Pentagon Nixes Ray Gun Weapon in Iraq - Political Forum

saucer_section · #1 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 09:08 PM

Saddam Hussein had been gone just a few weeks, and U.S. forces in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, were already being called unwelcome invaders. One of the first big anti-American protests of the war escalated into shootouts that left 18 Iraqis dead and 78 wounded.

It would be a familiar scene in Iraq's next few years: Crowds gather, insurgents mingle with civilians. Troops open fire, and innocents die.

All the while, according to internal military correspondence obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. commanders were telling Washington that many civilian casualties could be avoided by using a new non-lethal weapon developed over the past decade.

Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested — and were denied — the device, which uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.

It's a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it out of concern that the weapon itself might be seen as a torture device.

Perched on a Humvee or a flatbed truck, the Active Denial System gives people hit by the invisible beam the sense that their skin is on fire. They move out of the way quickly and without injury.

On April 30, 2003, two days after the first Fallujah incident, Gene McCall, then the top scientist at Air Force Space Command in Colorado, typed out a two-sentence e-mail to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," McCall told Myers, according to the e-mail obtained by AP. The system should become "an immediate priority," McCall said.

Full story:
Pentagon Nixes Ray Gun Weapon in Iraq

J.Locke777 · #2 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 09:48 PM

This is pretty intresting, but do you have any commentary on the subject? do you thing this is good, or bad, and why?

saucer_section · #3 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Locke777

This is pretty intresting, but do you have any commentary on the subject? do you thing this is good, or bad, and why?

Sorry for the lack of commentary. I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting.

In my opinion they should use it since it is a non-lethal weapon. But only use when they really need to.

J.Locke777 · #4 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 10:03 PM

I saw something similar to this on "Future Weapons" it basically blasted concentrated sound waves at a very high volume. only the people who were in the line of "fire" were affected by it. The effects basically force the people to drop their weapons and cover their ears. It has been used successfully in Iraq so far, Could this be part of the Pentagon's reasoning, that we already have more "humane" (and I use that flexibly) non-leathal weapons in use in Iraq and Afghanistan?

saucer_section · #5 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Locke777

I saw something similar to this on "Future Weapons" it basically blasted concentrated sound waves at a very high volume. only the people who were in the line of "fire" were affected by it. The effects basically force the people to drop their weapons and cover their ears. It has been used successfully in Iraq so far, Could this be part of the Pentagon's reasoning, that we already have more "humane" (and I use that flexibly) non-leathal weapons in use in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It does more than hurt your ears as suggesting in the article.

Quote:

The beam penetrates the skin slightly, just enough to cause intense pain. The beam goes through clothing as well as windows, but can be blocked by thicker materials, such as metal or concrete.

But yeah they do not employ it because it might be misperceived as a torture device.

FRYandBENDER · #6 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saucer_section

Sorry for the lack of commentary. I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting.

In my opinion they should use it since it is a non-lethal weapon. But only use when they really need to.

No worries, but it is against forum rules to just copy and paste an article without at least commenting on it a little. It kind of helps to keep people from flooding the forum with threads that have no comment by the OP and no discussion is started.

FRYandBENDER · #7 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

the device, which uses energy beams instead of bullets

What kind of energy beams are they talking about? Did I miss it or is this as specific as they get?

J.Locke777 · #8 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saucer_section

It does more than hurt your ears as suggesting in the article.
I think that they're two seperate weapons, the one I'm talking about doesn't cause any pain, only hurts people's ears.
But yeah they do not employ it because it might be misperceived as a torture device.

I can sort of see where they're comming from, but it's not exactly like the rack, or pulling fingernails off... thats what I consider torture, but I can see why this new weapon could be considered torture too.

saucer_section · #9 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

What kind of energy beams are they talking about? Did I miss it or is this as specific as they get?

It is a form of electromagnetic waves. Here is a site that provides more details.

Quote:

Active Denial Technology is a breakthrough non-lethal technology that uses millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter and turn back an advancing adversary from relatively long range.

Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-MADS)

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Locke777

I can sort of see where they're comming from, but it's not exactly like the rack, or pulling fingernails off... thats what I consider torture, but I can see why this new weapon could be considered torture too.

I can see it too but if it is effective in crowd control, even when it gets violent, then I would see it as useful. Some of the current measures include fire hoses, rubber bullets and tear gas. I think.

FRYandBENDER · #10 (**permalink**) 09-01-2007, 01:09 AM

That sounds pretty cool.

This was my favorite part of the article.

Quote:

Countermeasures against the weapon could be quite straightforward — for example covering up the body with thick clothes or carrying a metallic sheet — or even a trash can lid — as a shield or reflector.Also unclear is how the active-denial technology would work in rainy, foggy or sea-spray conditions where the beam's energy could be absorbed by water in the atmosphere.

That sounds like something from a cartoon.

I don't see how there could be any objections to it. If it really doesn't do any harm to anyone, but can incapacitate them, surely it would be preferable to using bullets and killing people.... wouldn't it?