Despite the fact that the Air Force's
Active Denial System has yet to be deployed against unruly domestic mobs as Secretary Michael Wynn
would have liked -- seems like they missed their opportunity
prior to the PS3 launch --
Wired is reporting that the branch's so-called "pain gun" has been certified as "safe" by scientists and "excruciating" by the soldiers and monkeys it was tested on. For those of you who don't follow the latest developments in non-lethal weaponry, the ADS -- which has been in development for over ten years -- shoots a 94GHz millimeter wave that triggers an immediate flight response from anyone in its path within 500 meters; although the majority of military test results are classified, it's said that even the toughest subjects can only endure five seconds of the intense burning before running like hell in the opposite direction. Just because the weapon has been green lit for combat, however, doesn't mean that we'll see ADS-equipped Hummers rolling around the streets of Baghdad anytime soon: as Secretary Wynn suggested, international backlash could be significant once photos of beet red, blistered victims start hitting the internet and 24-hour news networks. Still, with the military stuffing this technology into weapons of all shapes and sizes (plane-mounted versions will soon bring the pain from above), it probably won't be too long before these devices become so mainstream that you'll be able to pick one up at Wal-Mart bundled with a free tube of burn cream.
posted Dec 5th 2006 1:21PM
"it probably won't be too long before these devices become so mainstream that you'll be able to pick one up at Wal-Mart bundled with a free tube of burn cream."
mmmmm blister pack of pain.
Wow, it has meanings on so many levels.
and what do you want for Christmas little boy?
A red rider 94GHz wave gun!
You'll burn your skin off kid.
New Interrogation techniques :D ! !
Anyone remember the prism tank from Red Alert 2?
Remember?? I still play it regularly!
"...it probably won't be too long before these devices become so mainstream that you'll be able to pick one up at Wal-Mart bundled with a free tube of burn cream."
Evan you are an idiot... Starting to become like the local TV news. Making up shit.
Wow, ever heard of a joke?
There was an investigation a few weeks ago into a woman who was being accused of putting her baby in the microwave and killing it, and I remember reading that what made the investigation so difficult was that when something is cooked in a microwave, it cooks from the inside, meaning that there is very little evidence on the outside of burns or blisters or anything like that. So, beet-red victims on TV? Not likely.
Does it seem barbaric at face value to think that we are essentially microwaving people? A little. But at a does that doesn't cause permanent damage, and considering the alternative (you know, being full of holes and bleeding to death), it gains a slightly different perspective. Would you say we shouldn't be using pepper spray on people because there will be beet-red faces of maced victims on TV, and that instead we should just shoot them (whether they are insurgents in whatever country, or rioters here or there) instead? Not likely.
This particular weapon is actually supposed to work only on the skin of its targets, so the 'cook from the inside' effect of kitchen microwaves doesn't happen. In the animal and human tests so far it has been shown to cause redness and blistering of the skin with prolonged exposure. So - beet red victims? Very Likely!
Kitchen microwaves cooking from the inside?!
I hate to break it to you, but that's not how a microwave works. Heck,.. you can even check it out for yourself. Put a frozen burrito in the microwave and nuke it for half the time you're supposed to. Then cut it open. You'll notice that the outside is hot while the center is still cold.
I swear,.. some of you guys are idiots.
Or the Atreides sonice tank from Dune II?
Along with ADS-equipped weaponry and vehicles, the U.S. just needs a big troop of the "X-Files Super-Soldiers" and we'll be good to go.
cruel and unusual???
why dont we just toss some napalm on them?
I wouldn't call it cruel and unusual. Think if they had this kind of technology when the USS Cole was bombed. They weren't permitted to fire on the boat that approached the ship, but with this kind of weapon perhaps they could have gotten them to turn around. Who knows. Seems like this could definitely save American lives.
As was said above, this really isn't that bad. It's not like they're firing this thing on just anyone, so if you don't want to suffer the pain, don't do anything worthy of getting fired on. Or, of course, you could lobby against this and allow continued use of less "cruel and unusual" guns and grenades... yeah, that's a much better option.
"save American lives"? How about just lives of people regardless of where they come from.
A life is a life.
I don't think the Wired article does a very good job of explaining the safety issues of this weapon. They say it falls between a microwave and X-rays - which is accurate, but misleading. Millimeter-waves are actually between microwaves and infra-red light. Due to the 'skin effect' they won't penetrate past the very top layer of skin, so there's no danger of being cooked from the inside (note that microwaves don't do this either, they also heat the surface but penetrate somewhat deeper). This heats up the skin, causing pain, but the worst-case effects would be superficial burns. It's not ionizing radiation (like X-rays), so it's not going to mess up DNA and cause cancer. The biggest danger is to your eyes, which will be the first to experience damage, and I agree with that article that people will reflexively close them or turn away. A good safety feature would be to limit the duty cycle - it might be on for 3 seconds, off for 7 - so it's only on 30% of the time and nobody gets more than a 3 second dose at a time.
"cruel and unusual???
why dont we just toss some napalm on them?"
Because napalm would have a very permanent and horrifically scarring effect, that is, if it doesn't kill you.
This will, at worst, give you redness and small blisters. And that is only under sustained exposure, according to the article.
I'd also like to note that the article states that from over 10,000 exposure tests to the weapon, there were a grand total of SIX(!!) reported cases or blisters or skin burns.
I'm sure if you fired this weapon at someone for two minutes straight it might have some severe effects, but from the sound of it anyone exposed to this would have run off or been incapacitated after just a fraction of that time.
Ratheon was the developer. I knew some people who worked there and told me about this a while ago. It isn't using microwave radiation at all but a wave frequency that touches all of your nerves at once. From what i heard years ago was that a seasoned navy seal vet couldn't stand more than a few seconds of the ray on just his hand alone.
What is pain really but sensation on the nerves. One level its tickling, the next level is torture. The idea of it bothers me greatly.
Do you think that a pain ray flack jacket will just be a coat with a bunch of holes like the door of a microwave?
ow, sounds fun.
Well, it's a good thing they have finally figured out how to win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqi's. Make them popcorn! Literally. That should stop the insurgency.
Anyone else find irony in the fact that the new weapon OKed for use in Iraq is called the "Active Denial System?" The Iraq campaign itself seems to be more of an Active Denial System than any pain gun.
Just me? Okay then.
checks ebay for pain gun* I want to mount this to my front bumper to get the brain dead idiots doing 55mph out of the fast lane !!
Actually, the ADS fires a 95GHz beam.
They think that it would take about 250 seconds of prolonged exposure to burn the skin.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm
500 meters uh??.. whata bout if ur at 100 meters... okay u dont stand 5 seconds,, but u have to run 400 meters as hell so u dont get burned or something
thinkin that it makes u run faster too 400 meters goin at 15 to 20 secs means 45sec to 1 min of microwave on high....
the ADS is a directed energy weapon; the system works by targeting an individual and hitting them with a short burst. Something like 2 seconds. It isn't a radius-weapon or anything like that.
(grabs his jav-to-English dictionary)
Just wait till the guys over at "Jackass" get their hands on this!
Rob,
Look up your information again.
The microwave penetrates the burrito an inch or two and cooks it there. In-between the outside and the center is where the burrito is the hottest.
Seriously. Those is glasses houses shouldn't throw stones.
" It's said that even the toughest subjects can only endure five seconds of the intense burning before running like hell in the opposite direction."
Except for many of the girls that I know that would jump for joy - thinking about the money they would save at tanning salons.
This could be very dangerous for several reasons: according to the article 83% of the radiation is absorbed by the skin, which causes the redness, pain and blistering. In some ways this is similar to an extremely fast, high intensity sunburn...and sunburn does cause cancer in the long term. But sunburn is caused by a much shorter wavelength radiation, which doesn't penetrate even as deep as this new weapon.
It also means that the remaining 17% of the energy penetrates even deeper than the skin, which is a significant amount, especially at high power intensities. So it probably really is cooking your insides a little bit, though not as much as microwaves. We probably wouldn't know the long term effects of this for a while. I wouldn't be surprised if cell damage occurred that was not visible at the macro level (e.g. genetic damage).
The real danger is that if you call it "safe" it will end up be used a lot more, and cause many more problems than if it were treated as any another dangerous weapon. Since some of the arguments for the "safety" of the weapon are that people get away frome the beam before being dangerously exposed, what happens if their ability to escape is hampered, either accidentally or deliberately? How many people will be seriously cooked because they are backed against a wall by a rampaging crowd? And will it be used as a torture device by people thinking they can cause extreme pain without death? What does "safe" mean in that context?
Exactly. In the wrong hands (read 'any ambitious government'), this sort of 'safe' weapon could totally obliterate our freedom to peaceful protest. The long range makes it much more worrying than water cannons. People in 'free' countries tend to object to physical violence against their citizens, but this is much more subtle, something the moral majority could probably live with. In exchange, perhaps, for control over, say: gays, blacks, liberals, the religious, or any minority with a grievance.
To those who say this would never happen in a civilised country, just count (in your country) how many years ago the following applied.
-Illegal to be gay
-Legal to own a slave.
-Voting only for men
-Voting only for whites.. etc.
Not that long ago. It can be reversed.
Oh.. Autonomous pain gun robots linked into a national database and plenty of CCTV. not scary. not at all. As long as you don't break the law, which is always fair, unchangable and valid, you've nothing to be scared of.
@ SwissFreek:
Microwaves don't cook things from the inside, that's a myth. It's such a myth, in fact, that it was a segment on Mythbusters, in which they tried to cook a big frozen ham for like an hour. When they cut it in half, it was still frozen on the inside.
My bad, Rob got to the microwave myth before I did.
Imagine...the street infront of a military base in Iraq, protesters begin to mill about interfearing with operations, the are chanting, yelling in arabic...They begin to get unrully, in a snap decision, a 19 year old PFC opens up with one of these...Chaos ensues, people go from milling about to running and screaming, stampeading in a mob, heading in any direction, as long as it is away. CNN, Al-Arabia, Al-Jezera, have camera crews covering the whole scene. They're interviewing the injured from the hospital; a little kid, blinded by the "horrible Zionist American Death Ray" is on 500 cable channels across the middle east. A 70 year old man, crushed in the stampede asks "Why?"
Osama won't have enough room in the cave from all the new recruits. They will deploy these damn things from Hummvee's, Strykers, Predator drones and AC-130 Gunships. They'll put them infront of embassies, and on ships, they will mount them instead of water cannons and they will use them, because they're "non-lethal".
And you guys in the "tin foil hat brigade" don't think the the boys at SWAT won't want some of this action too. The next time all those anti-globalism loonies show up at a G8 summit, ZAP! That'll teach them birkenstock wearing, granola eating hippies what for.
Yeah, It's all good...Welcome to the 21st century ladies and gentlemen, Peace and Love...Peace and Love
Yea, as apposed to just throwing a grenade??!?!
I say stick one in the middle of the war zone we call Philly and watch the [insert first thought here] drop their weapons and run to New Jersey!
They said the same thing about Agent Orange, CFC's, transfats, and god knows how many pesticides. Invariably after 10-20 years this will be found to seriously fuck up a person as well.
94GHz milimeter. Those units don't work out too well.
Microwaves will make you go blind long before killing you. Certain organs deal with microwaves differently than others. Human eyes contain masses of water and are particularly bad at dissipating heat. This leads to relatively quick permanent damage from microwave radiation.
Microwaves are lensed by certain metals, which can cause electrical discharge and can randomly amplify the concentration levels unpredictably when used for such a purpose.
As far as I know, these reasons are why microwave emitters haven't been weaponized so far. I don't know why they'd start now.
.. Although a radius version would be very useful in riots.
Microwaves don't cook from the inside out, they cook it all at teh same time afaik. Microwaves don't use heat, they vibrate water molecules and as molecules move faster and faster, they heat up.....
In fact, if you take a bowl or glass, put it in the 'wave for 10 minutes and take it out, it will not be hot, because there are no water molecules to vibrate
and now for the race to develop a wearable material to block the face melt rays
What if you walk around in a portable Faraday cage? Are you immune?
Sounds like great technology, but I wonder if the settings are hard-wired, or if they are adjustable? Electromagnetic radiation can heat up water to boiling temperatures in just a few seconds. By setting the frequency to 94 GHz you can ensure that the radiation does not penetrate the skin (thus boiling the water on the surface of the skin). But if the weapon can be calibrated in the field, what assertions do we have that the frequency will not be lowered to a level that can penetrate the skin and organs (or even buildings) virtually cooking the person alive from the inside out?
*cough* glass houses*, my bad.
Also, the burrito wouldn't be done cooking when the time is over. It's alway recommended that you leave foods in the microwave for a minute or two for it to finish what it's doing, and let it cool down a tad.
PreGHZ, do humanity a favor and check your information before spreading myths.
Microwaves cook the outer layers first, then the inner layers. Not inside or somewhere-in-the-middle first.
If the outer layer of a burrito are less hot than the stuffing it's because the tortilla contains less water. So to make a proper test, put a frozen cucumber in a microwave for a few minutes and cut it. The inside will still be cold, the outside will be warm.
To all of the people that have said, "what, would you prefer we stick to the old fashioned way, holes and bleeding and all that?"
I'd prefer we not spend our time, money and energy concentrating on more ways to harm, mame and kill each other. I'm not really your average love one another pacifist hippy, but just the attitudes and approaches of a sampling of Americans amazes me. In this crazy this or that world you honestly only see the choice between bullets and excruciating pain.
I don't know how--not that I can build one of these things either--but if the greatest minds and the proper money is put to GOOD use then we can find a way to live in peace. There will always be a select few who cannot live in civilizied society, and I don't have a real answer for that either, again, people smarter than I, but my vote certainly favors the more lethal side for those people. Whatever the means we can and should remove them from society.
Violence must always be a means to a very specific end. If you don't know your exact purpose when initiating violence you are wrong to do so. You must know all things inherent to your action, the consequences and the conditions that must be met to warrant the cessation of violence.
The problem in the world today is that very rarely do we have justifiable answers to all those questions. Of course that's as it should be; for rarely is violence justified. The problem we encounter is that absent justification for violence rather than turning to a nonviolent approach we strive for a less violent approach. We must realize that absent cause we must use NO violence.
This weapon is a reactionary solution. And, as with all reactionary solutions, it lacks foresight. It's foolish to imagine that any part of the new technology era is not subject to Moore's Law. This can only get more advanced. We must look at what the advancement of this means. Advancements to this technology include a spread shot capability for crowd control, a non painful dehabilitation weapon and perhaps a purely mental stimulus. Thus we have a more useful, less morally reprehensible weapon that will make it's use commonplace. At that point the government will have the ability to control the population, as is in strict conflict to the foundation of this country that the people must always be able to control the government.
In a addition to not being a hippy I am also not a tin foil hat guy. I don't think the government is setting out in one giant conspiracy. I don't think 'THEY' are trying to bring down the constitution. Frankly, I don't think they have the faculties to put it together or pull it off. I tend to see our path to destruction as more a matter of ineptness. Beware that this is a step on that path.
Jesus god, it's 1984.
Brent said: "There will always be a select few who cannot live in civilizied society, and I don't have a real answer for that either, again, people smarter than I, but my vote certainly favors the more lethal side for those people. Whatever the means we can and should remove them from society."
I agree. The violently anti-social should be removed from society; however...
What if the society itself is anti-social, and those that engage in violence are doing so to reform it. Good examples would be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, communist China. Some might say Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is another good example.
Furthermore, where do you draw the line? Sure, murder is a good place to start, but let's say you get you way, and murder is eliminated. Do you stop there, or do you move on to lesser crimes? History - and most recent history is rife with examples - has shown that you'll invariably move on to tyranny.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, merely that a policy, carried-out with your sentiment as a basis, must be executed within the right context and right understanding if it is not to become corrupted and tyrannical.
"as Secretary Wynn suggested, international backlash could be significant once photos of beet red, blistered victims start hitting the internet and 24-hour news networks."
Ummm, when was the last time anyone saw a gun shot, mortar, or grenade victim on the "24-hour news networks"? Let's face it, our "Regime" does a good job of covering up all evidence of a war so citizens like us won't think it's wrong to kill, maim, or cripple others. PROPAGANDA? OK!
incidentally, millimeter waves are currently being used in that funky x-ray screening system that lets you see what's under someone's clothes.
Yes, Dave. It would be much better to hit the mob with a .50 BMG. Although chunks tend to complain less than scalded cats.
Some people don't understand what the military is or what it's for. It's something you unleash after careful deliberation and rein in when it's accomplished it's goals. If you can do that by making the enemy uncomfortable in certain specific situations instead of killing them, so much the better.
Prove me wrong.
Here's how you're wrong.
"As an example, uneven heating in frozen foods is a particular problem, since ice absorbs microwave energy much less well than liquid water, leading to defrosted sections of food warming faster due to more rapid heat deposition there. Due to this phenomenon, microwave ovens set at too-high power levels may even start to cook the edges of the frozen food, while the inside of the food remains frozen."
It's not about the water, love. It's about the state.
Nerds
Take the frozen cucumber and stick it ........
You people are a bunch of dumb asses that think you know every thing about the world. Get off your damn computer, pop your zits and go in to the world!
Far from contradicting me, your quote however completes the explanation.
Nevertheless, microwaves cook the outside and then the inside, the same way a knife will cut your burrito, first outside, then inside.
Oh yeah, superficial blistered skin is totally going to make EVERYONE hate America. Cause, you know, bullets only make small holes, so on the whole, your corpse looks fine except for all those red spots in your torso. But here, your tan is RUINED, and to add insult to injury you're still alive to be mad about it! Worst idea ever, eh?
What's so great about this tech is that it can be made by anyone with the knowledge of how it works. /me heads towards the shop...
I've just had it with the snide references to your own snide references that include addendum stating how the above snide reference may be taken out of context by the 40 previous websites used as a solid 'reference.'
You are not a news site I know but I've just noticed this sort of thing too many times lately. Bias is unavoidable but it can be tiring for readers that spot this sort of slag more easily than others.
Do us a favor and throttle back on the overt spin. We just come here to see the latest cool stuff, not to bathe in your personal leanings.
Gotta go, The Daily Show is on...
I prefer the 'Kent State' method of crowd dispersal. Can't write hit songs about microwaving mobs.
Seriously - surely some sort of garment could be made to block or absorb these waves. Like the mesh on a microwave oven's window.
Well this is the bit I said was for people that are smarter than I am. My thoughts though, are that it must be the society which decides, and not an entity on behalf of. Corruption and tyranny are traits of a few, by nature a society will not institute a tyrannical rule over itself. If the day comes that all smart and well meaning people come to the rational agreement that jaywalking is a crime punishable by death then so be it. If tomorrow in a unanimous vote the senate and house pass that law, and the president signs it then I will rejoice because our revolution will be here. We cannot assume the government to be the sole source of virtue and sense, it has shown time and time again to fail badly in these. A new forum is necessary.
To your question I draw the line mostly where it's drawn now in the American legal system, at least in terms of justifiable acts of violence to protect oneself or others, and the extent of violence which is available as punishment. The death penalty for the unredeemable is still a part of me that cringes, but I can't help but see it's justification. I'm with Engadget on today's comment on the one strike and you're out rule. More intelligent laws are necessary to truly begin to define where the line goes exactly. The founding fathers came up with 10 good ones, but they only sought to establish the laws governing the government. I think we could come up with 10 laws that govern the actions of men as well as the bill of rights did the government. Take the rest off the books and I can pick which couple are worthy of violence and which must be subject to a nonviolent restitution. Punishment is by nature tyrannical.
Brent said: "Corruption and tyranny are traits of a few, by nature a society will not institute a tyrannical rule over itself."
Society will and does tyrannize minorities or individuals. More than that, however, I question your premise: I say a society tyrannizes itself when it ventures down a path that ultimately leads to its own demise or, at the very least, corrupts its values.
Brent said: "If the day comes that all smart and well meaning people come to the rational agreement that jaywalking is a crime punishable by death then so be it."
Yeah, um... You're absolutely right: It's better that you leave the heavy lifting to others...
Congratulations USA! You got a new highscore on the list of worlds most evil countries. Keep up the hard work on executing your own citizens, killing people in other countries and sometimes just cooking them a little. Good luck and hope you can come up with more nifty ways on how to make this world a better place in the future!
Best regards /UK (your very own hijo de puta)
My old professor a couple of years ago at Trinity University was doing the LD50 and LD100 tests for this very machine. When he did a small presentation on its capabilities for our department he mentioned that he thought it was funny that the Army only requested the data on its lethality. I'm hoping they performed additional research of their own, because so far their definition of "safe" is "we know what kills a person, so we won't do that."
Oh, and they can easily just turn the knob up and make it lethal. With an increased power supply, the unit could make a person pass out within a minute to 90 seconds, and would probably die within 5 minutes under prolonged exposure. Considering that the unit has a massive coverage area, this thing could turn into a bad-day pretty fast.
Furthermore, because society is an entity comprised of human beings (as opposed to , say, rocks) which ARE corruptible and prone to tyranny, then yes: society can tyrannize itself, just like one human being can tyrannize another.
"Society will and does tyrannize minorities or individuals. More than that, however, I question your premise: I say a society tyrannizes itself when it ventures down a path that ultimately leads to its own demise or, at the very least, corrupts its values"
We're both guilty of generalizing society far too much as a single moving mass. If enough voices were given real power, and from them the very best of the ideas were selected and melded together in a realistic logical way we would have a very civilizied society to lay out real changes. In the current system far far too few voices are heard. The tyranny of minorities is not perpetrated by society but by another minority group, and one which represents a much smaller percentage than any so called victim group of societial tyranny on a long enough time scale.
It's a delicate subject to dance around, and examples are so plentiful it always feels like singling out one group or another. I'll take myself then so as not to offend, but paint the portrait you can easily fill with whatever more prominent example fits my point better.
Atheists are the least trusted group in America according to well at least Morgan Spurlock citing something. We represent less than 10% of the population. We suffer only a tiny amount of tyranny from less than 1% of the population. Even though society may not particularly like us, or any group different from a majority it does not institute a policy of tyranny, it is limited to small groups. (Read: KKK)
My point in the jaywalking bit is nothing but a cheap philosophy trick. Can you really judge all cultures that practiced cannibalism as without strong societial values? Values must change to reflect the changing times. If a time ever came that all people could come to agree that jaywalking being a capital case was necessary than it should be accepted as what was right at the time. At that time jaywalking must represent a significant danger to the good of many in order for it to be worthy of execution, and is compounded by the fact that it is certainly something which is so easily avoidable. Certainly though if the 500 like minded people in Washington now decided to make jaywalking a capital offense and the rest of the world still views it as insane it's cause for revolution.
This example is the reason that government cannot be allowed to set itself on a course which cannot be checked by the populance. A 'weapon' that simply pacified protestors would garauntee it could remain unchecked.
My dad goes to the war college in Alabama. He just took a course on this weapon. It in no way has the ability to burn skin, tissue, or nerves. It uses a special light and wave to emit the burning sensation in your skin. "BUT CAUTION" Being hit by the beam for long periods of time can result in pyschological, and nerve damge. Which is for at least a couple minutes which there is no record of. They actually tested the device on a bridge at Maxwell Air Force base in Montgomery, Alabama. They aligned a few volunteers (they had no clue) and shot the light at them at they either dropped for cover or ran. I got to watch a unclassified video.
"Pain gun" gets FCC green light
For those of you arguing about kitchen microwaves - They work by sending microwave radiation at the item, which causes the water molecules to spin rapidly, causing friction. They do not cook from the inside out, but they are supposed to cook the entire item (inside and outside) at the same time. This rarely happens, but it's the intent. Now, if you have something that is mostly liquid on the inside (like, say, a person) then yes, you could theoreticly cook it from the inside out.
Anyway, as for the gun, since the alternitive is shooting bullets, I think I'll take the pain gun