DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Lasers and Ray Guns » Lab Defense: Pain Ray

Lab Defense: Pain Ray

We all know that secu­rity at the country’s nuclear labs has been a lit­tle, um, uneven. Scientists at Sandia National Labs think they’ve found a way to plug up those porous defenses: a microwave-​​like pain that roasts intrud­ers.
nonlethal-weaponry_nr.jpgFor years, the Air Force and the Pentagon’s Joint Non-​​Lethal Weapons Directorate have been work­ing on the Active Denial System, or ADS. It’s a real-​​life ray gun which shoots 95 GHz mil­lime­ter waves. They pen­e­trate a 64th of inch beneath the skin, where nerve recep­tors are con­cen­trated. And when the waves hit, they pro­duce an “intense heat­ing sen­sa­tion [which] stops only if the indi­vid­ual moves out of the beams path or the beam is turned off,” a Sandia press release explains. “The sen­sa­tion caused by the sys­tem has been described by test sub­jects as feel­ing like touch­ing a hot fry­ing pan.“
It’s a pretty damn per­sua­sive way to get peo­ple to clear out of the way. And unlike, say, an M-​​16 fired into a mob, the beam’s only last­ing effects seem to be bad mem­o­ries. No won­der folks are call­ing ADS “the Holy Grail of crowd con­trol.“
Raytheon has built a Humvee-​​mounted model, which is cur­rently being tested before a likely trip to Iraq. The Air Force is devel­op­ing an air­borne ver­sion of the pain ray.
Now, Sandia researchers are get­ting in on the act, too. But unlike the military-​​grade units — meant to zap masses of peo­ple far, far away — the smaller Sandia model would be used to dis­suade nearby indi­vid­u­als from sneak­ing into clas­si­fied facil­i­ties. The researchers ran per­for­mance tests on a mini-​​ray pro­to­type in late May. More “human effec­tive­ness” tri­als will con­tinue over the next six months.
If those work out, Sandia says, a “second-​​generation small-​​size ADS sys­tem [is] expected to be fielded at sev­eral DOE [Department of Energy] nuclear facil­i­ties as early as 2008.”

Share |

July 1st, 2005 | Lasers and Ray Guns | 2860 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/07/01/lab-defense-pain-ray/Lab+Defense%3A+Pain+Ray2005-07-01+14%3A32%3A22noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Wonder Weapons, $20 a Pop | Rapid Fire 7/​1/​05 » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. David says:
    July 1, 2005 at 9:58 am

    It would be fea­si­ble to come up with a sys­tem that projects a 360 degree field of microwave radi­a­tion that you could mount on a Humvee. This would be like a anti-​​human pain field in a radius defined by the level of amplification.

    Reply
  2. Kyle says:
    July 1, 2005 at 10:15 am

    As cool as the geek in me thinks this idea is, I can’t help but feel that it should be lim­ited to the bat­tle­field. If we move towards minia­tur­iza­tion of this tech­nol­ogy for home­land deploy­ment, it’s only a mat­ter of time before abuse becomes a real issue. Tazers inca­pac­i­tate; pain rays leave you semi-​​conscious enough to gouge your own eyes out or step into oncom­ing traf­fic to escape the sear­ing sen­sa­tion.
    I’m all about using this as a non-​​lethal com­bat weapon. But the day that an offi­cer pulls an ADS weapon on some rough-​​looking teenager at a traf­fic stop will be a defin­ing moment in the line between safe alter­na­tives to bul­lets and hand­held tor­ture devices.

    Reply
  3. Byron Skinner says:
    July 1, 2005 at 2:04 pm

    I may be out of the loop on this but my own expe­ri­ence in war (I was an Sp.4 11B in Vietnam, 1966 and came home an amputee) is that it is best to kill the enemy. When you injure or wound some­one it just makes them pi**ed off and want to lay a big can of whip a** pay­back on the juy that did it.
    When you kill the bad guys all you have to worry about is their friends and fam­ily who after recon­sid­er­ing the sit­u­a­tion more often as not lose inter­est it try­ing to get some mea­sure of revenge if they fell they could meet the same fate as the object of there anger.
    But who am I to argue with the “Scientists”, “Defense Intellectuals” etc.( most who never laced up a pair of com­bat boots) who say that we are no longer sus­pose to kill the enemy but just lay an owie on him/​her and then arrest them (like a kid just play­ing hookie for school) so when it,s over they can apply to “Uncle Sugar” for comp­sa­ta­tion for their the injuries inflicted on them by the big bad GI’s and get a big stack of green­backs.
    While at home the War Veteran has to deal with the Dept. of Veterans Affairs who’s mis­sion in life is to tell him/​her that they are noth­ing but a bunch of free­load­ers look­ing for wel­fare. The motto of the V.A. is “Quite Bit**ing, suck it up and get a job, your coun­try doesn’t owe you any­thing.“
    Happy 4th. of July, Patriots.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner
    “Stewart’s Platoon”

    Reply
  4. liberty says:
    July 1, 2005 at 4:23 pm

    This needs to be deployed along our bor­ders ASAP. It is the per­fect humane dis­in­cen­tive to unin­vited guests :)

    Reply
  5. John Williams says:
    July 1, 2005 at 4:45 pm

    I agree with Skinner that deadly force is safer than cruel but non­lethal force (for the weapon user).
    Also, cruel weapons are in vio­la­tion of numer­ous laws. In par­tic­u­lar, weapons hold­ing a stream of pho­tons on a liv­ing human prob­a­bly vio­late the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which for­bids the use of gas or liq­uid weapons. Light held on a tar­get gasi­fies; if it has the effect of a weapon, it prob­a­bly will be ille­gal.
    The Geneva Protocol became U. S. law in 1975, when the Senate finally rat­i­fied it, about fifty years after the President had signed it.
    For more on the legal­ity of elec­tro­mag­netic weaponry, what prob­a­bly is legal and prob­a­bly is not, see http://​www​.eet​.com/​s​t​o​r​y​/​O​E​G​2​0​0​1​0​6​2​5​S​0​0​25/

    Reply
  6. Byron Skinner says:
    July 2, 2005 at 12:25 am

    John makes a good point the Geneva Protocol, is it still valid?
    I believe that last con­ve­nion on the rules was held in the 1950’s, since then a lot has change. The oper­a­tive ques­tion here is should the U.S. call for another con­ven­tion on the rules of wal­fare?
    The issue that comes to mind is the use of “CS”. Police forces around the world includ­ing in the United States uses this rou­tinely to dis­perse crowds and to clear build­ings. We used it in Vietnam for clear­ing and seal­ing tun­nels, chas­ing peo­ple out of the bush insteading of recon­ning by fire but American Soldiers and Marines today don’t use this non-​​lethal weapon because it is a chem­i­cal weapon.
    Nearly all of the up stream tech­nol­ogy com­ming out of DARPA and other devel­op­men­tial agen­cies are non tra­di­tional in nature and non lethal. Accoustic, laser, par­ti­cal beams and devices designed to dis­ori­en­tate the enemy. None of this stuff was ever con­sid­ered in 1925 or even the 1950’s. I mean is loud Rock Music against the Geneva Protocol?
    But yet one of the most inhu­ma­nine of weapons the bay­o­net is still issued to most Army’s.
    It appears to me that we are long over due for a look at the rules. Even base­ball changes the rules from time to time.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner
    “Stewart’s Platoon”

    Reply
  7. Marshall says:
    July 2, 2005 at 7:43 pm

    Sounds like another good use for alu­minium foil (as a counter mea­sure). Now, where is my tin­foil hat…

    Reply
  8. BenHM says:
    July 2, 2005 at 9:53 pm

    Has any­one tried coun­ter­mea­sures for this? I’m think­ing here of foils. How much and where? EG: Will our troops get aluminamized-​​mylar lay­ers in their armor now? And if it works for them, can I hide behind my space blan­ket?
    Stopping lethal force is high tech. Stopping (or ame­lio­rat­ing) non-​​lethal force is low tech. Witness riot­ers throw­ing the tear gas grenades BACK.

    Reply
  9. Marshall says:
    July 2, 2005 at 11:43 pm

    Dear BenHM
    According to the report this is just 95 Ghz radio — i.e., about 3 mm wave­length. Any really tiny mesh (sub mm) — or good old heavy alu­minum foil — will reflect it. Flat pieces of metal could be used to reflect it back on the source (the equiv­a­lent of throw­ing tear gas can­nis­ters back), and umbrel­las could be lined with foil as shields.
    I had for­got­ten about the space blan­kets, but they might stop it too.
    Of course, in com­bi­na­tion with, say, water can­non, it might still be pretty effec­tive in practice.

    Reply
  10. TexasFred says:
    July 3, 2005 at 4:36 pm

    If it’ll make the bad guys lay down and behave, use it… Make an *indus­trial* strength model for the larger sized areas and mas­sive group con­trol… On places like, oh, I don’t know, North Korea and Syria maybe…

    Reply
  11. TexasFred says:
    July 3, 2005 at 5:21 pm

    I don’t mean to p*ss you guys off, well, maybe I do, but have you folks noticed?? Our ene­mies have NO rules… None… And we con­tinue to fight them in a con­ven­tional man­ner… And ALL it gets us is DEAD…
    So far, the US main­land has been lucky, because our ene­mies would have NO com­punc­tions about using this weapon on the entire pop­u­la­tion of ANY large American city if given the oppor­tu­nity… And a *mush­room* cloud would be right up their alley IF they could lay hands on a nuclear weapon of some sort… Make no mis­take about it… We are engaged in a bat­tle against an enemy that has no respect for us and no fear of us, and they never will because we are too afraid to use the weapons at our dis­posal… And until they truly FEAR us, we are fight­ing a los­ing bat­tle, Christianity against Islam, The Crusades of old… Nothing is too vile or cruel to use when you are try­ing to defeat an enemy that will cut your head OFF on live TV and broad­cast it to the world… PCness is not an option guys…

    Reply
  12. Scott says:
    July 4, 2005 at 10:18 am

    I know this may sound stu­pid but I think a ray caus­ing the sub­ject to laugh untill the ray stops should replace this. It could In the­ory kill peo­ple by laugh­ing them to death but Its bet­ter than forc­ing them to sui­cide If they realise whats hep­ping and there run­ning out of oxy­gen there bound to leave and not come back again. Beleive me humor Is a men­tal kind of tor­ture but not nearly enouggh to make them Insane like a pain ray.

    Reply
  13. George Orwell says:
    July 4, 2005 at 11:13 am

    “You want to know what the future looks like? Imagine a bootheel grind­ing a face into pave­ment.“
    or some­thing like that.
    You sci­en­tists keep on design­ing won­der­ful devices like this. You are true ben­e­fits to human­ity. I hope it gets used on you or yours one day. -
    georgie

    Reply
  14. TexasFred says:
    July 4, 2005 at 12:18 pm

    TheKingOfSwing
    Sorry, I wasn’t aware that Military​.com was read by snivel­ing left­ies that would give America away… Guess I was wrong…

    Reply
  15. Gerry Mack says:
    July 4, 2005 at 1:37 pm

    We live in the days of a ‘hi-​​tech’ lifestyle in almost every­thing we do but we have lim­its and must real­ize the same ‘hi-​​tech’ toys we use against oth­ers can also be used against us.
    If we choose to live by the sword…we will likely die that way
    Gerry
    http://​www​.ger​ry​mack​.com

    Reply
  16. TexasFred says:
    July 4, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    TheKingOfSwing
    “Does any­one think this won’t be used against, say, strik­ing work­ers or per­haps peace­ful demon­stra­tors? Look at how taz­ers and pep­per spray are used by cops on non-​​violent, non-​​belligerent cit­i­zens.“
    We CAN hope… :)
    I am a mem­ber of that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy peo­ple like you love to blame every­thing on, now, go put your tin foil hat back on before we turn on the brain rays…

    Reply
  17. Scalper says:
    July 4, 2005 at 2:46 pm

    Weapons that work will get deployed to units (and by nations/​groups) that can afford them. What’s impor­tant is that enough secu­rity con­trols (such as keys or locks) be built-​​in to the hard­ware along with pro­ce­dures and pro­to­cols that will pre­vent unau­tho­rized use as well as cre­ate an audit trail for every use.
    For exam­ple, being an elec­tronic device, why can’t a video cam­era recorder be included along with pass­words and actual keys into the hard­ware of the pain-​​ray pro­jec­tor? Anybody who tries to use it indis­cri­mately and with­out autho­riza­tion will then get it turned on him.
    Also, why are some peo­ple so focused on just this one weapon when there are oth­ers in the arse­nal? If a non-​​lethal weapon doesn’t stop the bad guys, there are still M16s avail­able, right? And if the unruly crowd use alu­minum foil to stop the microwaves, how will they stop rub­ber bul­lets, tear gas, glue guns, water can­nons, fire extin­guish­ers, or even trun­cheons? The impor­tant thing is to have a choice of weapons per given sit­u­a­tion, not be stuck with mas­sive fire­power when all that’s needed is a bit of inca­pac­i­tat­ing love-​​taps.

    Reply
  18. God says:
    July 4, 2005 at 5:23 pm

    Texas Fred
    ”“Does any­one think this won’t be used against … peace­ful demon­stra­tors? ““
    “We CAN hope…“
    And the dif­fer­ence between Texas Fred and a tor­turer like Saddam Hussein is?

    Reply
  19. TexasFred says:
    July 4, 2005 at 7:36 pm

    Dear GOD: I never knew you were men­tally chal­lenged… I was quot­ing your left­ist buddy, and you had to edit THAT quote just to serve YOUR pur­pose?? Sad dude…Sad..
    {TheKingOfSwing:
    “Does any­one think this won’t be used against, say, strik­ing work­ers or per­haps peace­ful demon­stra­tors? Look at how taz­ers and pep­per spray are used by cops on non-​​violent, non-​​belligerent citizens.”}

    Reply
  20. Wembley says:
    July 5, 2005 at 2:45 am

    The sug­gested coun­ter­mea­sures would only be effec­tive if they pro­vided 100% body cov­er­age — the beam cov­ers the entire body. Sparking may also be an issue.
    Nonlethals cre­ate many com­plex and sub­tle issues. I believe that attempts to deploy this before the safety ques­tions have been resolved and before there is a full under­stand­ing of the impli­ca­tions would be a mis­take.
    And yes, the hand-​​held ver­sion is already on the way; both the USMC and the NIJ are devel­op­ing their own ver­sions in con­junc­tion with Raytheon. Foreign ver­sions are only a mat­ter of time.
    And the ADS is mild com­pared to PEP. You have been warned.…

    Reply
  21. Myst says:
    July 5, 2005 at 5:56 am

    I think that this is already in use over­seas. It is prob­a­bly being tested on our ene­mies. It is trou­bling and raises a lot of con­cerns. I don’t see why our weapons labs can’t use reg­u­lar means to stop tress­passers, as they have been doing.
    The asser­tion that this type of ray reaches pre­cisely a cer­tain layer of the body and has such and exact and con­trol­lable effect is sus­pect.
    I believe that another low fre­quency elec­tro­mag­netic weapon was test­ing on Americans in urban areas. It’s prob­a­bly sim­i­lar, if not iden­ti­fcal to HARP used under water.
    The Earth, its ani­mals and its peo­ple are meant for other uses. These boys with their toys are out of control.

    Reply
  22. John Penta says:
    July 5, 2005 at 8:21 am

    For everybody’s sake, I really hope the lawyers take a closer-​​than-​​usual look at this before it gets deployed. Pro or anti, I don’t think any­body wants to think about the legal morass that’s going to be cre­ated by this thing.

    Reply
  23. adam says:
    July 5, 2005 at 11:51 am

    wouldnt this be a good fenc­ing mate­r­ial to keep us sheep contained.…..

    Reply
  24. GUY IN USA says:
    July 5, 2005 at 12:36 pm

    How about putting a net­work of these things on the bor­der with Mexico? I bet ille­gal immi­gra­tion would slow a bit..

    Reply
  25. cC says:
    July 5, 2005 at 9:59 pm

    My guess is that tol­er­ance for this will vary widely. Same as pep­per spray. I’m sure we’ll have a pill to pop that tem­porar­ily knocks out the viceral reac­tion to this device. No deter­rent is 100% effec­tive and I’d hate to meet the rare S O B in the crowd who can dis­as­so­ci­ate in response to pain. No doubt, in the same crowd there will be those who col­lapse in shock and die.
    America has the most bru­tal arse­nal on earth, we just can’t deploy it as well as we need to. Pain rather than destruc­tive power, it is interesting.

    Reply
  26. Floater says:
    July 6, 2005 at 12:39 am

    It IS inter­est­ing, yes…It is time we take off the ‘kid gloves’ and deal with the threats that are very real around us. Americans in gen­eral have not expe­ri­enced the death and may­hem that abounds in war. Barring the 11 Sep. dis­as­ter we, as a nation, have not been attacked in a mean­ing­ful way since Pearl Harbor. People look at the ‘insur­gents’ in Iraq and won­der how some­one can care enough about some­thing to be will­ing to die for it, yet they do not real­ize that the very same feel­ing once per­vaded their (okay, maybe not THEIR) fore-​​fathers to the point of birthing a new nation. America is based on doing the right thing. This doesn’t hap­pen per­fectly, noth­ing ever does, but at least we, as a nation, TRY. And the approach of using non-​​lethal weaponry is most def­i­nitely the first step in being a more ‘humane’ soci­ety. I ask: would you rather our troops just use ampli­fied microwaves and incin­er­ate the tar­gets?
    –Floater

    Reply
  27. Disturbed says:
    July 6, 2005 at 1:19 am

    “…described by test sub­jects as feel­ing like touch­ing a hot fry­ing pan,” and “no last­ing effects.“
    Yep. Once this device is made smaller, it will make a per­fect tor­ture device. By then, prob­a­bly either a Bush or a Clinton will have legal­ized gov­ern­ment tor­ture in another “Patriot Act.“
    Its a sad planet God has dropped us off on.

    Reply
  28. midwest says:
    July 6, 2005 at 3:40 am

    What are they think­ing mak­ing a weapon like this. I am all for free­dom and being from a mil­i­tary fam­ily have a com­plete under­stand­ing about being patri­otic. I am just not sure if this is to help keep our free­dom or take it away.
    I feel this weapon will be abused and it is a very bad idea.

    Reply
  29. Oz says:
    July 6, 2005 at 3:51 am

    TheKingOfSwing
    “Does any­one think this won’t be used against, say, strik­ing work­ers or per­haps peace­ful demon­stra­tors? Look at how taz­ers and pep­per spray are used by cops on non-​​violent, non-​​belligerent cit­i­zens.“
    We CAN hope… :)
    I am a mem­ber of that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy peo­ple like you love to blame every­thing on, now, go put your tin foil hat back on before we turn on the brain rays…
    Posted by: TexasFred at July 4, 2005 02:27 PM
    I’m with you, fred. At least it won’t be the .30 Browning mg’s that state police (Henry Ford) used on the mil­i­tant strik­ers at the Detroit plant.
    The point is, it WILL dis­perse a crowd. And it will do so with­out killing any­body. Somebody men­tioned water can­non, well, water absorbs microwaves very well, so that would off­set or pos­si­bly even negate the effect. The fire­hose will be needed, though, after the riot­ers SH** their pants.

    Reply
  30. Bob says:
    July 6, 2005 at 4:04 am

    “For everybody’s sake, I really hope the lawyers take a closer-​​than-​​usual look at this before it gets deployed. Pro or anti, I don’t think any­body wants to think about the legal morass that’s going to be cre­ated by this thing.“
    –Posted by: John Penta at July 5, 2005 08:21 AM
    I hope this thing is tested on lawyers!

    Reply
  31. Stanislav Petrov says:
    July 6, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    “… go put your tin foil hat back on before we turn on the brain rays…“
    History has shown that what­ever new weapon the U.S. devel­ops always falls into enemy hands. Let’s hope we aren’t all wear­ing tin­foil hats soon to defend against the chi­nese or israeli’s.

    Reply
  32. Carl says:
    July 6, 2005 at 5:54 pm

    Has every­one lost their minds so much that even when shown a non-​​lethal weapon to use in Iraq, or in gen­eral, peo­ple still recoil in hor­ror?? As an active duty mil­i­tary mem­ber, I ask all of you out there who are com­plain­ing AGAIN: what would you like us to do? Sing to them? Recite poetry and hope that they have a sud­den change of heart about loathing us? Time to wake up peo­ple. Televised decap­i­ta­tion, sui­cide bombers, and 9/​11 aside (because every­one seems to not notice all of that. They do notice a U.S. Marine shoot­ing an insur­gent and want to hang him because of it, though), this is still a war. In war, peo­ple die. That’s part of war. You peo­ple cry because insur­gents are killed. The gov­ern­ment devlops a non-​​lethal weapon, and you still cry. What do you want us to do? And before any­one e-​​mails me with “We should leave Iraq”.. I agree, but unfor­tu­nately that isn’t an option, and if it was, it would only cause every­thing to fall into more chaos. So all of you lit­tle babies that cry about insur­gents and riot­ers pos­si­bly being heated up tem­porar­ily from this weapon while not being phased by those same peo­ple who strap bombs to their chests and wipe out (as in KILL) entire pla­toons of American sol­diers, I chal­lenge you to come up with an accept­able alter­na­tive. E-​​mail me at FXDrummer@​aol.​com with some ideas if you’d like to dis­cuss it more.

    Reply
  33. John Williams says:
    July 8, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    Two com­ments: The Geneva Protocol of 1925 is not part of the Geneva Conventions — the only thing in com­mon is the Swiss city of Geneva.
    The Geneva Protocol can be con­sid­ered part of the Laws of War and never has been mod­i­fied or amended, except to include bio­log­i­cal weapons. It was not rat­i­fied until after VietNam, so it was not bind­ing on the U. S. in VietNam, where we admit­tedly used gas war­fare (CS and a liq­uid, Agent Orange), which now are ille­gal for use by mil­i­tary per­son­nel.
    Second com­ment: Some posters have com­plained that “we” have to “fol­low the rules” (= obey laws), while “they” don’t. Well, if “they” had the intel­li­gence to have rules to obey, they would be as advanced tech­no­log­i­cally as we are, and they surely would give us more trou­ble than now.
    Look at this in per­spec­tive: We kill about TWENTY TIMES as many each year in high­way and home acci­dents as died in the iso­lated event of 9–11. ONE HUNDRED or more times as many as just were killed in London.
    We lost about 100 times as many in World War II, a war in which all sides obeyed the rules and did not use gas. We were up against an enemy which, fear­somely, obeyed the rules.
    Be happy that we can obey the rules, and can trust oth­ers to stop at red lights.
    There is no excuse for ter­ror­ism, but the answer is not a mind­less aban­don of the rule of law.
    We have some­thing for them to attack because we obey the rules. Let’s keep it that way, and put up with a lit­tle harass­ment. And the love of the press to report tears more than facts.

    Reply
  34. Orville Redenbocker says:
    July 10, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    One obvi­ous coun­ter­mea­sure would be pop­corn ker­nel armor.

    Reply
  35. Sane Objector says:
    July 24, 2005 at 9:43 pm

    The sim­ple fact is that using a weapon like this against a crowd of peo­ple in iraq, is only going to increase sup­port for the resis­tance. Period. It will make the US look like a group of inhu­man mon­sters.
    The only way to win in Iraq is through psy­chol­ogy. We lost the first few rounds of the war by start­ing it with bold faced lies. We lost the sec­ond round by not build­ing infra­struc­ture. We will con­tinue to loose rounds if we deploy weapons like this. What a hor­ri­ble clusterf*ck. Thank you for con­tin­u­ing to back incom­pe­tent lead­ers and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive measures.

    Reply
  36. Idgie Robertson says:
    August 17, 2005 at 1:41 am

    What the hell is this: “95 GHz mil­lime­ter”? Uh, WTF? Over!
    I’d sure like to see a 95 giga­herts mil­lime­ter. I am just some­body stum­bling through your spiffy site, and am won­der­ing if you guys do your own tech­ni­cal edit­ing, or do you farm it out to trained lower pri­mates like NCOs?

    Reply
  37. stephen russell says:
    August 18, 2005 at 9:09 pm

    Lets place this on the US Mex bor­der for some
    Fried Tacos & Burritoes OK.
    Needed, now.
    Real Fun guys.
    Or use at the 2008 DNC event.
    Remember 1968 again!!!!!!

    Reply
  38. Anonymous says:
    January 9, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    On the one hand, it’s good to have non­lethal weapons — like spray­ing a cat in the face with water when they’re bad.
    On the other hand, I’d hate to see this get overused. Weaponry has become so unper­sonal lately that peo­ple kill and hurt with­out think­ing about it.

    Reply
  39. Jason Johnson says:
    January 21, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    I guess another weapon that the American Government can use on their own peo­ple to con­trol oppo­si­tion.
    The future’s so bright I have to wear shades!

    Reply
  40. Bobby Baxter, Veteran & Marijuana Felon says:
    May 21, 2006 at 1:49 am

    Another night­mare for the free world to fear. Who owns and con­trols this? Our good friends, the faces in the shad­ows. I under­tand that some of the Corporatists that are involved in this type of hor­ror are now implant­ing their ‘employ­ees’ with microchips. We’re next. What about those KBR Root/​Halliburton “deten­tion cen­ters”? Who is slated to reside in there? Where will this end? The peo­ple who work on these kinds of things are ene­mies of the Constitution and the peo­ple. This is not good.

    Reply
  41. Bobby Baxter, Veteran & Marijuana Felon says:
    May 21, 2006 at 1:49 am

    Another night­mare for the free world to fear. Who owns and con­trols this? Our good friends, the faces in the shad­ows. I under­tand that some of the Corporatists that are involved in this type of hor­ror are now implant­ing their ‘employ­ees’ with microchips. We’re next. What about those KBR Root/​Halliburton “deten­tion cen­ters”? Who is slated to reside in there? Where will this end? The peo­ple who work on these kinds of things are ene­mies of the Constitution and the peo­ple. This is not good.

    Reply
  42. Dr. Plausible Deniability says:
    January 23, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    One noisy neigh­bor next door with a stereo that they won’t turn down——-Not good.
    1—1 cheap 40.00 dol­lar wall­mart or mei­jer Microwave oven.
    2 Aquire 2years at Ivy Tech learn­ing elec­tron­ics.
    3 One night of fun in your base­ment mak­ing the gun from hell.
    4 aim at sound and switch on.
    The next day you enjoy the sound of silence.
    If they get a new stereo,
    repeat step 4

    Reply
  43. Iain says:
    October 6, 2007 at 8:45 am

    Sounds like a good idea until the first time its used on us cit­i­zens by either the mil­i­tary, police or a pri­vate secu­rity force. And after a while, either when the go-​​ahead is given to sell this over­seas (al-​​la shock batons, etc.) or the device is inevitably copied by some other coun­try we can see again just how inge­nious we can be at mak­ing life seri­ously unpleas­ant for ourselves.

    Reply
  44. Lee says:
    October 16, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Why can’t they make a gun that gets peo­ple off? nope its always pain first or let’s kill things first and when we can’t kill any­thing any­more we will find a civ­i­lized way to use this.
    For all the sup­ports of this gun.. well have fun when it’s used on you.

    Reply
  45. Bryan says:
    October 20, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    I have been shot by this. I got to see it at a trade show FPED VI. Leaves no marks. No after effects, just makes you feel a burn­ing pain fast and all you want to do is get out of the way. This could stop a riot quick. Real quick, before any­one gets hurt. It is not inhu­man. Damn tear gas and pep­per spray both have after effects. This is sythetic pain to your ner­vous sys­tem.
    I know this because I have tryed it first hand. Hell I have a video of me doing it.

    Reply
  46. IC says:
    January 31, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    It’s not just the ray­gun.
    What many of us fear is that the US is near the tip­ping point of facism.
    What side of the ray­gun will you be on?

    Reply
  47. JC says:
    April 5, 2008 at 9:28 am

    Frightening to say the least. What we are wit­ness­ing here is a new tool for domes­tic crowd con­trol. Keep your pow­der dry.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage