"Less lethal" riot control ray gun to be deployed in Iraq next year
The US military plans to deploy the Active Denial System weapon, a "less lethal" pain gun, in Iraq next year, but the system is already causing concern among scientists. The weapon is intended to be used as a riot control device, firing a 95GHz microwave beam at a crowd, causing heat and intolerable pain in less five or fewer seconds. But in tests at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, it's been reported that participants were told to remove eyeglasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes, and take any coins or other metal objects out of their pockets to keep "hot spots" from developing on their skin. Yikes, what do you have to do to draw that assignment?
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
clicclic @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I have heard from numerous sources that the military was using similar weapons in a lethal capacity during the 2003 invasion. Specifically, a plasma (lightning) device that melted a schoolbus full of people.
These devices were of course discussed at length in the thirties by our favorite mad scientist (Tesla). I HIGHLY doubt these will be used in a non-lethal manner. Now that we know over 25000 civilians died in the last two years in IRAQ. (great way to make friends...)
Question Answerer @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I wonder what you could use as a shield, presumably not a tinfoil hat...
Asher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
If only our technologies to help ppl or make free energy were as fast moving as tech to harm.
tHeone @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Woun't that be like putting a baby on a microwave?
Sounds dangerous, as in.. Permanent damage...
Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
#2
What about a mirror? That always works in the comics.
warriorpear @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
time to buy that wearable faraday cage
eric g @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
this puts a whole new spin on "drive-bys"
tr @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
"Specifically, a plasma (lightning) device that melted a schoolbus full of people. "
wow...you've been reading too much science fiction. maybe you should brush up on some physics, and get some background info on the real plasma weapons the US military is researching. because i don't think they are making "bus-melting guns."
Frangible @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
#2: Actually aluminum foil would work well, microwaves cannot penetrate metal at all and will reflect off of it. Due to the wavelength you don't even necessarily need a solid sheet.
Perhaps a metallic dye or thread in fabrics worn would be enough to stop most of it.
OMGWTFBBQ @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
OMG! They can Cook Baked Potatoes now in mass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aaron Buchanan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
wouldnt that just make it really hot?
otakucode @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
They've got to test this somewhere before they use it at home when the citizens get wise and want their freedom back.
skype_fan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Why test it in New Mexico, do the world a favor and test it on Bush's Ranch or even better on the Pentagon.
Dave Schroeder @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
And instead of the "Ray gun worries scientists" bullshit in the news.com article (which is baseless, and is based only on the fact that test subjects were asked to remove contacts and metal as a precaution, since they're, um, TEST SUBJECTS), here's some actual information:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/active-denial.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial
Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Dave, This is not your political sounding board.
You could have just called cliccic an idiot and be done with it instead of busting out the Kneepads and fellating the administration on a tech messageboard.
Just as aside your argument concerning the sanctions is idiotic because most people knew the sanctions were ineffectual and in essence empowered saddam by making Iraqis more dependant on his police state.
It's not a binary situation where it's either war or starvation.
Also my question to you is do really think burning people with rayguns as a means of crowd control is a good idea in a country whose people we are attemping to befriend.
Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
"This is a LONG term strategy to create environments of freedom, and critically, free flows of information, in the mideast at large, making their peoples intolerant of the kind of religious fanaticism and hatred that is the fundamentalist Panislamic movement."
Some would argue that is a gamble that essentially can be lost.
What happens if you create the environment for a democratically elected islamic state?
You know shia majority and whatnot?
You would have essentially gone from a secularist to Iran part II
"If you're not willing to take the initiative necessary, New York, Madrid, and London (twice now) are only the tip of the iceberg."
similarly there are some who would argue that these attacks are at least in part inspired by Iraqi "collateral" damage.
It is now a known fact that Islamic terrorism has gone up dramatically in the years since the war on terror has begun. The fact is this war is an idealogical experiment , grounded in nothing other than fancy.
also I find it interesting that you excoriate the original poster for his idiotic appeal to authority and then follow with your own idiotic appeal to authority "even john kerry" I won't even comment on the blatantly partisan mindset that spawns such a comment.
Thanks for ruining moment of geekdom at work.
jxj @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
LOL @13 ....you actually took all that time write such a ridicilously long comment on a GADGET blog?!?! There's this thing I have to tell you about...its really cool. Its called "outside".
Mortimer J. Jackleson @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I think that building ray guns to burn people en mass is a good sign that your country is way too full of assholes.
History has never looked kindly on societies that pioneered novel ways of causing pain.
I guess after China surpasses us economically, Fiji has more mathematicians, and India becomes the chief exporter of culture to the world, at least we'll be the biggest pricks around.
I wonder who the ray guns will be pointing at then?
Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
To commenter #15 whom said:
"Dave, This is not your political sounding board.
You could have just called cliccic an idiot and be done with it instead of busting out the Kneepads and fellating the administration on a tech messageboard. "
Yeah Dave, stop spreading quantifiable information that doesn't further the libral agenda! Your not supposed to be educated, your supposed to just resort to name calling like us librals do. Excuse me why I kiss the buttocks of Michael Moore, George Soros and the US media at large.
Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I understand that human rights groups need to keep an eye on new weapons.....but when the alternative is bullets, it seems like much of the criticism is a bit moot.
I still say they should just spray valium / Nitric Oxide / pot as a weapon. Just chill everyone out.
Ross @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Wait, experimental governmental testing of irradiating human beings? Heh, it's backstories like this that super heroes are made from.
Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
"I didn't make this a political sounding board; the VERY FIRST poster did, with a false assertion that the US military is melting school busses and a pass at how we just love oh-so-much to kill innocent civilians indiscriminately (also false)."
In my mind it wasn't even worth addressing, the first poster is obviously a complete idiot and thus not worth the typing and CPU cycles, the rest of your post was essentially cheerleading. I don't log onto this site to argue politics (I log onto other sites for that)
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I guess it really was inevitable that I would live to see my world equivocated into oblivion.
It's a forgone conclusion: we really ARE witnessing the events leading-up to the last (and most certainly, final), global conflict, WW3, and I'm not just talkng about the so-called war on terrorism. It's merely a symptom of a much more profound problem, that of New Man comming to terms with Old Man. Quite literally, the reptiles on the right and the gonzoes on the left, in their bald-faced self interest are, either deliberately or in ignorance, destroying the relative paradise that sane and rational people have created in our modern civilization. The modern world belongs to the sane and rational, and those that cannot live within its confines have, like wild animals, decided they will destroy ths world in which they know they have no place.
We are seeing is a catharsis, sad but neccessary in order for our species to progress to a higher level of developement. The irrational on either side must be gotten rid of - the reptiles and the gonzoes *must* be allowed to pit themselves against each other, as is ther tendancy, so that they might be mutualy destroyed. Only after they're gone may humankind move on to a saner, stabler, and more peaceful existance, free of this insanity.
If you can relate to what I've said here, stay out of the way of these monsters, and stay under their radar, or risk being subsumed by them.
Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Dave,
using non-sequiturs does not strengthen your argument in fact they make you look silly.
"In answer to your question: I'd much prefer NON-LETHAL (or "less lethal", if you prefer) technology to be used in the place of spraying a crowd with an M60 or blanketing it with tear gas."
Again the choice is not "Experimental raygun" or "Exterminate with Extreme prejudice". The choice is "Experimental raygun" or "Other non-lethal technology" Like water cannons, Bean Bags, tear gas, or foam.
The fact that I don't like the idea doesn't imply that I embrace anarchy it simply means I don't like the idea.
Finished.Law.School @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
A melted school bus? That sounds great.
What comic book had that shit in it?
Back to the topic, it would be great to drive that thing around and randomly turn it on at people.
They should just drive it through the mountains of Afghanistan and roast everyone. Maybe they can attach it to a helicopter. See how many rpg's you get off the ground then you commie scum. Just follow the screams and then we can take care of some of the Afghanistan issues.
chasing @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
HOW 'BOUT THEM METS?
Dave Schroeder @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Christopher:
"In my mind it wasn't even worth addressing, the first poster is obviously a complete idiot and thus not worth the typing and CPU cycles, the rest of your post was essentially cheerleading. I don't log onto this site to argue politics (I log onto other sites for that)"
Well, I don't come here to read the crap, whether worth responding to or not, that #1 posted.
And I didn't vote for Bush, so I'm not cheerleading anything except the fundamental idea that, via some method, radical Panislamism (i.e., the belief that there should be one true Islamic government in the whole of the mideast that is the seat of government for the globe, and that anyone who disagrees with their twisted interpretation of Islam be subjugated or killed) be defeated at all costs.
That the DoD might be looking to deploy a non-lethal crowd dispersal technology in Iraq is hardly surprising to me. As for other non-lethal techniques, which have varying degrees of dispersal effectiveness (indeed, some disperse, some immobilize, some annoy), sure; but note also that we have thousands of different varieties of all manner of tools, including weapons, some more effective in certain circumstances than others.
If creating new weapons technology, lethal or no, rubs you the wrong way, I can respect that. But to jump to the conclusions some of the other posters have, along the lines that the US is just thirsting to find new ways to gravely cause pain, is just ridiculous, and quite honestly downright offensive, when the purpose of the device is quite the opposite.
Mortimer J. Jackleson @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Dave Schroeder said:
> Mortimer J. Jackleson:
>
> You are an unadulterated idiot.
Hey Christopher, he took your advice! Who says that debates don't lead to a change of views? He even one-upped you with the "unadulterated" bit.
Dave, I'm glad you trust the military and our government so much. Let's see if you're right. Post back in 50 years or so.
Looking back on the last 50 years or so, it seems that most governments eventually went on to abuse their own citizens with one weapon, technology, bacteria, virus, policy, edict, etcetera or another. Must we repeat other's (and our own) mistakes year after year. You argue yes. Yet I'm the dum-dum. Forgive me if I disagree with you.
Ryan gardner @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I was melted in a school bus once - but it was by something far more powerful than wimpy gun. It was by a large fusion device positioned 1 A.U away from the earth.
delerious @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Yay military. Keep up the work. Just make sure that it is "non-lethal" when it's deployed.
I'm all for this.
Finished.Law.School @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
You wankers want to turn everything political, like your beliefs are revolutionary or make an impact on someone else.
Please take that shit to some dark empty coffee house on open mic night in Seattle, NY or San Francisco.
This is engadget bitch. We want techno porn and non-politically correct commentary. We want to know when the cell phone companies are going to rape us with their new cell phones with half of the features turned off or non-functional due to a shit network. We want to know how the progress is coming on robot companions that fold laundry and know which drawer my underwear go in. I want to hear news of a cappuccino machine that wakes me up, tells me the news and weather, makes me good espresso and lets me know if there is a criminal waiting for me outside my front door. No one wants gobbledeegook political hoo haa fluff on engadget.
Anonymous Coward @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the exact use case here?
A) A group of hostile people with weapons intent on killing US soldiers? -- Clearly not, since it's a crowd dispersion device.
B) A group of protesters who aren't hostile? -- I hope not, that seems like a recipe for escalating future protests (i.e. in the form of terrorism)
Then again, "American Foreign Policy" seems to escape me ...admittedly my two scenarios are extremes, but what honestly is a scenario where this would be useful?
jordan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
ha less lethal looks like it will desenegrate an elephant its so big!
Nick Wicked @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
If the UN didn't give Palestine away in the late 40s and the US didn't go to bat for Israel no matter what for (when they never return the favor), then there'd BE no "terrorists". This war is disgusting. Christianity and Judaism are in bed with each other leaving the Muslims the odd man out. I'm not a Muslim. I'm a realist. It's time this country wakes up and gets out of the Middle East.
Robert @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Dave Schroeder or whatever your name is, are you a stay-at-home-blogger, or do you telecommute?
Jack @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
The play on words here is great (sarcasm). They call it a less than lethal weapon. Sure, it won't kill you, but you'll be left with burns and bruises, not to mention possible brain damage.
haloman @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
How can you people be so stupid as to spin an idea that is designed to save people live's into something bad/evil/wrong??? This is a crowd control mechanism that doesn't cause any actual physical injury only a sensation of being burned without actually burning. The cited article asks:
"How do you ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent damage? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?"
YES! The device is designed to cut out/ as to prevent overexposure. For a "scientist" you would think they would do some research before spouting off. As pointed out earlier, the requirements to remove glasses and coins were because they were TESTING. They later tested them with glasses and everything was safe. This frequency was picked because it is a safe frequency.
This non-lethal and non-injury inducing form of deterant seems like a much better idea than pointing guns at people and shooting pellets/bean bags/tear gas/bullets at them. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Spyvie @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Microwave radiation scares the hell out of me. If anyone ever points something like this at me Im going to use whatever lethal response I can come up with.
A political argument on a tech blog? I thought geeks were monolithically libertarian technocrats, but maybe thats just out west. Im going to save my breath and only say Im hawkish on defense but believe invading Iraq was an enormous mistake. Check out the Libertarian exit strategy
http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/plan/plan.cgi
This is part of my buddys website (I build his boxen) I dont always agree with him but his work is thoughtful.
http://www.chrisvalentines.com/projects/USpageintro.html
More robots and MP3 players, Less ray guns please.
Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Boo hoo. They would even be complaining if instead of a heat ray it blared out one of the Dixie Chicks albums. I would consider the latter a more a war crime than the former. Oh, and maybe the 'enemy' can meet us half way and do some non-lethal beheadnings. That would be swass.
Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
I can spell. I swear.
Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
39,
You're quite correct it is intended as a less lethal means and yes they should be applauded for it, but as another poster put it "Microwave radiation scares the hell out of me" as an scientific enthusiast I know that good intentions is the mother of all fuckups, whose to say they won't figure out ten years from now that this thing causes brain cancer.
Even better not all crowds are created alike.
Rowdy protestors, Soccer hooligans, and incensed islamists entirely different demographics and the methods used to control them should be different and that means exploring the entire range of scientific options. Theres a non-lethal weapon that essentially fires glue. Theres one that uses sonic blasts, I'm a technophile but the idea of blasting people with microwaves simply does not sit well with me.
Christopher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
"Jason,
They would even be complaining if instead of a heat ray it blared out one of the Dixie Chicks albums."
This is already being employed, not the dixie chicks but some hoohaa equivalent.
"I would consider the latter a more a war crime than the former."
will it still be a war crime when it gets out of the testing phase and is used here to control college kids, or is it only acceptable when used on those filthy raghead bastards intent on destroying western civilisation ( or get reliable electricity whichever comes first)
"Oh, and maybe the 'enemy' can meet us half way and do some non-lethal beheadnings. That would be swass."
So people who protest now are the enemy?
The enemy doesn't protest they shoot. If you look at Iraq people have been protesting for all sorts of things including lack of running water and electricity, If they get rowdy that sure does Justify blasting them with microwaves.
jjg @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
holy christ. guys, give it a rest.
skype_fan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
If the US learns to stay at home there is no need for non-lethal weapons at all. If it was about the Iraqi people, then there was plenty of time to remove him during the first gulf war. The second war was about getting the fingers on the oil. Nobody in Washington cares a damn about the Iraqi people. Don't forget who did enforce that silly embargo which only killed civilians. And if you are at it, look at the old pictures where Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand after delivering him the latest weapons.
So Mr. Schroeder if you stay at home in the first place there is no need to try to cover up the mess that US foreign politics causes all over this planet all the time.
But instead of using the brain, new weapons need to be developed. Do a google on the numbers of US military bases outside of the US. Think about how you would feel if China sets up some military bases in the US and starts telling you what's best for you. Maybe after that you might get a small insight why the US is having these "acceptance problems" all over the planet ;-)
Having something like Guantanamo and still talking about freedom and democracy one must be
already a victim of such a non lethal weapon.
nojetlag @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Schroeder a bit from US history:
The American rebels called themselves patriots. They called British supporters Tories. Patriots often seized Tories' property to help pay for the war. They also kidnapped Tories' slaves to be used as laborers for the army. Many Tories were forced from towns in which they had lived all their lives. Some were tortured or hanged. In New Jersey, Tories and patriots fought one another with guns, and sometimes burned each other's houses and farms.
Funny isn't it ? The Iraqi who do the same today are all called terrorists and not patriots.
Shane @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
omfg you guys are just supposed to talk about the ray gun. It's a RAY GUN, = gadget! Cool down fellas. One political post and this whole thing gets inflated until I'm the 46th post.
begbie @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Hmmm..let see...the majority of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. Saudi Wahabi fundamentalism is preached throughout the world and is responsible for inciting terrorist attacks in Turkey, Bali, Spain, and London. So why did the Americans attack Iraq? Why not invade Saudi Arabia? Anyone read House of Bush and House of Saud?
clicclic @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Whoops! Sorry to take us down the politico path. I agree that Engadget is all about tongue-in-chic tech, not who we're melting where.
Granted, Schroeder was kind enough to provide his spin on things. The truth is this: he's just as clueless as I am about what's happenin'. If he KNEW the truth, he'd blow his security clearance.
Did Hitler save lives by invading Poland? Ask the Russians how many soldier's lives were saved when they invaded Afghanistan. All of these wars were justified by their press at the time.
Dave Schroeder @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
begbie:
*Sigh*
It's exactly BECAUSE Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of fanatic Islamic fundamentalism that it is. The change will best happen by standing up free governments in (comparatively) secular nations (e.g., Iraq), allowing Arab and Persian Muslims to influence their own cultural neighbors, but NOT by invading a nation that is:
1. Currently an *official ally*
2. Responsible for critical oil pricing controls (pretending that stable, reliable, secure energy sources don't mean anything to Western economies is the height of ignorace)
3. A cauldron of Islamic fanaticism
No, Bush isn't evil bedfellows in some kind of conspiracy with the House of Saud. Sorry to disappoint. The Iraq action had many reasons, namely:
1. We already didn't have diplomatic ties with Iraq, and Iraq was viewed as an enemy.
2. We already had previous military action in Iraq, thereby making the American public familiar with Iraq, making it easier to build a case for action
3. Iraq was already egregiously in violation of numerous binding UN Security Council resolutions: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm (the only kind of resolutions that have any teeth are Chapter VII UNSEC resolutions; hint: all Israel/Palestinian resolutions were General Assembly resolutions, which have no enforcement authority)
4. Iraq is reasonably centrally located in the region
5. Iraq was a reasonably secular state
6. Iraq was not an ally, and disruption in energy supplies in Iraq wouldn't have any appreciable impact on US, and in turn European, economies, which support the happiness and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people (and no, this doesn't mean it's "okay" to "kill" Arabs just to keep the West happy - that's not at all what it's about)
7. The leadership of Iraq had already demonstrably committed crimes against humanity, as agreed by the UN
8. The UN had done little to nothing in the previous 12 years other than continue to pass resolutions that Iraq continued to violate
In short, if you can't figure out why Iraq was the target, and can't see Panislamism as the threat that it is, then you simply choose to not understand the situation.
Mortimer J. Jackleson @ Dec 19th 2005 2:14AM
Good game everyone! Good game.
clicclic was kind enough to mention Hitler, which officially brings our thread to a close. (You know the rules, first mention of Nazis or Hitler means put a fork in it, it's done.)