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.

 

Military Lies to 60 Minutes about Non-Lethal Ray Gun

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Military Lies to 60 Minutes about Non-Lethal Ray Gun


portland.indymedia.org

FP: Ok, so let's crystallize this: the Ray Gun has been reported by 60 Minutes and Pentagon officials as a non-lethal weapon. You're saying this is completely false?

Gaubatz: The Ray Gun was designed as a lethal weapon. During my conversation with Ms. Mary Walsh, she advised she was told by Pentagon officials the Ray Gun had been tested on animals. I was very surprised to hear this because Pentagon officials have just confirmed animals are used for testing of weapons such as the Ray Gun at Kirtland AFB. I coordinated the security when the truck loads of animals were being brought in during the middle of the night. Dead animals can't speak, but if a goat or 500 pound cow can be killed almost instantly with the Ray Gun, then I believe most readers can safely assume a 175 pound man or woman could also die instantly from the intense heat.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
With this weapon the war COULD be OVER. 4.000 American troops and many thousands of Iraqis did not need to DIE.

portland.indymedia.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


How would this weapon end the war? All I see is a new way to kill people.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
WE NEED TO START ASKING MORE QUESTIONS

FP: Why did 60 Minutes provide this information to the country without double checking it? They are putting our soldiers' lives in greater danger, no?

Gaubatz: I want to believe Ms. Mary Walsh had good intentions and believed the information she was being provided was accurate. Ms. Walsh knows the 60 Minutes story is now false and Pentagon officials lied to her. The big question is rather: will 60 Minutes admit they made a huge mistake which continues to put our soldier's lives in danger everyday. Each day that goes by and another soldier dies should weigh heavily on every member of 60 Minutes. Each mother who is handed a letter from a Pentagon official advising their son or daughter was killed in Iraq, should write a letter to Mary Walsh and ask her how she can continue not to reveal the truth.

I can sleep easy at night because I have always brought out the truth in regards to issues in Iraq. Can Mary Walsh, David Martin (60 Minutes), and the Pentagon officials?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Read the article that I linked. Dave Gaubatz explains it better than I could.
Here it is again
portland.indymedia.org...

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Muundoggie]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


Again, I am having trouble connecting the dots. How is this story putting soldiers lives at risk? I don't get it.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Well, don't you think this weapon would make the terrorists think twice if they could not reach their intended target to blow up themselves and whoever is near them?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


I don't think it would deter me any more than the threat of being shot would. I would almost rather prefer a death ray over a bullet to be honest.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


There you go. I just used my death-ray on you from 1/2 mile away. I'm alive and your, well fried.
Now I would hope your "buddies" will have second thoughts about attacking me and my friends since I have the capability to fry them too from 1/2 mile away but I would rather they just stay away.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Muundoggie]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

2nd example: When our soldiers are engaged in a firefight which often last hours and days, and results in many deaths from both sides, it would benefit our soldiers if we could use the Ray Gun. The Ray Gun can send a signal at least a football field in width from a long distance from the target and take out (kill) hundreds of enemies within a few seconds. Few if any American troops would need to die.

Many of the suicide attacks and firefights are in towns, cities, and residential, business areas. If the honest Iraqis knew we had a weapon that would kill everyone within a city block if an attack on American troops was made, the honest Iraqis would begin forcing the terrorists and their supporters out.

FP: So the Ray Gun is a PC problem right?

Gaubatz: Yes, the Ray Gun is a major political correctness problem. A weapon that can instantly kill entire battalions is not a weapon our politicians believe the American people could accept. If the Pentagon officials were to speak with a mother, father, wife, or other loved ones who died a very painful death by one of the terrorisst, they may disagree with the politicians.


That weapon is too poweerful. It looks like the end of this cycle of human civilization is actually coming to an end. If this is true, the Pentagon has avoided to deploy this weapon in order to protect the entire planet. the moment this thing htis the battlefield and there is a report of its given area, it will become the prime treasure sought by every militia, government, intelligence and security agency o the planet, and they will stop at nothing to acquire it.

If one gun is siezed by terrorists, it could very well be smuggled out and utilized to destroy whole government administrations. You could knock out every Presidential candidate and countless citizens of any nation without having to be in a position to be compromised.

If indeed this is true then my dear friends, this cycle of humanity has been fun I guess. Even if it is kept bunkered for the duration of the war, it would noyl be a few decades at most before the tech either is discovered by another, or is leaked out. People will begin to die randomly by the thosands all across the planet at any given time.

Now, these particualr media sources have tended to sensationalize and bend the truth more often than is accepted. Very possible this is nothing more than the fantastical imagination of an editor looking for more ad revenue.

There really is not much hope left if this is true though. Repressing the technology will not stop it from eventually hitting the hands of evil. It would just be a matter of time.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


Sadly I agree with you, It is very powerful. But just remember, the A bomb was dropped twice and not since then has any government been willing to use it again (those that have it). I can't guess what would happen if some crazy terrorist or unstable regime got a hold of one.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muundoggie
Now I would hope your "buddies" will have second thoughts about attacking me and my friends since I have the capability to fry them too from 1/2 mile away but I would rather they just stay away.

If his 'buddies' are willing to die for their cause, then I don't think it's really going to matter to them how they're going to die. These are groups of people who already know they're vastly out-numbered and out-gunned by the US military machine, but they fight anyway. A new weapon will not make a lick of difference.

No offence to the OP, but what kind messed up logic is required to come to the conclusion that if we make a weapon powerful enough it will end all war. I thought we'd already learned this lesson with nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction.

Don't forget, anything 'we' develop is going to end up in 'their' hands eventually.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
every new "super weapon" in history was created with the mindset "well we'll only have to use it once and all wars will be too terrible to fight"

tnt
chemical weapons
nuclear weapons


and, we're still fighting wars.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
What happens when this weapon malfunctions or there isn't a competent operator behind the controls? The potential for misuse is too great with such a weapon. I can already assume something like this would be added to an airplane's underbelly and flown over villages/centers that are purported to hold insurgents as well as civilians.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 



im not worried about the incompetance so much as i am just someone getting trigger happy and pulling a "lets do the whole f'n village"

too many people with the "a weapon unused is a useless weapon" mentality



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muundoggie
Well, don't you think this weapon would make the terrorists think twice if they could not reach their intended target to blow up themselves and whoever is near them?


I would agree with that, but when the terrorist is from within, how do you stop that? When the real terrorist owns the Ray Gun, how do you stop that? The real terrorists are this Administration.
Again, if there were actual terrorists wanting to 'destroy our freedom' in this country... and they wanted to attack us here... it would have happened already since 911. So far... nada. With our open border to the south, our unsecure ports and the incompetence in this country, an attack most certainly would have been attempted and been successful if this was a real threat. Through our actions, however, it now is a real threat... as they now have a real reason to hate US.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


How would this weapon end the war? All I see is a new way to kill people.



I'm not particularly interested in protecting the OP's case, but this technology represents an entire branch of new electronic warfare systems - imagine when you're playing C&C 3 or something, and you've just researched rail-gun technology (not that i'm saying this is similar in any way shape or form to a railgun).

If work was put into it, this same technology would have other uses - such as Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Ballistic Missile technology.

If this starts becoming used more and more often, we'll probably end up looking at ballistics as somewhat primitive in comparision.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Even for security purposes these would be great - a single 'ray gun' fitted to an aircraft would be able to shoot down anti-air missiles and even enemy fighters.

You can imagine how worthwhile this technology would be if fitted onto, say - a black hawk helicopter, where it can stop those damned Rocket-propelled grenades in their tracks.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
uh, i wouldn't want to be near one of these things.

one word: sidelobes



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   
This seems like an impressive weapon for traditional warfare. The sad thing is, it doesn't change a thing for guerilla warfare. This won't do anything to slow down suicide bombers and it will have zero effect on IED's.

It will be useful in the begining phase of warfare, but I don't see how it will help our current situation. It's not like we struggled during the traditional portion of this war anyways though, so I don't see how it is a significant addition. Maybe when we finally go to war with China, it will help counter their superior numbers.

I see what you are saying about the C&C 3 analogy. Yes, in that regard it is a significant milestone. My arguement early on in the thread was simply that I don't see how it will help us in this war. I certainly don't see how it would "end the war" as was suggested.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join