Home » Cyber » Lasers and Ray Guns » Pain Ray’s Burning Questions

Pain Ray’s Burning Questions

by david_axe on February 5, 2007

When controversial new military tools are being rolled out, perceptions often matter more than reality. Take the Active Denial System, the millimeter-wave pain ray developed by the Air Force. The weapon’s effects are now pretty well understood by military researchers. But for the average person, it’s been nearly impossible to sort through the range of claims and counter-claims surrounding the system. And these questions could come back to haunt the American government, if and when they ever deploy the system.
ads new.jpgI was powerfully reminded of this by the recent case of Raul Castells.
Raul Castells is a controversial social activist in Argentina. In 2004 he organised a march on McDonalds ; in March 2006 he opened a community kitchen providing free food for poor people in Puerto Madero, a swish redeveloped dock area. Located opposite the Hilton Hotel, it carried the slogan “We are fighting for an Argentina in which the dogs of the rich don’t eat better than the children of the poor”.
This behavior has angered some of his opponents in Argentina.
On December 12th, Castells was in a scuffle with the police which resulted in his being hospitalised with serious burns over 20% of his body.
I was victim of a new Police weapon, a type of flame thrower, said Castells (my translation). In fact, he was not sure if it was a flamethrower,a giant lighter or something else. Others claim that rubber bullets were fired at them after they went to help the burning man.
The police dispute the account given by Castells and his followers, saying that he was hit by a molotov cocktail thrown by one of his own supporters.
The Buenosairean and Federal Police do not use flame throwers, said a police spokesman, reasonably enough.
My first guess was that this was an accident, and that Castells had been hit with pepper spray which had been accidentally ignited. Such sprays use a flammable alcohol base; non-flammable alternatives have been rejected on grounds of safety, effectiveness and environmental damage. However, the police deny using pepper spray in the encounter.
This leaves two completely opposed versions of what happened. Who do you believe, the police or the protesters? While the days of the dirty war and critics of the government being ‘disappeared’ have long gone, the police are not universally trusted and officers have been convicted of extra-judicial executions of protesters as recently as 2002.
Im not suggesting that the Argentine police are covertly field-testing an Active Denial system (though a portable version for police use was under development, and the Argentine police are quite innovative, being the first to adopt the electric cattle prod in the 1930s ). But when the ADS is employed, people will turn up on CNN claiming to be victims, and showing off sunburn, leprosy, blisters and every other skin condition ever seen. Who will you believe? More importantly, who will the local population believe?
Dr Juergen Altmann suggests that prolonged exposure would likely produce high temperatures resulting in blistering over the entire exposed surface of the body. Clearly there is a risk, but re-radiation of heat outwards, and conduction of heat inwards will prevent the temperature from rising indefinitely. I have great respect for Dr Altmanns technical knowledge in matters nonlethal, but the lack of this kind of injury during extensive testing leads me to suspect that the ADS is (relatively) safe.
Consider: if you step into warm sun from an air conditioned room, in a few seconds your skin temperature shoots up several degrees. This does not mean the solar heating will cause you to burst into flames if you remain for a few more minutes.
But who is really right? Until questions like this can be resolved, any deployment of Active Denial technology is going to be a political minefield.
– David Hambling

Share |

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Nicholas Weaver February 5, 2007 at 11:10 am

Two questions:
Did you get a chance to feel it during the recent demo day?
Any luck on trying to get it as a reality show? I’m thinking the Jackass crew would make great targets. Or perhaps as part of the Surreal Life games or something like that (nothing like nuking a D-list celebrity for humor value).

Reply

Nicholas Weaver February 5, 2007 at 11:12 am

Actually, one other possibility for your TV idea:
Try to get the Mythbusters to play with it. Imagine them trying to fry pigs, zapping each other, etc etc etc etc etc.

Reply

David Hambling February 5, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I couldn’t make it to Georgia on short notice, so I missed the event. In any case, I am a little cynical about staged events. (I guess we have all seen products which worked wonderfully in the demonstation, but when you try them yourself…)
I have no doubt that the ADS will be completely safe when used as directed in the sort of scenarios it is designed for.
The big question is what happens when it is used in a real environment without the controls and calm state of mind that prevail in a demonstration. It will probably be safe and effective — the USAF are not idiots and they have spent a lot of time, money and effort ensuring that it is. What the sceptics like Dr Altmann would like to see is independent testing and a relase of more technical information than the Air Force is likely to provide.
So until then, it will be like the Castells case: (alleged) victim’s word against (alleged) perpetrator.

Reply

Phoenix Insurgent February 5, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Great blog, by the way. I check it almost every day.
As for this new technology, I want to point out that we should not forget the political context in which it has been developed and will be deployed: namely, global capitalism and the attempt by a small elite to dominate the planet and its peoples. So, it should be said that increased power and flexibility in the arsenals of the police and military ought to be opposed because it increases the ability of the ruling class to project its power and, therefore, to achieve its goals. Focusing on the alleged reduced lethality of the weapon obscures the goals of the class that developed it.
This technology is woefully in need of broader debate than the mainstream media is capable of providing. So, at the risk of awkwardly pimping my own work, I suggest this piece I wrote on the technology at my own blog.
All seriousness aside for a moment, I live in Phoenix and I have to wonder if this weapon will have any effect at all in the summer (other than perhaps causing a refreshing breeze)…
The army’s non-lethal imperialism
http://phoenixinsurgent.blogspot.com/2007/01/armys-non-lethal-imperialism-coming.html

Reply

Dr. Curiosity February 5, 2007 at 5:45 pm

I find myself wondering how well it would work in a “pulsed” mode, like the shock from an electric fence. That might be enough of a warning to get people to move out of an area while lessening the overall intensity of the pain they feel.
Of course, this does to some extent rely on the how quickly the pain sensation cycles through the nervous system. They might have to tweak the frequency and pulse width to find an effective level.

Reply

stephen russell December 28, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Use this on US Mexican border & next major riot.
Or use in Prison riots.
Good TrialRun Test.
We need some system like this anyplace.
Give it a longer range:800 yards.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: