctimonious. They don't deserve to be wiped off the map, but still, helping them beat up their snot-nosed neighbors isn't really doing anything for our own interests. Let's bring back Realpolitik, at least it made sense of a sort...
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.