US Military Tests Non-Lethal Heat Ray

URSpider writes "CNN and the BBC are reporting on a US military test of a new antipersonnel heat ray. The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene. The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested. The government is also appealing to the scientific community for help in creating another innovative military technology: artificial 'black ice'. They hope to deploy the 'ice' in chase scenarios to slow fleeing vehicles." We discussed the military's certification to use the device last month.

I hate vultures.

[silentounce]

"The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested."
 
You're worried about the soldiers, right?

Re:

[displague]

I read an article [stuff.co.nz] about this elsewhere and they mentioned that it has been tested on 10,000 people without a single injury requiring medical attention.

I agree

[wiredog]

We should just use the good old fashioned lethal weapons. Much less chance the people we are shooting at will get cancer 20 years from now.

Re:I agree

[giminy]

Much less chance the people we are shooting at will get cancer 20 years from now.

Sure it's true that the lab mice don't get cancer 20 years from now after being shot in the face. Mouse physiology is quite different from ours, though.

In short, I don't think we've done enough carefully controlled human trials with bullets to make your claim. I'd suggest some form of double-blind experiment, shooting several thousand subjects from various socioeconomic classes with blanks and with bullets, and see what the effect on cancer rate is. I'll volunteer for the control group, which doesn't get shot at all. Providing a baseline for the population is probably the hardest job, as it takes the longest amount of time.

Reid

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Cowpat]

we should stick with the lethal weapons. 'the authorities' are far less likely to use them if they're lethal - if they're non-lethal they think 'oh, it doesn't matter when I use this' and just fire away. The simple fact is that the threshold for deciding the escalate the situation to shooting someone is no higher now that TASERs are available than when they weren't, but now TASERing someone who won't shut up is easy to do and impossible to verify for evidence purposes. Take, for instance, the Iranian-American student who got TASERed 6 times a few months back because someone police officers decided to use their TASERs as 'motivational tools' to try and make him stand up. Would they have knee-capped him with a few rounds of 9mm if they only had guns and no TASERs?
What will we see with this new weapon? When the crowd in the 'free speech zone' starts getting more vocal than you like, in the old day's you'de just have to have put up with it. Today you can just shoot them with a heat ray until they quieten down and hey! it's non-lethal so it doesn't matter!

Re:I hate vultures.

[Viper Daimao]

Wired (which I remember covering directed-energy weapons back in 2004 [wired.com] and 2005 [wired.com]) recently wrote up an easy-reading article [wired.com] that covers most frequently asked questions about ADS, like:
"Does it cause lasting damage?"

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.

And if the military is willing to try it out on news reporters (volunteers all), as they did in the breaking story, they're pretty confident.

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.

"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the report says.
[...]
[T]he Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard.

"Okay, no lasting damage usually, but how long does the pain last?"
The pain ceases as soon as the beam's no longer on you.

Yet the ADS, like every nonlethal weapon, is heavily scrutinized because of the potential for abuse ("Will the version in the field be as harmless as the one used on reporters?", etc.) and because, presumably, exotic new technologies like this are hard to sell to a skeptical public. Hence, the reporters themselves being subjected to the weapon.

Then, of course, there are those who oppose any new weapon almost on principle. But after reading similar comments at several sites, I have to ask, Why?

Why oppose battlefield (or riot zone) use of the ADS, which can allow our servicemen and -women to stop a suspicious person at long range rather than (A) let the person close distance and potentially harm our troops, or (B) have our servicemen shoot (lethally) first and ask questions later?

It's precisely these ethical and operational questions that lead me to believe that directed energy has a big part to play in future combat operations. Especially once these weapons get smaller (even as small as rifle-sized, perhaps with a battery in the backpack), there are all kinds of potential military applications.

If you can disable people all around a combat zone without killing them--perhaps so you can get in, detain a high-value target and get out--you don't really have to (for example) discriminate between innocent civilians and enemy combatants who dress like civilians. Instead of killing anyone who gets too close to a vehicle convoy (hey, you don't know if he has a bomb strapped to him, or a gun hidden in his clothing), just zap 'im for a few seconds at a few hundred meters (much further than bombs and much effective small arms fire usually reach) and keep moving. Furthermore, if you can make a combatant stop and drop without putting a bullet in him, you're more likely to be able to detain and question him.

That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?

Heck, if they can miniaturize it, why not allow it in more mundane civilian/police applications? A short shock of pain is better than being shot, and as the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout illustrated, bullets aren't always as effective as something like the ADS could be.

Re:I hate vultures.

[COMON$]

Why not just build a huge satellite and fire the sucker off at entire nations from space? Ok ok, bad flashbacks of popcorn exploding from houses.

But seriously, I would rather have a heat gun pointed at me than tear gas next time I feel like rioting.

Foil hat?

[Aqua_boy17]

But seriously, I would rather have a heat gun pointed at me than tear gas next time I feel like rioting.

I personally am left wondering if a foil hat would be an asset or a liability in this case.

Re:Foil hat?

[COMON$]

considering what tinfoil does in a microwave you may at least go out in style like a giant sparkler.

Re:

[blugu64]

"But seriously, I would rather have a heat gun pointed at me than tear gas next time I feel like rioting."

Doing anything weekend after next? I've got the itch for a good riot.

Re:Eyes with contacts aren't safe

[Gandoron]

While this may not cause immediate long term damage to the naked eye. I read something over a year ago that in all the tests, they made the subjects remove their contacts. Apparently, the contacts can melt and bond to the eye. While we might like to believe that no one in the crowd will be wearing contacs...this is just not the case... -G

Re:I hate vultures.

[xappax]

A short shock of pain is better than being shot

If someone were going to shoot me, I'd much prefer that they hit me with a "pain ray" than a bullet. That's so obvious it goes without saying, which is why most people tend to think that non-lethal weapons are a good thing with no downside.

There is a huge downside. Non-lethal pain-inducing weapons have a massive potential for abuse. Let me relate a few stories:

I saw some cops who had caught a shoplifter outside a supermarket. They had him in cuffs and he was being verbally obnoxious, though not physically dangerous. He made an admittedly very offensive racial insult at one of the cops. She walked right up to him, got out her mace, and blasted him right in the face. He collapsed choking, vomiting, unable to breathe, but the EMTs on the scene were prohibited from helping the guy because it was a non-lethal weapon: his health wasn't actually being threatened.

A student at UCLA [nbc4.tv] who committed the non-violent, non-threatening offense of refusing to show ID, was restrained and shocked repeatedly with a taser. It was caught on video [youtube.com], and the cops were very obviously using the taser as a tool for forcing compliance, not defending themselves against danger. The officer's comment in that article "If he was able to walk out of here, I think he was OK," is especially telling about the police attitude toward taser use.

Non-lethal weapons have the potential to be used in the same way as lethal weapons - namely using force to prevent someone from harming you. But they can also do something that lethal weapons cannot - they can be used for what is effectively torture: the inflicting of serious pain for very minor reasons. Lethal weapons cannot be used this way because shooting or stabbing someone has a very severe, permanent, and noticeable effect.

Officers or soldiers who shoot someone have a lot of explaining to do. There is an identifiable wound, a permanent harm done to them, and because it's easier to hold someone accountable for shooting someone, officers and soliders are much more reserved and judicious in their use of lethal weapons. By contrast, non-lethal weapons are used essentially at a whim, because the perceived severity of their action is both to themselves and the public eye, much lower.

Non-lethal pain-inducing weapons are torture - there's simply no way around it. There are undeniably certain circumstances when torture is preferable to execution, but we must think very carefully about how and where we introduce tools of torture to be used by our military and police - their use must be taken every bit as seriously as lethal weapons.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Viper Daimao]

So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.

Re:

[electrosoccertux]

So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.

How about perfectly legal, safe, controlled protesting?

That's what I see this being used for. Gov't doesn't like
a). What they're protesting about (IE the protesters are right, the gov't knows it, and doesn't want the word to spread)
b). How many people are involved (same fear as above, word could spread)

So just use a non-lethal weapon that leaves no mark to get rid of the people with no consequences!

That's the issue here, there's a much smaller barrier to disbanding legal protesting than there was before ex

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.

As standard-issues police/MP armaments? FUCK YES I OBJECT. We're not talking about a generic "tool", we're talking about something specifically designed to be a weapon, given to the police for that express puprose. If a cop was caught walking around with a bar of soap in a sock, there might be some questions asked. But his microwave torture device? He's supposed to have that.

There'll be plenty of other posts on the subject, just like there were in the last article on this weapon, but I'll say it again: The difference between a lethal and non-lethal weapon is not just that you'd rather have the non-lethal weapon used on you, it's also that the police are vastly more likely to use the non-lethal weapon on you!

Especially a weapon that leaves no marks, and thus no proof after the fact that the weapon was in fact used. You don't think that'll be used more recklessly by police than their sidearm any use of which requires extensive justification and accounting for every shot fired? "Huh, those protestors said we used our microwave pain rays? They're lying! Just like they're lying about the first guy to throw a rock being a plain-clothes cop!"

This isn't someone re-purposing a bar of soap and a gym sock as a torture device -- which, if a cop was found walking around with and using, would cause some questions to be asked. This tool's benefit is the same as its downside.

Re:I hate vultures.

[Chris Burke]

I'm going to guess you are now going to oppose spoons being allowed to the military.

That's because you're a fool who hasn't listened to a word that I've said.

I oppose spoons being given to the military for the express purpose of being used as torture devices. The day I see riot police brandishing spoons and threatening to harm protestors with them is the day your argument makes a god-damn lick of sense.

This weapon is not some random tool like a tape measure or a screwdriver that could hypothetically be re-purposed for torture, it is a torture device as designed and when used as intended. That is its function -- inflicting pain on human beings en mass and from a distance.

Re:

[Incongruity]

Can you cite a recent peer reviewed study? -- I'm not trying to flame you here, but your comment made me do a bit of digging and the most recent study that I could find was Breckenkamp, et al., "Biological effects on human health due to radiofrequency/microwave exposure: a synopsis of cohort studies." published in 2003 in Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 2003 Oct;42(3):141-54. and their conclusion was:

In most of the studies, an increased risk for various types of cancer was found in exposed study

split opinion

[Lord_Slepnir]

One one hand, a bunch of Iraqis with burns they can claim was caused by the Great Satan's hellfire gun is about the last thing we need. On the other hand, it's better than giving them a sudden case of lead poisoning.

Here's what I wonder, though

[Moraelin]

Here's what I wonder, though: on who will it be used?

On enemy soldiers? If someone is dead set on ventilating your brain, what's to stop them from using some kind of shielding? If it's millimeter wave, it's still possible to block it, for example, with a fine enough metal mesh. You can see through it (poorly) to aim the gun. Plus, guiding a weapon via a periscope isn't exactly a new idea. Any tank or APC includes such devices.

Will it protect against a sniper in Iraq? Well, no, because if you knew where the

What it'll be used for

[jonatha]

TFA (or one similar) cited a grunt in Iraq who says it's common practice for insurgents to feign auto trouble in order to have time to scout US positions.

This would be used to convince them to move along....

Re:

[Rogerborg]

Oh, genius. So, let's indescriminately torture innocent people whose cars have broken down in order to mildly inconvenience the 1% who are hostile. Truly, it will bring the War on Hearts and Minds to a speedy conclusion.

"Iraq" is a stalking horse

[Rogerborg]

This will be used on peaceful protesters in the US, and will be sold to other repressive regimes for use against their own citizens. There is no use for it in Iraq.

Re:

[rlp]

OK, here's a scenario for you. You're in an urban area surrounded by a (possibly hostile) crowd of civilians. Suddenly, someone in the crowd starts shooting at you. You don't want to continue to take fire. You don't want to fire into the crowd. So you use this device. Result - individuals in the crowd are angry at you. Shooter gets away. But, 1) you didn't kill any civilians, and 2) insurgents can no longer meld into crowds and attack effectively.

Re:

[phayes]

Stone/Molotov throwing mobs have become a major problem in many countries. While often lethal to bystanders and more rarely to the authorities, they aren't considered to be valid targets for firearms in most countries until it's too late.

Having a non-lethal tool to dissuade these mobs from getting out of hand is a better solution than allowing them to kill or being forced to kill them.

Re:Here's what I wonder, though

[zazzel]

So I'm trying to imagine *any* military or police uses this kind of weapon on me, the demonstrator. Now, for a second, just ignore my (dis)honorable intentions to protest. What happens when someone uses this kind of weapon on me, probably abusing it the way tasers are already being abused in certain cases? Well, I'll make sure as hell this weapon can't harm me any more (tinfoil, anyone?). And next, I'll probably be in a good mood to use any combination of intelligence, technique and force to make sure the asshole who's been using this kind of weapon on me gets "what he deserves".

So, now you're no longer restricted to heating dinner using microwaves, but you're making sure I'm becoming the enemy you're so afraid of. Full of hate and dangerous.

Re:

[dave420]

Someone should have told that to those asshats using WP on unarmed civilians.

Re:

[ZeroExistenZ]

What makes Iraqis the enemy again?

that's just the thing

[Moraelin]

Anyone the army actually wanted to give lead poisoning, it will continue to give a lead poisoning. If someone is shooting an AK-47 or worse yet a Dragunov at you, you don't want him just forced to dive around a corner. One way or another some soldiers will still have to hunt him down, sooner or later.

The only people against you'd want to use a non-lethal weapon is, well, people you don't want to give a lead poisoning in the first place. Like civilian demonstrations. That's what worries me. It's not a weapon of war, it's a crowd control device. Same as rubber bullets and water hoses, only a level meaner: when was the last time you heard of those used in a battle? It's not the kind of thing you'd win an offensive with, it the kind of thing you'd use to keep people from protesting against a puppet pro-USA dictator.

Re:

[BecomingLumberg]

What of people rioting outside of an embassy? That would be a good use for this weapon.

Further, if terrorists are disbursed among civilians, you can use this weapon to stop everyone, grab the assholes with the AKs, and everyone else lives. Minimal collateral damage.

Also convenient when assaulting a critical location with entrenched enemies that you don't want to blow up (power plant, oil refinery, etc). You can incapacitate the bad guys without blowing the building up - big win for all of the innocents that

Oh, flippin' please

[Moraelin]

What of people rioting outside of an embassy? That would be a good use for this weapon.

Did it ever occur to you that an embasy is, pretty much by definition, in the middle of another country? You know, _sovereign_ country? You won't be making many friends worldwide if the USA's embasies start frying another country's citizens just because they were making a ruckus in the wrong place.

Further, if terrorists are disbursed among civilians, you can use this weapon to stop everyone, grab the assholes with the AKs

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:split opinion

[be-fan]

The irony here is that at least with Hussain there, we didn't have to worry about these things. The interests of the United States were better served with a low-level dictator in place than the current unpredictable and uncontrollable situation. Of course, we did not expect the dictator to be replaced by general chaos, but it seems that we did not realize that Hussain was the thing plugging up the dike.

Re:

[iminplaya]

...but it seems that we did not realize that Hussain was the thing plugging up the dike.

We knew exactly what his puropse was. That's precisely why we kept him there for 25 years. And the shah for 26 years in Iran. And Pinoche in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, Somoza in Nicaragua...the list goes on. You can blame the damn media for exposing our real intentions and hypocrisy about fomenting "democracy". So now we will foment chaos and destruction to "prove" that we were right in supporting these hooligans,

Re:

[Chris Burke]

Of course, we did not expect the dictator to be replaced by general chaos,

Of course there were two sets of reasoning behind the expectation, and it is the difference between them that has led to this sorry affairs.

We, the people expected that there would not be general chaos because we also expected that the military had a plan for maintaining order while working as quickly as possible to fill the power vacuum.

The architects of the war, specifically Donald Rumsfeld, expected there would not be general chaos

Re:

[Chris Burke]

I could've told you this was coming back when the invasion was first announced. Why? I'm Bengali.

Well not to pat myself on the back but I knew it was coming too, and that's with my piss-poor American public school education. ;) Quick, list of countries whose people were grateful to be invaded and occupied by a foreign power! Hmm...

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of the

Re:split opinion

[BecomingLumberg]

You are right- We should let the sectarian violence rage completely unabated. I am not saying we should have gone there in the first place (although I do think Hussein got his right), but the fact remains that we are there now. Leaving would only be worsening things. Sure I would love to have the friends I have serving over there back home and safe, but I would not have them come home now and just let Iraq go to shit. Maybe you should go back to selling mattresses.

Re:

[Cornflake917]

Yeah because if we stay in there for another decade, lose another few thousand U.S. troops, and kill another hundred thousand Iraqi's, then Iraq will magically transform into a democratic nation with peaceful people.

Did you even study Vietnam? You can't force people like the ones who live in Iraq to be peaceful, lest you become another Saddam Hussain.

...and if your friends die?

[bigtrike]

If your friends that are over there now die in service later, will they have died accomplishing anything? In order to stay in Iraq, we better have some sort of plan other than just "stay the course"

If sectarian violence and civil war is inevitable, why waste the lives of our service men just to postpone it a little longer?

Useful Against Insurgencies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like what we need for our boys and girls over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of dropping a bomb over the evildoers' heads, or not even fire for fear of collateral damage, this weapon would be the solution.

I know the kneejerk slashdotters will come out of the woodwork against this, but would you rather have dead people or civilians? It's funny how you guys love technology except when the military invents it.

Re:

[spellraiser]

Yeah, it's a good idea in principle.

Except most of the time the US soldiers don't even know who the bad guys are until they strike. It's not like you have the bad guys standing in a crowd of people shouting: 'Ha ha! You can't shoot me because I'm using human shields!'.

No, the insurgents in Iraq are very much like the ones in Vietnam of old. Just a part of the crowd until they decide to strike.

Re:

[Dr Reducto]

It's not like you have the bad guys standing in a crowd of people shouting: 'Ha ha! You can't shoot me because I'm using human shields!'.

Actually, that's a quite often used tactic, and a fundamental tactic of guerilla warfare (being able to look like a civilian at will means you get to determine when and where you will fight battles). This can be used against the children who throw rocks at American humvees trying to goad Americans into shooting them. Also, it can help against incidents where teerorists flocked to a Mosque and then callled up a thousand women and children to flock to the Mosque to prevent Israel from bombing the place (th

Re:

[Malakusen]

Future AQ recruiting video, using footage from Iraq:
Cold-hearted armed and armored U.S. troops in armored vehicles cooking screaming Arab children with a heat ray.

Brilliant.

Re:

[kalirion]

It all depends on how the device is used. Here's a very plausible scenario: there's a mostly peaceful demonstration, and a few of the demonstrators start throwing rocks. The forces which are there to keep order turn the device on the crowd. Everyone feels like they're burning alive, there's a stampede to get away from the pain, and dozens of people are trampled. Hell, even if there is no stampede, you are basically torturing people most of whom have done nothing wrong. Yes, it's torture even if it lea

Re:

[beakerMeep]

Wow. way to pidgeon hole people with concerns about this. That almost sounds like a "why do you hate our freedom?" argument or a "you're either with us or against us!"

actually, I think most people are going to be FOR non-leathal warfare technology, and I cant imagine why people would be against it. Personally I look at that thing and to me it *looks* impractical. a giant laser sitting on a truck like that with 500 yards range seems like a great target for someone with an rpg. But I dont know enough ab

Re:Useful Against Insurgencies

[*weasel]

Technology is neutral.
If you're uneasy with how evil our leaders are becoming, it doesn't really matter whether they develop new technologies or not, does it?

Re:

[Johnny5000]

If you're uneasy with how evil our leaders are becoming, it doesn't really matter whether they develop new technologies or not, does it?

There are degrees of evil.
A lot of the objections over this sort of thing come from the fear that this weapon (and other less-lethal weapons) may be used against crowds of peaceful demonstrators.

The somewhat-but-not-completely-evil authorities might not feel entirely comfortable firing lead into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, but be perfectly fine with using a heat-ray

Don't Forget!

[Life2Short]

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

Popcorn

[The_Mr_Flibble]

How long after this thing is deployed will we see video's on you tube with soldiers using this thing to make popcorn ?
And how long after will we see drunk soldiers holding the popcorn whilst it's being made ?

Fear and cancer

[Turn-X Alphonse]

What happens when people learn this is bullshit and go "Nice, but you've just got a bullet in you"? People deal with panic attacks and heat rays can't do much more than make you panic you're about to die.

Secondly, how long until we discover this causes cancer? Microwaving people is obviously really unsafe, so making them feel their about to set alight must be pretty damn shitty on the old body.

Thirdly, this + metal = ?? If it is real heat it's going to REALLY hurt.

Microwaves not ionizing

[Anonymous Coward]

Microwaving people is obviously really unsafe,

Microwaves are not ionizing like Ultra-violet, X-rays and other higher energy shorter wave-length radiation. If they really did cause cancer, folks are around airports and other radar (Microwave) installations would have a much higher incidence of cancer than the general population.

Re:

[kalirion]

Aren't powerful enough radar dishes known to cause birds drop dead out of the sky?

Re:

[compro01]

yes. due to heating, not radiation poisoning.

put a glass of water in the microwave. it boils after a couple minutes. now remember that your body (and the bird's too) is mostly water and the radars are many times more powerful than your oven. also keep in mind that you don't need the water to boil to kill what the water is in.

Re:

[Apocalypse111]

Unlike most cases where I would immediately pipe in about the safety of microwave radiation as compared to other, higher power (or ionizing) radiation, in this case the questions of safety are justified I think. The reason that cell phones are safe is because, even though they are a microwave-using device right next to your head, the amount of radiation hitting your body doesn't penetrate the first couple layers of skin, and raises the temperature by less than walking out into the sun. This, on the other

Re:

[leathered]

Secondly, how long until we discover this causes cancer?

A very long time I imagine, because unless they're not telling us something I assume the radiation is non-ionizing. No accepted study has proved that non-ionizing raditation causes cancer.

Mice or Men?

[flyingfsck]

Mice, experimented upon, will develop cancer. So this device will probably not be too good to our furry friends, but I doubt that it will cause the same effect in overgrown monkees.

if i recall correctly

[circletimessquare]

the military had a great new weapon in the form of a liquid that would foam and solidify a few years back. so an urban crowd is getting uppity. rather than shoot them, spray them. voila: instant immobilization, no worries of permanent damage or death... well that's just the thing. in a real crowd situation, someone's mouth would get sprayed. then it's a tracheotomy in a few minutes or death by suffocation

so what will happen with the OUCH ray is that someone will get hit in the eyes, and be blinded. or with the black ice, as any hockey player/ fan will tell you, someone will do a perfect backward fall and wind up with a concussion or brain damage

all i'm saying is that the nirvana of the perfect nonlethal crowd control/ imlpement of war is not very easy to obtain. all you do is trade in one kind of potential for damage/ death for another kind of potential for damage/ death. tragedy is not so easily avoided. we don't live in a world where improbable and deadly accidents never happen, and we don't live in a world where everybody has agreed that violence ion the name of advancing yout agenda isn't the answer (no matter what your ideology, from the right or the left)

Nothing new : Search 4 pain microwave weapon

[gd23ka]

They've already used that on people. Another "nonlethal" weapon that will
hideously kill at close range.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=microwave+pa in+weapon [google.com]

Re:

[kalirion]

So which of the links that show up say anything about death? You know, for those of us at work who don't have time to watch an hour of video.

Raytheon's Silent Guardian

[eldavojohn]

The weapon is called the silent guardian [raytheon.com]. It's made by Raytheon and that site has a short video just showing it off with a product sheet.

The most interesting things from that product sheet:

Targeting: Stationary firing position with 360-degree coverage
Integrated sensors with joystick control
Single-man operation

System Setup: Automatic target tracking
Modular architecture
Secure antenna stabilization platform
able to operate in 40 mph winds

Mission Profile: Less than 2-second retargeting capability
Shoot-and-scoot capability
Less than 2 seconds to switch from standby mode to armed

Contractor Support: Complete logistics support package available to include:
- Return and repair maintenance
- System training
- Web-enabled supply support
- Supports Army two-level maintenance system

And I personally think the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it.

Re:

[jimicus]

Stationary firing position with 360-degree coverage

Wonderful! So you can shoot yourself without turning the gun around.

unintended consequences and baked Alaska...

[ofcourseyouare]

I agree that "the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it"; and certainly this sort of non-lethal weapon could help prevent the "mourning war" or vendettas which (I think) you mentioned in an earlier excellent post on a related topic.

However, I do think one unintended consequence of non-lethal weapons is what we saw with Tasers when that student was expellend from the university library a couple of months ago. In t

Test it on me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the government would follow me around for a few months testing this thing on me, it's friggen cold right now in New England!

Isn't this "ray" easily blocked?

[rcb1974]

Couldn't an organized crowd just pull the metal screens off their windows and use them as shields? Last I checked, those work great against microwaves. You could even make clothing made of flexible metal mesh to block the incoming rays.

Re:

[zyl0x]

Have you ever put tin foil in a microwave? It doesn't look too.. um.. wearable.

way too easy to thwart...

[mwilliamson]

Hmm...lets see. Cover some cardboard with aluminum foil and make a shield or use a metal trash can lid then step behind a building. I really don't think the effects of this thing will last long as soon as the enemy becomes aware of it, and exactly what do to avoid it. Chaos and people scurrying makes cover for return fire. The enemy isn't going to stop fearing lead, but they will stop fearing this thing rather quickly imho.

Re:

[surprise_audit]

I don't know that it would even be necessary to hide behind anything. I mean, right now the most likely place to deploy this thing is Iraq, and that's mostly a big fricken desert. What does the normal daytime temperature get up to, especially in the urban areas?? Are people even going to *notice* a heat ray??

Here come the hypocrits

[onyxruby]

Just wait, a non lethal weapon was developed that won't kill people. Now people will complain that it causes pain. Well, what would you rather have, pain or death?

Re:

[zyl0x]

Would you rather be tortured for weeks, only for the people torturing you to kill you regardless of what you tell them, or would you rather they just kill you right away? Believe it or not, some people would much rather have death than an indefinite amount of pain.

Re:Here come the hypocrit(e)s

[RealErmine]

pain or death?

I'll have the chicken.

Re:

[kalirion]

Think tasers. Now we have police officers using tasers at the first sign of the suspect being uncooperative. Sometimes they don't even give the suspect a chance to cooperate. This microwave thing is basically a long-range taser that can hit multiple people at once. What do you wanna bet it will be used that way?

Stopping Fleeing vehicles try a HERF Gun

[HighOrbit]

see Build Your Own HERF Gun [slashdot.org]
and
HERF Gun: Make it in your basement [slashdot.org]

Supposedly the High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) burst will disrupt all the electronic components in an engine. My understanding is that the Coast Guard is already using these to stop fleeing motor boats (sorry no link) and the air force is researching a HERF weapon to knock all the electronics in a area USAF Detachment 8 Continues US Research Into EMP-Microwave Weapons [defenseindustrydaily.com]

Heat-ray aside...

[Apocalypse111]

I like the idea of the black-ice spray. Less destructive than spike strips, and with the spray-on reversal agent, more selective. Also, when have people in the middle east seen ice? They wouldn't know how to drive on it, and its not like they're going to send volunteers to Minnesota in the winter to take a defensive driving course.

Isn't it hot in Iraq already?

[richieb]

I thought temperature in Iraq was already 130 degrees...

Temperatures

[ZOMFF]

Considering that the average temperature of bath water is ~110F, 130F doesn't seem like it would be too uncomfortable for a soldier. Considering the temperatures most soldiers face (especially those deployed to the desert) I'm sure they are exposed to similar temps by the environment alone + gear. The question I have is will the microwaves react differently to a metal object as opposed to human skin? IE: cause the gun/weapon a soldier is holding to become very hot causing the soldier to drop it, rather

Yikes.

[Ihlosi]

Considering that the average temperature of bath water is ~110F,

Yikes. That's a fairly hot bath (43 degrees celsius, yikes). You probably can't stand this for long, and if you have too many of these baths, you might end up infertile (if male). The latter might not be a concern since this is slashdot, though.

The U.S. Millitary Should Stop.....

[8127972]

..... taking it's weapons ideas from Sci-Fi. This one comes from War Of The Worlds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-Ray [wikipedia.org]

If this keeps up, we'll have a "Death Star" before you know it.

Torture

[MrSteveSD]

The use of this device would effectively amount to torture. Using it on a crowd of protesters you want removed would be equivalent to going around and Tazering all of them. Passive resistance does not justify the use of torture.

Re:

[Rogerborg]

We've already lost that argument. See "drive stun" [wikipedia.org] and an explicit UCPD policy on torturing suspects into compliance [dailybruin.com] in the context of Mostafa Tabatabainejad [google.com] (among others).

Re:

[Peter La Casse]

The use of this device would effectively amount to torture.

Watering down the word "torture" accomplishes nothing good. Any device can be used for torture; circumstances matter.

Please stop the strawman arguments

[HighOrbit]

The use of this device would effectively amount to torture. Using it on a crowd of protesters you want removed would be equivalent to going around and Tazering all of them. Passive resistance does not justify the use of torture.

Please stop using strawman agruments. The article said nothing about peaceful protestors. I seriously doubt the military cares about a group of people peacefully singing kumbaya around a campfire, seeing how they have their hands full fighting people with AK-47s and RPGs. Let's s

Huh?

[lendude]

"The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene." Why the f*ck would they drop their weapons and flee the scene? If they can flee the scene, they'd wanna hang onto their weapons wouldn't they? And if they can't flee the scene, unless the beam can cover the whole mass at once, they might be tempted to use their weapons? And if they can't flee the scene, they are pretty much constrained anyway?

Sounds more like a tool to use on demonstrators who aren't armed, just pesky.

Black ice

[smoker2]

They hope to deploy the 'ice' in chase scenarios to slow fleeing vehicles."

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but how do you deploy the 'ice' in front of a fleeing vehicle if you're chasing it ?

If you've got someone out in front anyway, then you don't really need the 'ice'.

Re:

[geekoid]

IT's not uncommon forpolice to try and manipulate the chase.

If soemone is zipping down the freeway you have a god indicator where to deploy this.
Another use would be outside of banks, just to watch robbers fall on their ass as the try to fly.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Come on, don't ruin a prefectly good defence contract by pointing out the obvious flaws...

millimeter wave rays, not good for the eyes

[Ancient_Hacker]

Anything that heats the skin is also likely to heat the cornea. Microwaves at very low intensity, far lower than can be felt, have been known for 60 years to cause cataracts. It's going to be unlikely that these new waves, which are thousands of times higher than the safe limits for microwaves, will not harm eyeballs.

Just Remember

[faqmaster]

Just remember: You have to moisten the unruly crowd first, otherwise it will stink the place up for days, and some individuals may even catch on fire!

Meanwhile...

[Fuzzums]

The education budget is cut.
Healthcare costs increase.
The spreading of democracy costs more and more lives.
World population is still increasing while people consume more and more.

Probably we indeed need a lot of these ray-cannons.

The Simpsons quote you're looking for:

[Headcase88]

Grampa: What the hell is that?
Frink: Why, it's a death ray my good man, behold. (Frink fires death ray)
Grampa: Hey, feels warm, kinda nice.
Frink: Well it's just a prototype, with proper funding I'm confident this little baby could destroy an area the size of New York City.
Grampa: But I want to help people, not kill 'em!
Frink: Oh, well to be honest, the ray only has evil applications. You know my wife will be happy, she's hated this whole death ray thing from day one.

With thanks to The Simpsons Archive [slashdot.org]

Re:

[Headcase88]

Ahem. The Simpsons Archive [snpp.com].

SLOW DOWN COWBOY!

Non-lethal?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Now where's the fun in that??

Black Ice? Super Glue...

[flyingfsck]

Spraying ice (or Monkey Snot) on a road won't stop a vehicle. Super Glue will...

Re:

[tomstdenis]

Screw the military, I want one now. ... mumbles about it being -22C outside ...

Tom

Re:

[slughead]

The name is Joe. G.I. Joe.

More like Goonies. Remember the asian kid [blogspirit.com] and his 'slick shoes'?

Re:

[CreatureComfort]

by hooking his jewels up to a car battery and he told us what he thought we wanted to hear.

There, FTFY.

Remember kids, torture is a great way to learn new fairy tales, but a horrible way to actually get any kind of reliable information.

Re:

[m0ok1e]

Just an FYI, it is against military law to fire upon someone who is helpless to defend themselves, like someone chained to something. It doesn't really matter how long they hold down the trigger, the people in the focused beam will run away from it as fast as they can. The video I saw of the tests indicates that, and the weapon does not penetrate buildings or metal, etc, so there is respite from it if you can run. Also, this thing requires A LOT of battery power to operate, and I don't think the intentio

Re:

[RMH101]

You can't always run away. What's the spread of this thing? What about if it's applied to an enclosed space? Presumably it has some significant range, too: imagine this fired into a densely-populated, enclosed space such as a football auditorium, or an outdoor demonstration in a fenced area? This doesn't sound good, at all.
Debates that reference a secret, military technologies supposed battery life can be dismissed out of hand as we just don't know what the figures might be: and surely it's not beyond

Re:

[geekoid]

Based on the limited tech spens, I would say it is to be deployed remotly. Probably dropped from the air.
If that's true, then hooking it up to the mains isn't going to happen.
And you owuld need to hook it into something more powerfull then your 115 in a house. making it even more difficult to find a convienant spot to do that.

Mostly likely use is the drop it into an area, people flee, the military comes in to secure said area.

Also could be deployed from a tank, or other completly enclosed vehical.

People see

Re:

[Rogerborg]

Military? You actually think this is intended for military use? Wow. You don't think that perhaps it'll primarily be used by domestic "law" enforcement for mass pain compliance?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how useless your comments are?

First, this is a weapon like any other weapon. It can be used poorly and is ultimately a tool of the person that wields it. There are hundreds of more effective and less detectable methods of torture that could be used via 15th century technology. Do you think this is any more dangerous than 100,000 19 year olds running around with machine guns?

Second, stereotyping different states as "back-water" and making baseless assumptions about the humanity of our soldi

Re:

[Vegeta99]

It does that because microwaves are centimeter waves, and will heat a hell up a of a lot more than just your skin.