Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

50 Years of Research and Still No Microwave Weapons

Posted by samzenpus on from the feeling-hot-hot-hot dept.

DevotedSkeptic writes in with a story about the lack of usable microwave technology to come from 50 years of military research. "For some Pentagon officials, the demonstration in October 2007 must have seemed like a dream come true — an opportunity to blast reporters with a beam of energy that causes searing pain. The event in Quantico, Virginia, was to be a rare public showing for the US Air Force's Active Denial System: a prototype non-lethal crowd-control weapon that emits a beam of microwaves at 95 gigahertz. Radiation at that frequency penetrates less than half a millimetre into the skin, so the beam was supposed to deliver an intense burning sensation to anyone in its path, forcing them to move away, but without, in theory, causing permanent damage. However, the day of the test was cold and rainy. The water droplets in the air did what moisture always does: they absorbed the microwaves. And when some of the reporters volunteered to expose themselves to the attenuated beam, they found that on such a raw day, the warmth was very pleasant. The story is much the same in other areas of HPM weapons development, which began as an East–West technology race nearly 50 years ago. In the United States, where spending on electromagnetic weapons is down from cold-war levels, but remains at some US$47 million per year, progress is elusive. 'There's lots of smoke and mirrors,' says Peter Zimmerman, an emeritus nuclear physicist at King's College London and former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in Washington DC. Although future research may yield scientific progress, he adds, 'I cannot see they will build a useful, deployable weapon.'"

154 comments

  1. You say it like it is a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I say we have enough weapons already, how about drooling over something that doesn't kill or maim for a change?

    1. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RTFA. This is a tool to stop an assailant without doing permanent damage.

    2. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely it is a tool to disperse protesters without those incriminating head cracking videos.

    3. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      More likely it is a tool to disperse protesters without those incriminating head cracking videos.

      So, there is no value in dispersing protesters without having to crack heads?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It makes it way too easy to disperse peaceful protestors when their message is politically inconvenient. The people you linked to were not protesters, they were rioters and anything but peaceful. A water cannon would have done a better job than the microwave weapon anyway.

    5. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A water cannon would have done a better job than the microwave weapon anyway.

      Especially in desert countries with primitive plumbing and sewer systems.

      The people you linked to were not protesters, they were rioters and anything but peaceful.

      So you wouldn't object to using it on them then?

      It makes it way too easy to disperse peaceful protestors when their message is politically inconvenient.

      They can already be dispersed with ultrasonics or chemicals which would leave no photos and limited trace. If the government is going to cross the line to coercion it is going to cross the line. The problem isn't the nature of the weapon so much as the nature of the government. Totalitarian countries are totalitarian due to the behavior of the government, not because of the weapons they have.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Taser guns, taser rounds, bean bags, rubber bullets, gas grenades, chemical mace, fire hoses, LRAD... the list goes on. I think we can let one bad tech fall by the wayside and rely on what already exists.

    7. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      If it happens to be effective and less lethal than others, such as rubber bullets, why would you prefer the others?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by tobiah · · Score: 1

      And apparently water hose beats microwave gun.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    9. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      But it's not better.
      After 50 years of research they've developed a weapon that's useless in moist air.

    10. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So far.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Yeah maybe another 50 years and 3 billion dollars and we'll have something almost as useful as other existing technologies.
      Microwaves are absorbed by water. Additional research isn't needed.

    12. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you design a weapon that is inferior in every way except that it's use leaves no obvious traces, it has only bad uses.

      That applies to ultrasonics as well.

    13. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 2

      It happens to be less effective than those other options by far and more expensive. The only 'advantage' (other than lining defense contractor pockets) is that it doesn't create photos of obvious government oppression.

    14. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you design a weapon that is inferior in every way except that it's use leaves no obvious traces, it has only bad uses.

      So, having an effect while being less likely to kill, maim, or injure, than rubber bullets, baton rounds, riot batons, etc., is essentially a design flaw then. Don't you think that democratic governments have a responsibility to minimize the harm to its citizens, if possible, even when coercion is necessary?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is far more likely to torture or maim (when it works at all) than a water cannon all without risking the backlash of photojournalism. The latter part makes it more likely to be used when, in fact, a legitimate government would respect the right to peaceably assemble and a less legitimate one would otherwise tolerate it in order to avoid making the protesters into media heroes.

      When I say inferior in every way, I mean that it is less likely to actually work in real world conditions than a fire hose while costing more. As for the liklihood to injure or maim, we don't actually know how harmful it might be. If it causes pain, it is quite likely to be doing damage. Once it's out of the hands of researchers and being operated by pigs, what reason do we have to believe people won't be tortured until they have long term nerve damage? In contrast, a riot shield or a hose just pushes you down.

    16. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It would seem to be more effective as long as environmental conditions enable it to be used. There are a variety of weapons that are more or less effective depending upon the weather.

      Another advantage is that is it less likely to kill or seriously injure, which is no small advantage when dealing with one's own citizens even if they are rioting.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      A weapon that only works on sunny days seems to be a bit to finicky to rely on. I have doubts that it is less harmful than a fire hose. The one 'advantage' it clearly has is no opportunity to take clear pictures of peaceful protestors being unconstitutionally suppressed.

    18. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      It happens to be less effective than those other options by far and more expensive. The only 'advantage' (other than lining defense contractor pockets) is that it doesn't create photos of obvious government oppression.

      Honestly, $47 million a year is not exactly "lining defense contractor pockets" but American standards. Call me when we're half way to a billion a year...

    19. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Compared to riot shields and firehoses, it is. Especially since a working unit has yet to be delivered. Tell you what, I'll produce nothing for only $20mil a year, what a bargain!

    20. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a torture device, plain and simple. All the talk about crowd dispersal is smoke and mirrors.

      I'm sure there are people creaming their pants when they think of a device that causes excruciating pain without leaving detectable marks.

    21. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      More likely it is a tool to disperse protesters without those incriminating head cracking videos.

      This.

      It's exactly the sort of thing a government shouldn't have.

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      So, there is no value in dispersing protesters without having to crack heads?

      The 'test' in Quantico, Virginia was against a bunch of reporters.

      I'd say that's not a good indicator of their plans for the device.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can easily see this going badly wrong.

      eg. In a big crowd the people at the back won't feel anything but they can be blocking the escape of the people at the front. The people at the front will have nowhere to go and could be exposed to this for a very long time. That's torture by any definition.

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by vlm · · Score: 1

      It's a torture device, plain and simple. All the talk about crowd dispersal is smoke and mirrors.

      I'm sure there are people creaming their pants when they think of a device that causes excruciating pain without leaving detectable marks.

      AC is most likely correct. Once it gets cheap enough, it'll be deployed elsewhere for non-crowd control reasons.... You can almost hear the sales pitch already. "too many homeless sleeping in your park? Purchase our iArea iDenier and put it on a timer... when the parks closed, the microwaves start, and the homeless leave!"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    25. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the protestors can alter the environment as well. Sounds like a couple of hoses could negate this weapon.

    26. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by rullywowr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When you design a weapon that is inferior in every way except that it's use leaves no obvious traces, it has only bad uses.

      That applies to ultrasonics as well.

      You mean like a Taser? No cops EVER misuse those...

    27. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but the Hammer of Dawn did save my ass here and there.

    28. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in another 50 years they surely come up with a technology which keeps water from absorbing microwaves ...

      Captcha: shower - how apt.

    29. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the protestors can alter the environment as well. Sounds like a couple of hoses could negate this weapon.

      Or some synchronised pissing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      Maim or kill? Or even crowd control? Clearly these are failures of the imagination. I'm thinking about truly innovative applications, such as "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

    31. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by careysub · · Score: 1

      Worse still - this is a formula tailored to create lethal crowd-crush ("stampede") catastrophes, like the Baghdad Bridge Stampede which killed 953:

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    32. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Microwaves are absorbed by water.

      Some microwave frequencies are (well) absorbed by (liquid) water. "Microwave" is a fairly broad church of electromagnetic radiation.

      What makes microwave ovens useful and the potential of these weapons ideas interesting is the fact that living organisms are, as Bender would put it, bags of dirty water with occasionally lumps of soft rock. We are such dirty water because water is a common material in our environment (what do you build *anything* from? You build it from something that is common in the appropriate environment. In Scotland, we build houses out of stone and small amounts of dead trees; in England, you build houses out of baked mud and larger amounts of dead trees; in New England you build houses out of dead trees and small amounts of minerals ; on Earth, you build life out of dirty water and small amounts of minerals. "D'oh ! ")

      Unfortunately, the environmental water makes it hard to target the dirty water which comprises your target audience. Bit of a problem that.

      I'd not be terribly surprised if they'd made a version that is strongly absorbed by the pigment melanin - just as a technology demonstrator. Then you could incinerate people of African descent, badly burn people of Chinese and Indo-Pakistani-Arab descent, hurt gingers and freckly gimps, and not harm rednecks at all. That would be very popular. Then the politically correct parts of the Army bureaucracy would bury the project. (WikiLeaks probably has the files already, for when Assange's death-by-public-torture is started.)

      Oh, hang on - they've already done a Laser (not Maser) version of such a device - they use it for burning warts and skin cancers.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    33. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      You are grossly underestimating the potential harm caused by large volumes of water moving at great velocity.

      It might "just push you down". It might rupture your eye. It might break a rib.

      And a riot shield.. yeah, nobody's ever been hurt by being physically struck with a hard object before, that's for damn sure. You sir are spot-on. Hey, while we're at it, why don't you rage against the use of tasers and advocate that police instead wrestle or use batons? That's certainly the lower-risk alternative, right? Right? HURRRR!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    34. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the number of ways already available that will cause excruciating pain without leaving detectable marks. One more device isn't going to suddenly allow clandestine torture. We can do that already.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    35. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, nobody ever died when they were repeatedly 'drive stunned' and then tossed in a cell. DERP DERP!

    36. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      I never said that NOBODY EVER died after being struck with a taser. You're the idiot making that claim.

      You're also the idiot making the claim that water cannons and batons don't kill people. Try and back that one up.

      There is NO option available that is completely non-lethal. There have been and continue to be many attempts to find LESS lethal methods and devices. So far, all we've got are a handful of options that MAY kill, with some having a greater chance of killing or causing permanent injury. Among those options, picking the one that is least likely to kill or cause permanent injury is proper. I think even your dim-witted fucking rat brain can understand that.

      Now go do some actual fucking research on the available less lethal methods and devices, actually fucking reading about how they work and the effects they have, and tell me that water hoses and batons and shields kill and harm less than a taser.

      Jesus fucking christ even a simple wikipedia search should show you that water cannons aren't just a big squirt gun.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon#Safety

      Regardless, your bringing tasers into the conversation merely shows how little thought you actually give to the matter, and that you are driven by dumb emotion not fact. Tasers are fucking awful at crowd control. Tasers are a tool for dealing with a single or, at best, very small number of people. Water cannons, and this microwave device, are tools for dealing with large crowds. Different situations, different tools and techniques. There is no 100% safe tool or technique, yet you decry the quest to develop safer methods as evil simply because you are ignorant of the dangers of other tools and techniques. Newsflash bucko, just because you're dumb doesn't mean you're right.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    37. Re:You say it like it is a bad thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're also the idiot making the claim that water cannons and batons don't kill people. Try and back that one up.

      Actually, I haven't used the word 'baton' or synonyms ANYWHERE in this discussion. I have mentioned riot shields.

      So I guess in addition to insulting that makes you blind and stupid as well.

      OOOOH, I can swear too! I can even swear the star wars theme! Fuckety FUUUUCK FUUUUUCK...Fuckety FUUUUUCK FUCK FUCKETY FUUUUUCK Fuck..Fuckety fuck!

      Meanwhile, YOU brought tasers into this, not me. I said fire hoses and riot shields. I realize that when you don't update your reading glasses, those might look like Taser when you need a handy strawman, butr that's not my problem.

  2. No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a tragedy.

    1. Re:No new weapons? by schnell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No new weapons? What a tragedy.

      I prefer living in a country that wastes money trying to find non-lethal weapons that don't work out vs. countries that take the cost-effective, pragmatic approach of "f**k em, bullets are nice and cheap."

      There are plenty of reasons to criticize the US Department of Defense, no question. But the fact that they are spending money on non-lethal weapons means they at least care about a future war where not everyone has to get killed. Or even if you want to indulge your most Reynolds-wrapped tinfoil-clad conspiracy theories, a future where US domestic political protestors don't meet the same fate as those in the Prague Spring, Tienanmen Square or Syria.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:No new weapons? by zarlino · · Score: 2

      they at least care about a future war where not everyone has to get killed.

      And what about working towards not having a future war at all?

      --
      Check out my cross-platform apps
    3. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA, they spend 47 million per year on those weapons. How much for the total military budget again? Oh yes, more than all the rest of the world together.

      If they could get away with murder, they would no investigate this. But since some Vietnam protests, the US knows how bad it looks to beat up your own population in a peaceful protest. The picture looks a lot better on TV when people are running away screaming, but without that policeman chasing them, without the teargas smoke and without the water cannons.

    4. Re:No new weapons? by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      The problem is that a government facing protesters and equipped with a non-lethal weapon that leaves no visible marks faces less of a barrier towards using it than one where the media can get juicy pictures of the government abusing its citizens. This thing going would be worse for free speech in the long run, and let's face it free speech is already under attack as it is.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    5. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the lab down the hall. Two different problems, two different solutions.

    6. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can eliminate war for quite a long while if you nuke everything.

    7. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about it?

    8. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good one. Real knee-slapper.

    9. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you would have peace, prepare for war"
      "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
      "We need room!" "Hitler, Germany, 1939" (Kirk)

      Get the point?

    10. Re:No new weapons? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Or even if you want to indulge your most Reynolds-wrapped tinfoil-clad conspiracy theories, a future where US domestic political protestors don't meet the same fate as those in the Prague Spring, Tienanmen Square or Syria.

      Just because you aren't killed outright in front of TV cameras doesn't mean something horrible won't happen to you or your family in the dead of night. Or that you won't get "indefinitely detained" in the name of national security in a secret prison outside of US borders and tortured later. Welcome to New Rome.

      The Chinese didn't kill the protestor who yelled at the guy in the tank before they drove on to Tienanmen Square outright either. But do you honestly think he's doing ok now?

      Sorry, I'd rather them bring bullets. As many as they want. I don't like deception and mystery. It would drive their true intentions home in the minds of the citizens and wake the people up to the fact that they've lost control of their own nation and created a monster.

    11. Re:No new weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would the banks cover up their crimes without war?

    12. Re:No new weapons? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Before you get too high on non-lethal weapons, please consider the taser.  The problem with non-lethal weapons is that the users know this, and are thereupon much more likely to actually use them.  And obviously, they don't just use them when they really need them.

      Non-lethal to my mind equals "let's use physical force to control people more often".

      --
      expandfairuse.org
  3. Late Summer Rainfall in Beghazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    0 inches.

  4. No flying monkeys either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be worth paying taxes for.

  5. Are There Any Alternatives by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sigh, if only there were other ways to control peaceful pro... ah mobs of anarchists.

    Like pepper spray, water cannons, clubs, horses, dogs, sonic weapons, machine guns, truncheons, whips, tear gas.....

    $47 million. You could make a good start at buying an election with that kind of money.

    --
    Three Squirrels
    1. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Buy an election with $47m? Perhaps in Tonga, but as the comparison is research spend in the US...

      http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

    2. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by godel_56 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sigh, if only there were other ways to control peaceful pro... ah mobs of anarchists. Like pepper spray, water cannons, clubs, horses, dogs, sonic weapons, machine guns, truncheons, whips, tear gas.....

      There are some excellent non-lethal possibilities that the authorities are not using, such as laser dazzlers. My favorite unused method is the foam generator. You cover the entire ravening mob in a layer of soapy foam about 3 meters thick, so they stumble around saying "where'd every body go?", and the cops pluck them out from the front end of the mob at their leisure. You can also include orange or green skin dyes or capsaicin in the foam if you're feeling nasty.

    3. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by MimeticLie · · Score: 2

      Not all elections are presidential.

    4. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 5, Funny

      But then they'll all be clean and we can't call them dirty hippies anymore. :)

    5. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by memnock · · Score: 1

      Not sure who decided to use the term "weapon" with "crowd-control" intentions, but doesn't the combination of the two words seem wrong? Merriam-Webster or whomever might define weapon definitely, but when I think of weapon, I think something intended to injure or kill. If you're attempting to control a crowd, especially of mostly non-violent protesters, injury or death is not the goal.

      Of course those in power get to decide the terms of the engagement and seem to think an excess of force is the most appropriate response most of the time. From their point of view, I suppose weapon is the correct term.

      --
      "To stop the terrorists."
    6. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      You spray hippies in 3 meters of foam and you've got a party on your hands, not a riot. ;)

    7. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had a peaceful protest locally. If the protesters had staying power they could have bankrupted the local police. The protesters stayed in their neighborhood and burned and looted businesses owned by ... neighbors. They finally were drunk enough to slow down and tired enough to sleep it off but that was before they bankrupted to police overtime budget or scared the 'good areas'.

      Had they done that...I dunno, I don't think it's called urban renewal if a bunch of white folk burn down the ghetto.

    8. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better alternative yet - surrender to the anarchists! They are a smart and friendly bunch with good ideas once you get to know them.

    9. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, military weapons are modeled after their D&D equivalents.

      http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm

    10. Re:Are There Any Alternatives by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

      The use of pepper spray and tear gas in a battle scenario are illegal under the chemical weapons convention. As for the rest of your examples (except machine guns), they have much too limited a range against an enemy with rifles. As for machine guns, those usually aren't considered non-lethal.

      --

      "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

  6. Why are we fronting the cash? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

    If a company has an idea for a weapon they think will be super-awesomes why don't they spend the cash to R&D it and when/if it is successful they can start offering it out. Can we stop blowing cash on stupid crap that won't work like jet packs and laser rifles?

    1. Re:Why are we fronting the cash? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Because then they might sell the weapon to somebody else.

    2. Re:Why are we fronting the cash? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Given the track record thus far, GOOD! I can think of no better advantage for U.S. forces.

    3. Re:Why are we fronting the cash? by Animats · · Score: 2

      If a company has an idea for a weapon they think will be super-awesomes why don't they spend the cash to R&D it and when/if it is successful they can start offering it out.

      It's been tried. See the F-20.

    4. Re:Why are we fronting the cash? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Reminds me of Macross2 =P

      Still, reading through it the idea still seems sound so long as the government doesnt go and sabotage the whole thing 10 years in.

    5. Re:Why are we fronting the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and if that sad story doesn't sour you on the military-industrial complex, nothing will.

  7. So let's see by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have a very expensive crowd control weapon that likely could be rendered ineffective as long as enough of the protesters brought 99-cent spray bottles full of water along with them.

    Got it.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:So let's see by The_Rook · · Score: 1

      you can also effectively shield against microwaves with the wire mesh cut out from a screen door.

      --
      when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    2. Re:So let's see by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      With the right rectifier you might even be able to recharge your cellphone.

    3. Re:So let's see by number11 · · Score: 4, Funny

      We have a very expensive crowd control weapon that likely could be rendered ineffective as long as enough of the protesters brought 99-cent spray bottles full of water along with them.

      But it's the very first weapon that a tinfoil hat is actually documented to protect against.

      The spray bottles are good. But arty foil-backed protest signs that just happen to be shaped like corner reflectors would be fun for the people in the front.

    4. Re:So let's see by macraig · · Score: 1

      Except most of the "wire" in screening isn't actually wire anymore, it's stranded synthetics with a vinyl coating.

    5. Re:So let's see by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Except most of the "wire" in screening isn't actually wire anymore, it's stranded synthetics with a vinyl coating.

      Yeah, we just discovered this in the window screens that were installed in an enclosed porch that we had built recently. One day we had a window open, with the screen keeping the bugs out, and we left the porch for a while with some food sitting on a small table. When we went back to the porch, we saw a squirrel dashing back through the gash it had torn in the "screen" to get at the food.

      Now we have a new project, of finding a real screen that will keep those cute little critters out the way we thought the fake screens would. But it's not easy to get an honest answer about the materials in screens. The folks at the hardware stores (and the dealers' web sites) will tell you whatever they think will make the sale, knowing full well that it won't be worth your while to sue them over such a small purchase.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    6. Re:So let's see by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Go to the hardware store, find the rolls of screen material. Pinch the corner of the material.

      If it stays pinched, it's "metal." If it doesn't stay pinched, it's the other stuff.

      I'm not sure it's worth it, though. The metal screens are harder to install - they pinch and fray way more easily - and I'm not convinced you'd get much benefit from it. They tear pretty easily, too - they're really fine wires, after all. I don't think the squirrel would have had too much trouble.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:So let's see by AJWM · · Score: 2

      To defeat the squirrels, just reinforce the layer of bug screen (whether fiber or metal) with a layer of chicken wire. Then reinforce that with a layer of chain-link fencing if you're worried about the zombie apocalypse.

      --
      -- Alastair
    8. Re:So let's see by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      But it's the very first weapon that a tinfoil hat is actually documented to protect against.

      You might want to try tinfoil underwear too.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    9. Re:So let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But arty foil-backed protest signs that just happen to be shaped like corner reflectors would be fun for the people in the front.

      I like you. I think I'm going to keep you.

    10. Re:So let's see by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Well, at least they can still be used in airports, then.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  8. Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The anti-terror guys have warned us for years that a microwave cannon could be built with parts ordered from the web, capable of frying a plane's electronics when it tries to land.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-196971883.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1166499/Terrorists-bring-jumbo-jet-using-microwave-cannon-built-internet.html

    So I guess Mythbusters didn't get an authorization to test that either.

  9. It's not really a weapon, by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

    You can't way they have no microwave weapons. They have an inefficient crowd control device. We don't know what they have in the lethal range. Probably because they chose not to show it. What's to stop them 'taking the safety' off and cranking out a much higher power version?

    1. Re:It's not really a weapon, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's pointless. A machine gun is much cheaper and easier to use.

    2. Re:It's not really a weapon, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a much higher power version requires more power and therefore becomes so large/bulky/cumbersome that it becomes (at best) stationary weapon, which defeats the purpose of the whole thing. One of the key points is to make a single-man operated weapon that can combine the non-lethal uses of a water hose without the water with the long term goal being a "heat ray" gun that can incinerate targets without the use of incendiary ammo.

  10. Until recently by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

    Until very recently no one could get microwave lasers at room temperature. How ever that is no longer the case, I don't remember the specific article but it was posted either here on Slashdot or Reddit.

    Some lab had been working on it, with some old papers from the Japanese. Basically it was done with specially doped ruby emitters if I remember correct.

    Now that we have at least the general knowledge of one method to create microwave laser emitters at room temperate I expect to see progress on this in the next five to ten years. Though I myself much prefer the nonmilitary uses of microwave lasers, such as communication and wireless power emission.

    1. Re:Until recently by Guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically it was done with specially doped ruby emitters if I remember correct.

      It was a pentacene-based organic material: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-maser-power-cold-demo-solid-state.html

    2. Re:Until recently by hawkingradiation · · Score: 0

      In fact if I recall correctly, Microwave weapons were used quite successfully in Iraq during the assault on the airport when the coalition invaded in 2003. They apparently "shrank" the bodies of the victims although the place where they were buried was dug up and the bodies taken away. They were being deployed to soldiers against crowd control and there have been many tests on willing subjects. So I would say they are ready. Have link for the second claim.

      --
      Society use your Sciences
    3. Re:Until recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. Solid state room temperature masers are a recent development, but gas phase room temperature masers based on ammonia were developed in the 50s.

    4. Re:Until recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... much prefer the nonmilitary uses of microwave lasers ...

      As the article reveals, the problem with Lasers and other electromagnetic energy-based weapons, the energy beam is easily dispersed. It can also be reflected, unlike kinetic weapons. Then add in the fact that high-power Lasers are currently, very inefficient, makes energy weapons the domain of fiction for many, many years.

  11. Not complaining.. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 0

    The bastards have enough weapons, nothing good can come from giving them more.

  12. I hope the enemy's patient... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    ...cause it sounds like we're just going to have to slow-roast him the old-fashioned way.

  13. Biological weapon by belloc1 · · Score: 1

    http://www.lookingforadventure.com/images/microwaveabuse.jpg

  14. They found the warmth pleasant. by Anarchduke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Put him in The Comfy Chair!!!!

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    1. Re:They found the warmth pleasant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put him in The Comfy Chair!!!!

      I confess!!

    2. Re:They found the warmth pleasant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may suck as a weapon, but there are some killer applications (no pun intended) for this thing, if there are no bad effects from long term exposure.

      Dialed down this could revolutionize winter indoors (and even outdoors, e.g for winter sports) heating.

  15. Microwave weapons have been in use for 30 years. by dicobalt · · Score: 2

    They're called HotPockets.

  16. Doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The way to use a microwave to control a crowd is to threaten to turn it it on with a kitten inside of it.

    1. Re:Doing it wrong by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      But that won't stop us cat haters protesting in order to get a law against cats as "pets".

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:Doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Chinese will probably say "can we have that cat for dinner afterwards?"

      Captcha: delicacy ;-)

  17. Government regulation of weapons by tepples · · Score: 2

    If a company has an idea for a weapon they think will be super-awesomes why don't they spend the cash to R&D it

    Government regulation of weapons, for one.

  18. Funny how easily they can be foiled by Grayhand · · Score: 1

    Some smart weapon systems have the same limitations when it comes to rain or cloud cover. Also they tend to use water cannons for crowd control which would act as a defensive system for the crowds. Microwave weapons are expensive, have limited range and focus and it's difficult to avoid injuries and death while maintaining effectiveness. I'd think audio weapons would be just as effective without the limitations and potential for serious injuries. Yes it's easy to protect against most of them but we are talking about crowd use and not foot soldiers. For soldiers even microwave weapons can be foiled if they are non lethal. Even a small amount of metal can block them so metal fibers in uniforms and head gear would counter crowd control kinds of weapons. They are utterly useless against tanks. I know there has been a lot of reports of low frequency weapons that wouldn't be noticeable to the mob but would provide enough discomfort to break them up. High frequency weapons are obviously effective. I set off a building alarm at work because they deactivated a the keypad at one entrance without telling us. It had an audio deterrent and I guarantee you I was thrilled when I got the alarm off. Without hearing protection a crowd wouldn't be very dangerous. Hard to throw rocks with your fingers in your ears. With a weaponized system even that wouldn't stop it you'd need professional grade or better protection.

  19. Still no microwave weapons? by Cute+and+Cuddly · · Score: 0

    I would say that it is a good thing......

  20. Hot Pockets by k31bang · · Score: 1

    I thought that Hot Pockets were classed as microwave WMDs.

    --
    -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
  21. Fox news by PPH · · Score: 1

    For some Pentagon officials, the demonstration in October 2007 must have seemed like a dream come true - an opportunity to blast reporters with a beam of energy that causes searing pain.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Fox news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LLOLOOOLLLLLL you must be famous comedian no?

  22. Radiation at that frequency penetrates less than.. by taxman_10m · · Score: 2

    So what happens if you get it in the eye?

  23. Frisbies: no weapon potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was happy to read many years go that the Pentagon (well, someones who worked their or for or the...you get the idea) looked into any weapon potential for the Frisbee.

    Conclusion: not enough payload capacity (hardly any, really).

    Something is sacred!

    On the other had, I can see some jar head soldiers flinging them at occupy or anarchist protestors. Anarchists and occupy protesters, who by definition are much better Frisbee players than the soldiers, simply catch them and fling them back. Oh no! Fido is going after one! The horror!

    Okay, I'll give this thread back to microwaves.

    I suppose for a microwave detector device you could tape some kernels of microwave popcorn to you clothing, eh?

    On a serious level, the difference between merely causing pain and causing severe burns, burns to corneas or inside the eye, or lips, nose, heating liquid saliva or phlegm to burning temps....in other words, being effecting but never causing an injury is tricky.
    Also, any weaponry aimed at the masses has to contend with the issue:
    being effective against a 20 year old male excellent physical condition marine, who the device is tested on, and on the other hand, not killing grandma. Or someone with asthma, or Lupus, or a heart condition.
    That may be something in favor of traditional guns and clubs. When used they are used with the intent to stop quickly the target, and everyone knows there is a high risk or death or injury. This tends to limit their use. Just not enough.

  24. Plenty of non-lethal Microwave weapons by mridion · · Score: 1

    If you are not familiar with microwave weapons associated with Covert Harassment of political dissidents then try searching for "Targeted Individuals" on YouTube of search for "Electronic Harassment" on youtube or Google and get ready to step into a real twilight zone. You could also check out these sites: http://www.mindjustice.com/ http://www.areyoutargeted.com/

    --
    https://www.facebook.com/stephen.fletch
    1. Re:Plenty of non-lethal Microwave weapons by mridion · · Score: 1

      Sorry.. http://www.mindjustice.org/ not .com

      --
      https://www.facebook.com/stephen.fletch
  25. Tin foil by nagasrinivas · · Score: 1

    So in the future the protesters will wear tin foil. Sounds better than enduring rubber bullets. Why should they even pursue this stuff?

  26. Invest in Rain-Rain-Go-A-Way Gun by retroworks · · Score: 1

    You don't make your second billion developing a weapon that works the first time, sillies.

    --
    Gently reply
  27. They're just deployed differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA has had crowd-control microwave "weapons" for a couple years now. They just don't operate in the realm of "obvious weapon" like everyone is looking for.

  28. the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the money went into a big fat pot of coke and LSD and a few scientists making microwave laser sounds (PEW, PEW, PEW)

  29. FOTMHP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they can put more funding for R&D in the FOTMHP (Fresh Out of the Microwave Hot Pocket) Division.

  30. 'There's lots of smoke and mirrors,' says... by metrometro · · Score: 1

    Well there's your problem right there! Try it someplace less smokey.

  31. Hah! by Shaman · · Score: 1

    .... that the public knows of!

    --
    ...Steve
  32. Re:Radiation at that frequency penetrates less tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I took a microwave to the knee!

  33. Re:Frisbies: no weapon potential by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Also, any weaponry aimed at the masses has to contend with the issue:
    being effective against a 20 year old male excellent physical condition marine, who the device is tested on, and on the other hand, not killing grandma. Or someone with asthma, or Lupus, or a heart condition. That may be something in favor of traditional guns and clubs. When used they are used with the intent to stop quickly the target, and everyone knows there is a high risk or death or injury. This tends to limit their use. Just not enough.

    They could do what they do with tasers. Lie. Tasers kill. Yet, in the US, they are still non-lethal. Tasing someone is on the same violence level as grabbing them by the wrist. And it kills, regularly. Other countries treat them as lethal. The police have to go through the steps with them as if they fired their firearm. In fact, I was talking with an NZ cop who talked about not being allowed to carry a taser, as they are a firearm replacement, and he chooses to be firearm-less, so, even if he were to qualify with the gun and the taser, he couldn't carry the taser unless he also carried the gun. So he carries neither. In the US, they pepper spray seated people, and tase non-violent pricks shouting "don't tase me, bro."

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  34. We Are Not There And Not For A Long Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA economy like the other 'advanced' economies of our world is based on the Coal-Oil energy cycle.

    The Plutonium-Thorium energy cycle technologies were initiated in the 1950s but alas have foundered for
    lack of 'political backbone' evidenced and personified most recently by the 'death' of the 'most recently
    anointed Japanese 'Ambassador' to China during 'festivities' condemning Japan's annexation 'for lack of
    intelligent reason' of the small group of Islands that shall not be named is so perplexing indeed.

    1) I find it with high dubiousness that a 'Family' in Japan owns 'legally' the said islands.

    2) Tokyo's Fascist Governor is vert well known for all sorts of 'Tom Foolery'.

    3) The Japan National Government's 'Buying" the said islands from the 'Family' speaks of Collusion given the
    undeterminable state of the nationality of the islands.

    What a Theater of the Absurd.

    Oh ber in mind that the Japanese PM Noda is disparate for re-election and will pay 'in his mind' any price to
    subjugate the peoples of Japan to his PAX JAPAN.

    Sorry Noda Old Boy.

    The China Tsunami is crashing at your feet and soon to over take your head.

    Bubble Bubble Toil And Trouble [For YOU in particular Old Boy]

    8D

  35. millimeter wave devices operational by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    _Millimeter_ wave technology _has_ been deployed in theater, so successfully that it never _needed_ to be used. It is to localized unrest, what nukes are to global wafare - only a deterrent. Combined with a bit of counter intelligence, it _can_ put enough fear and uncertainty in would-be adversaries to make itself unnecessary.

            That being said it _is_ possible to build your own using about $100 worth of ordinary household items and to defend against with about $5 of household items.

            We only have to recall how much money was spent on the star wars program that rediscovered Tesla's nearly 100 year old patents to realize that defense industry contractors have a financial incentive to have "not invented here" syndrome. If they have the patent, they don't have to compete until better technology exists. ... Yes if another (cheaper/better) way was (re)discovered, a smaller company _should_ be able to compete, but recent software patent litigation should illuminate the fallacy in that assumption.

  36. No Wonder! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    No wonder there's no flying cars; they wasted all the research money on microwave crap.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  37. One use for microwaves by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    At 1,500W a 2.4GHz microwave driven by a high capacitance array, steered into place with say a dish antenna will fry electronics. I mean fry! It's just about the right wavelength to do so. Of course anyone standing in the way will get that section within the beam cooked almost immediately but that's just a collateral problem.

    1. Re:One use for microwaves by vlm · · Score: 2

      At 1,500W a 2.4GHz microwave driven by a high capacitance array, steered into place with say a dish antenna will fry electronics. I mean fry! It's just about the right wavelength to do so. Of course anyone standing in the way will get that section within the beam cooked almost immediately but that's just a collateral problem.

      Talk to a EE first. I think you want high directionality, high gain. Capacitance isn't going to help you. Also, although this is /., on a regular basis I submit myself to a radiation flux right around 1.5 kilowatts per sq meter and barely sweat (well, as long as its below 80 degrees or so). Its called "sunlight". Not a military codeword, but genuine plain ole fashioned "sunlight". So if you want to "cook immediately" you need to focus to far, far smaller than 3 feet on a side. When you calculate the size of antenna required at 2 GHz to focus to a square inch or whatever, you'll be surprised. Its not going to be mobile.

      Another way to put it, is you want to "cook immediately" but it takes a good fraction of a minute for a 1500 watt hotplate to get hot enough to burn my skin, and thats just the surface. Cooking a steak or hamburger all the way thru takes a lot longer.

      Another way to put it is blasting unfocused 1.5 kilowatts is about like standing in front of a 1.5 kilowatt infra red space heater. Maybe in a draft-free garage or basement that'll help, but outdoors its just wasting electricity or providing purely psychological comfort.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  38. Not Surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the useful stuff is below 1Ghz anyway...

  39. So disappointing by musth · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's just so damned disappointing that the US hasn't been able to perfect yet ANOTHER tool of violence to add to its arsenal; and the military spends relatively little on the technology, as is cited with barely concealed disdain - sadness, almost - for a technology not properly developed.

    Stories like this really reveal Slashdot editorial ideology.

  40. Lasers, though, are getting close. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Progress in laser weapons has been slow, but steady. Each generation of laser weapon has more power in a smaller package. Shooting down small rockets and artillery shells has been demonstrated, but the laser system takes three semitrailers. Another two generations of that and it will be useful.

    1. Re:Lasers, though, are getting close. by dkf · · Score: 1

      Shooting down small rockets and artillery shells has been demonstrated, but the laser system takes three semitrailers.

      So, somewhat practical for mounting on a warship at the moment, but not on anything much smaller?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:Lasers, though, are getting close. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a while I've thought that using lasers in counterinsurgency would be valuable it they were capable of rapidly burning markings into an insurgent's skin at ranges typically encountered in infantry combat. Since it is difficult to identify insurgents a laser system capable of rapidly burning skin could be used to facilitate identification. Suddenly the formerly anonymous insurgent now bears binary coding branded into his hide and he may possibly be on fire to boot.

  41. After 50 Yrs of Research.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really..I mean, is this what we want after the 2 world wars? :| That spent research time could've been used for more better outcomes.

  42. not necessarily, I know of 1 microwave weapon by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly certain that microwaves can be used as a weapon. There are many documented cases of people unplugging microwaves and throwing them at other people, be it a domestic dispute or even to stop a robbery.

  43. The simplest way to weaponize microwaves... by John+R.+Isidore · · Score: 1

    ...is still with catapults.

  44. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steven Seagal has used the microwave as a weapon in all of the Undersiege [1..x] movies. That along with some coconut oil (wonder how he manages to get coconut oil in the strangest of locations)

  45. Did they hope to send a "message" to reporters? by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if our government intended the first reporter to feel mind-searing pain in order to subtly warn the rest to avoid covering, photographing, or publishing live public events the government would rather keep quiet. It wouldn't be a big surprise, considering recent cases of citizens/journalists being arrested, assaulted or deprived of their equipment for legally recording or clearly keeping note during peaceful protests where the police became aggressive.

    If I was a reporter and saw a colleague (voluntarily) in severe pain, then the government guys demonstrating the device said "this is what we will be using on groups of citizens refusing to obey authorities, we cannot promise you won't be hit if you are in the area," it would certainly make me think twice about whether I wanted to show up with a recording device or stick around once the police showed up.

    So personally, I'm glad the research failed. Best money we've let go to waste in a long time, if you ask me. Shame our military researchers can't manage to replicate their success more often. (Not that I wouldn't rather have the money go towards improving society so far fewer people would have reason to join in protests, but at least it's better than the weapon existing.)

    --
    Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  46. Non-obligatory Futurama by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    [Zap]
    Fry: Ow! My sperm!
    Bender: Wow! Neat! Mind if I try that again?
    [Zap]
    Fry: Huh, didn't hurt that time.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  47. Come on by ledow · · Score: 1

    If you want to make beam / ray weapons take a physics course first.

    I can push a plane at hundreds of miles per hour through the air quite "easily" and put some destructive force on the end of it. Hell, you can do similar with a model plane if you really want to test the concept. This is what bullets, missiles and grenades rely on to work, and it's successful.

    But to make a beam or ray that has an effect over that same flying-distance of any of the above, I have to overcome the inverse-square law and line-of-sight before I can even hurt someone reliably, let alone use it as a weapon. Hell, I could probably throw a yo-yo or boomerang further than any handheld "directed energy" weapon could beam something, and probably end up with a greater effect to the target. This is why Tasers are literally normal harpoon-style weapons with cables.

    Sure, you can buy a laser that will cut through steel, and you can cook your food in a microwave but all of those "ordinary" uses happen at stupidly small distances for a reason. It's actually cheaper and easier to fire MILLIONS of bullets at an incoming missile than it is to set up an energy beam of any significant energy enough to take it down.

    It's a complete misunderstanding of simple physics. Of course you *can* do it, but the power required to burn through that much atmosphere and other obstacles and still provide any useful energy at the other end is something that's completely impractical to provide. You will need HUGE power sources, one-shot weapons, or stupidly small distances to manage it.

    And then you discover that a simple handgun from off-the-shelf (at least in the US) or some form of propelled warhead is infinitely easier and cheaper and less prone to collateral damage (just how wide do you think that beam will be once it hits the target?).

    Save your Star Trek / Star Wars fantasy weapons for space where there is no atmosphere and the inverse-square law might be overcome with a sufficiently powerful power source (i.e. like something that could run a star-ship and provide energy enough to do EVERYTHING without struggling). On Earth, we use propellants and explosives for a reason, even in the top-end of military hardware.

    1. Re:Come on by vlm · · Score: 1

      I have to overcome the inverse-square law and line-of-sight

      And if you insist on microwaves you have some serious optical focusing problems. Good luck.

      Look at the ratio of wavelength between blue from a DVD burner and a 2.4 GHz microwave oven. That's the ratio in size for your optics to get an equivalent focus.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  48. Why they haven't advanced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is because they found out a way to kill people really really easily and they're holding back until the right time... or they're all slackers milking it :/.

  49. As if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if there are no deep black waived USAP's that do not cover this field. In all likelihood it's been done... decades ago.

  50. Re:Radiation at that frequency penetrates less tha by Inda · · Score: 1

    Do not look at microwave with remaining eye?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  51. other uses by Bramlet+Abercrombie · · Score: 1

    So it has a pleasant warming effect on a cold day. Does it use less energy than turning up the heater? Instead of heating the whole house you track the occupants and warm them up with finely targeted microwaves.

    1. Re:other uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or warm up sports on Winter Olympics without melting the snow (or ice).

  52. Catapult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With microwave ovens.

  53. the demo on 60 Minutes looked convincing by peter303 · · Score: 1

    But I think it was "hell Mary" attempt by the contracted to get the military or police to buy one. The device requires a significant size truck mountable antenna. I think in real life the enemy could knock it out before it was deployed. There were rumors the Denver police were going to have one for the 2008 Democratic Convention, but they never materialized.

  54. Make love not war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50+ years of research and still not a love-doll that you would like to f*ck! (or take home to see your mother)

  55. Re:Radiation at that frequency penetrates less tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The blink reflex is so fast that your eyelid will close before any heat can accumulate in the tissues of the eye. The eyelid is thick enough that none of the 95GHz radiation will penetrate through to the eye.

    You would only get hit in the eye if you forced your eyelids open.

  56. Baked Seaguls by Wingfat · · Score: 1

    I've seen Seaguls get baked from the deck of a Navy Sub back in the 90s when they flew into the Microwave beam going from one sub to another... (used to be able to send power and messages using those microwave radars.) So i call this story Bunk

  57. three simple words to put an end to this weapon by ffflala · · Score: 1

    Jiffy pop armor.

  58. Re:Radiation at that frequency penetrates less tha by phriedom · · Score: 1

    I've wondered about that since I first heard about this kind of weapon. I wear hard contact lenses, and I vividly remember a safety film we watched in junior-high before they let us weld anything. The film explained that looking at the flash from an arc welder can vaporize the liquid between the lens and your eye and cause the lens to adhere to your eye. Then when you try to take your contacts out, you pull off the front of your eye. So I wonder, have they deemed these micowave crowd-dispersal weapons as "safe" because it will only blind 1 in 200 people or something like that? I mean, how many people still wear hard contacts anyways. And they should know better than to be protesting.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  59. Re:Frisbies: no weapon potential by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

    That non-violent prick was fighting with the people trying to end his disruption and trespass. Don't listen to the words in his mouth, because they are deception. He wanted to be, and made sure he was, tased.

    A taser is NOT a firearm replacement. A firearm is only to be used lethally. You shoot someone only to kill them, only when there is risk that they will kill you or others. Period. A taser is a baton replacement. Yes, some people die after being hit with a taser. People die when being hit with batons as well, and the risk of long-term injury and death is greater with a baton or any other physical violence than with a taser.

    Pepper-spraying seated protesters is objectionable, but what is also objectionable is seated protesters obstructing my right to go from Point A to Point B. That's simply a situation where idiots need to learn to stop being idiots, the idiots being BOTH the protestors forcing the situation and the police attempting to resolve it.

    Fuck, a taser as a firearm replacement.. how idiotic. You are aware that not everyone hit with a taser goes down? If someone comes at you with a knife, or draws down on you with a gun, do you want something that will probably stop them? Fuck. No. They have homicidal intentions, and like it or not, they get shot. Firearms are a response to an immediate lethal threat. Tasers are useless for that task.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  60. GPLv4 to the rescue! by internet-redstar · · Score: 1
    I hope the GPLv4 will finally reveal that the G isn't recursive at all!

    The G stands for Good Public License, and it will prohibit use of our software in weapons, weapon installations and military applications.

    Go Richard Stallman, make me proud!

  61. Re:Frisbies: no weapon potential by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    That non-violent prick was fighting with the people trying to end his disruption and trespass. Don't listen to the words in his mouth, because they are deception. He wanted to be, and made sure he was, tased.

    I'm so glad I moved out of the US. In the US, being in a public place during a public meeting is "trespass" if you say something the government doesn't like. At which time they will arrest and remove you.

    You are aware that not everyone hit with a taser goes down?

    You are aware that not everyone hit with a taser who goes down ever gets up again? It's lethal. And no, I wasn't aware that not everyone hit with a taser doesn't go down. I did a search and found piles of videos of "taser failures" and in *every* one of them, the person drops to the ground when tased. Some then got back up, but *every* one of them did go down when tased.

    Firearms are a response to an immediate lethal threat. Tasers are useless for that task.

    They drop you to the ground, even if you get back up. They stop the threat.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  62. Re:Frisbies: no weapon potential by Falconhell · · Score: 0

    I want cops who can handle these situations without weapons. But of course in America every fucking moron can get a gun. I thank my luck that I live in a country where the general populace is not armed. The figures clearly show how stupid US gun laws and the even sillier second amendment cause many more deaths than in civilised countries.

    I support protesters right to protest above your right not to be held up for a few minutes dickless.