It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Pentagon’s new ray gun!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
The Active Denial System weapon, classified as “less lethal” by the Pentagon, fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds. The idea is that people caught in the beam will rapidly try to move out of it and therefore break up the crowd.



However, New Scientist magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes. In another test, they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.

This is completely Insane! How could the military/government expect this weapon to be classified "less lethal" when participants were banned from wearing glasses or contact lenses due to safety fears? Check your bodies, how many metal objects can you account for? Just imagine the intense heat because those objects will Burn-baby-Burn!

My fears could be the hidden agenda of our government to deploy this weapon within our homeland. If you're caught illegally protesting, let's say, in and around the year 2009....

You're as good as burnt TOAST! BzzzzBzzzzzzz!



[edit on 22-7-2005 by syntaxer]




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
In an anti-protestor roll I agree its a wee bit intense, but in a tactical situation its a dream come true, think of it, all kinds of vechiles could be incapacitated without any need to destroy.

As its Humvee mounted it could probably sneak up on an enemy position and make their aircraft so hot they couldnt be used, same with tanks and stuff.


In a military roll
in an anti-protesting roll



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I agree with Zan. This sounds like it would be good for a military weapon but not for an anti riot weapon. All the eye glasses and coins put aside, think of any medical devices that a civilian might have, pace maker, ect....

As a military weapon I could see it disableing equipment as well as troops. A less the leathal rateing does not mean it sould be any where close to being used to disperse a croud.

Or that is at least how I see it.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   


However, New Scientist magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes. In another test, they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.


Not to mention watches, rings, earrings, body piercings (may make some rethink piercing certain things, hehe...)...or the lack of any long term effects study or thinking....even to one exposure of this.

Anti-personnel
, Riot Crowd Control


I think it was Conan the other night who said something like, the only problem with a microwave weapon is getting them to stand on the little rotating tray....



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Thats a bit much innit?

Note to self: Before protesting remove ALL metal things.

And how many people will remember that one?

What if the protestors had mirrors? Wouldn't that reflect the heat?

Imagine that


Peace



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Good find


The author answered his own question:


How could the military/government expect this weapon to be classified "less lethal" when participants were banned from wearing glasses or contact lenses due to safety fears?

The removal of watches, rings etc..etc.. was for testing purposes....


magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico


And the military is always like that. Better safe than sorry for Testing purposes....Most of the time during a test, you would take extra steps to ensure safety, even something as simple as removing a watch. Better safe than sorry.

[edit on 22/7/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Cool... we've built an industrial strength microwave. Maybe this is part of a new "a chicken in every pot" campaign. Not to mention now we can finally accomplish our president's goal of creating the World's Largest Hot Pocket!



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I have a few points to make, first I don't belive anti-riot stuff needs to be painless. Hell, rubber bullets hurt like heack! The above poster is also correct, as they are only in the testing phase so we really can't comment on them not being allowed to wear glasses or metal. Like, what if they are trying out multiple ones and they are not sure wich setting is the least likely to cause your earings to heat up.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally by John Titor
Me: “ However, there are a great many “non lethal” weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal.” Anyone for microwave popcorn?

03/24/2001 06:19 pm


It's John Titor time!


One person suffered a burn in a previous test when the beam was accidentally used on the wrong power setting.

www.newscientist.com...


This thing has power settings above non-lethal?

[edit on 22-7-2005 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
We should put this on helicopters too and just cook our enemies with no collateral damage. It would only take a few seconds of high intensity output until the water molecules in you body boil causing you extreme pain and death.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
My fears could be the hidden agenda of our government to deploy this weapon within our homeland. If you're caught illegally protesting, let's say, in and around the year 2009....

You're as good as burnt TOAST! BzzzzBzzzzzzz!



I agree, referring to the article's few last lines, I find the particular placement of "police" rather peculiar: the placement after "marines" making it harder to discern between "military police" or "US domestic police".

A vehicle-mounted version of ADS called Sheriff could be in service in Iraq in 2006 according to the Department of Defense, and it is also being evaluated by the US Department of Energy for use in defending nuclear facilities. The US marines and police are both working on portable versions, and the US air force is building a system for controlling riots.


I've been following the applications of Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) being employed as possible countermeasures to US domestic crowd-control since Gools's Maximum Pain Weapon thread helped shed some light from the Sunshine project.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Vajrayana]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I certainly don't think it's a weapon of choice against Americans protesting their government.

But "less lethal" is relative; injuries to people, even those wearing glasses , watches, cell phones, pacemakers, etc. is probably less than injuries to people caused by M-60 machine guns or HELLFIRE missiles.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Nice



Check out India;s ray gun : Kali



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Any chance they could increase the heat output, stick it in orbit and use this to shoot down ICBM's or is this just wishfull thinking on my part?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
First Off,

95GHz is millimeter, not micro wave. This implies a lot of things including phenomenology attributes often more similar to IR than RF. You can jam RF. You can block it with metallic-smoke and some kinds of chaff.

In terms of 'police' (Law Enforcement) vs. military use, you are indeed sliding down a very slippery slope however.

1. Because of Weapon Mechanics issues.
Disabling a tank (which easily gets above 140` in Iraq anyway) with heat is pointless, not least because of the lack of water in Chobham to accelerate the process of 'energizing' such a dense mass.
2. Because of Psychologic Intimidation Factors.
'Crowd Control' is what happens when WTO protestors in Seattle are subjected to gas and chemical spray because one man busted out a window in a coffee bar. Decent policing would have people in the crowd able to take down the violator while covering each other. It's called one riot one ranger and it is the difference between forcing PEOPLE to acknowledge the difference between right and wrong. And succumbing to the mob psychology yourself in 'fearing the herde more than the feral bull'. In particular, WHAT HAPPENS when that 'one man' is in fact an agent-provocateur FOR THE GOVERNMENT?
Now you have just crossed the line between law enforcement and Orwellian social disenfranchisement with the system itself.
Something which a 'no permanent injury' device like this makes all the more simple /because/ it doesn't give the user a case of the guilts in using it for a wrong cause (i.e. it is the difference between gassing Jews and shooting them as a 'bad for morale' manipulation of torturer as much as torturee).
And it works both ways for, if nothing else, this kind of device also underlines the _justification for a contempt of engagement_ by which small, extranational 'paid insurgents' can continue to best-cause damage by leaving more and more explosive surprise packages behind. Since that which blows rather than pops up to engage you is the easiest way to kill a multimillion dollar vehicle, 'en passant'.

3. Because of Max Range issues.
People have /no idea/ how long the engagement ranges of modern 'force on force' battles can be. 1,000 meters (half a mile, clock it off on your odometer and then 'look back') is /nothing/.
There are no 'static' battlefields between massed armies anymore, not because individual targets are so vulnerable. But simply because you cannot bring them all together at equivalent ballistic overlap without running shy of direct-fire space.
OTOH, 'crowd control' is a mechanization of a few blocks standoff at most. Hence the idea that you are doing less harm because you need less force is implicit ONLY to the notion that the soft-target is also a soft-threat. And that means the wolves whose loyalty we buy with treasure-for-blood tax dollars, we can no longer guarantee the humility of once they have weapons that are ONLY useful if turned against us. At short range.
In this it is ironic, because the first thing I would do in Iraq is put into effect would be a 'Wyatt Earp' law equating to No Guns In Dodge.
But the Iraqi's, brutal exponents of of unconventional-warfare that they are, by /intimidating the U.S. forces/ from shooting every man who dares to bear arms are proving a kind of Hill Billy Logic that those who have guns are not 'eligible' for engagement by anything but lethal force. And so will not be engaged lest their massed slaughter be seen as 'cruel and unusual'.
And even a Knee Mortar or RPG probably challenges as much the acquisition system as the 'fires' delivery means of this device.


CONCLUSION:
Bad as it is, industrial technologic combat is at least honest in it's horrific nature and a 'sport war' which only experts can play at. Forcing us all to make continuous moral choices about whether the goal and the risk are mutually compatible or unthinkable.

I think we will rue the day when war becomes so easy that a general has no more 'can do!' fear of the occupation than he does the 'active combat' 10% of it's initial military rollover of the existing government.

And weapons like the active denial system will make it all the harder for 'protests at home' (Kent State with a millimeter wave gun, better or worse?) to become so ardent as to shock-awake those who would otherwise just sleep through the intermission in human decency we call 'just war'.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
It would be fairly useless as a military weapon, as its a large target, cannot destroy other vehicles, and has no destructive capacity. It cant even engage targets with heavy clothing or hiding behind anything metalic.

You folks need to stop assuming the government is trying to purposely keep us submissive and just see what occurs during a riot, because it gets mighty ugly and the police are at a loss to stop it. This would be effective, if it can used against enough people and with suffeciently strong force.

Send that thing into a combat zone, and someone will nail it with an RPG since it cant quickly defend itself.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I was thinking this system could easily be defeated. For instance you could simply put on some aluminum to deflect the waves.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RK_Pr0t0c0l
I was thinking this system could easily be defeated. For instance you could simply put on some aluminum to deflect the waves.


Grunt #1: Hey Joe, that guy running towards us is wearing tinfoil! What the hell is the matter with him? Must be a bad guy. Blast him!

Grunt #2: Gotcha. Hasta la vista scumbag!



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RK_Pr0t0c0l
I was thinking this system could easily be defeated. For instance you could simply put on some aluminum to deflect the waves.


This guy has known all along.



I guesss the real issue would be how to generate such power. So it seems very unlikely in the near future that any nation will have weapons capable of shooting down ICBMs by way of laser, phaser or microwave.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
most people dont see how to aplicate a idea into the industrial level, you dont need to go like a crazy with aluminium over you body, instead you can use special paint or internal Al layer in the clotes, but i think that with conventional clotes could be enough at such frecuency

the energy disipation must be huge, i mean, look the size of the reflector

anyway i think that such device wont be great, i mean MW or IR frecuency arent great stuff one coud be worried of visible-UV spectre, anyway how many shoots can be done with batteries -even with a generator-


i think that this isnt a maser, instead a powerful magnetron or something like that

the best that you can do is to use as a industrial military secret....pop corn machine


chemical energy rules!!!!!


[edit on 22-8-2005 by grunt2]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join