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.

 

Active Denial System NOT Nonlethal, It Can Kill

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The U.S. military promoted this system as a form of crowd control that would only make the target feel a burning sensation on the surface of the skin. Apparently it can be dialed up to a lethal level that kills the subjects it's aimed at.



Lately, Gaubatz has been pushing another eye-opening assertion. Earlier this month, Gaubatz claimed that the Active Denial System, the military's allegedly-nonlethal "heat ray," is really a killer weapon, after all. It's an allegation that, if true, would mean the entire public face of the program is a cover up of sorts. Gaubatz says he saw first hand the military testing the ray gun on... goats.


blog.wired.com...



I can just bet police services are looking at this weapon with a bit of drool slipping from their lips. I wonder how long it will be before this is used on demonstrators that protest against their government, or systems like this are in place at sensitive facilities like the White House or embassies ???


Further from the link posted above:


Gaubatz: They’d bring the animals in, put them in the pens. They'd put curtains down, or a wall, to see if [the beam] could go through walls. And it would. You can go to different degrees; you can do nonlethal. But it was not designed as nonlethal.




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Dang shame that muli-million dollar unit can be rendered useless with some cardboard and tinfoil.


It appears Titor may have been right, inasmuch as he was talking about "non-lethal weapons", being anything but.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
The U.S. military promoted this system as a form of crowd control that would only make the target feel a burning sensation on the surface of the skin.


It doesn't take much genius to figure out that 'burning' means burning.

Of course, once it melts away the sensory nodes you won't feel it anymore, so perhaps they are correct in the description - you'll feel a burning sensation, and thats because you're being burned.

Alarm bells were ringing at "U.S Military".

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Well actually it is better to have 1 weapon capable of both lethal and non lethal then 2 weapons 1 non lethal and 1 lethal.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Sweet! Fry 'em up!

I honestly think this device plays more fear-factor than anything else. You see this thing roll up to you, there's no chance in heck you want to get microwaves to the face.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
How does Mr. Gaubatz know that the weapon wasn't designed for non-lethal applications? Is he a telepath who can read the designers' minds? Just because a weapon is intended to be non-lethal, and perhaps even designed as a non-lethal system, doesn't mean that it *can't* kill you, only that it's not very likely to. "Beanbag" rounds, rubber bullets, mace, tear gas, and tasers were all *designed* to be non-lethal, but every one of them has caused at least one death in spite of that.

Personally, I think I'd rather see them developing a weapon that can deal with a crowd in ways that give everybody a chance to walk (or run) away. This microwave-based system may not be totally non-lethal, but it seems a lot less lethal than the alternatives...you know, things like gas, buckshot, and automatic rifles?



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   
As if Gaubatz has a shred of credibility, and as if this thing was fundamentally any different at all from tear gas grenades. People have had those for decades, and sometimes they're used for breaking up anti-government riots, and sometimes they aren't. Depends on the government and the time. This thing is just a bit less imprecise, and doesn't make everyone on the non-burning end wear gas masks.

I'd rather take a quick blast from this thing than take a face and lungful of tear gas. This at least stops burning in a timely fashion when you aren't getting hit.

I can see it causing stampedes, though, and getting people killed that way. Panicked people are ruthless, and WILL trample other people to death to get away.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
i think it's the most awful shame that people think it's ok that some group of people are making weapons to control others.... who gave anyone the right to harm people, i can't believe we all sit here going oh, it's the military, well thats ok then! if some nut job created something like this and started frying crowds of people he'd be publicly hung!!

some of the people in our governments are guilty of the most disgusting crimes and we sit here and take it like a bunch of lemmings! weather or not this thing was made to mame, kill, or just sting a bit, it's still an atrocity!



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Who gave the mobs any right to harm people? Usually when riots and mobs form, they cause harm and damage to others uncontrollably.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
who gave anyone the right to harm anyone? and to be honest i was talking about protesters in general, people who try and defend human rights etc, the powers that be are taking away our freedom of speech inch by inch, you can't speak out against government without being branded a terrorist! what happens when innocent civillians are killed over someone elses argument? is that ok? is war ok, is it ok that we can't say anything for fear of getting gassed/ shot and now burned?

whatever anyway man!


Realism out!



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by realism
 


Ask George Washington about crowd control.
We could resort to pillows, but that be inviting more chaos.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
What are you talking about? I speak up against the government all the time without a care in the world. A CIA agent can walk up to me tomorrow and ask me what I think and I'll let them know.

It's genuine consensus that Americans as a whole (70 percent) are not happy with the administration. That's a lot of people (for whoever participated in the polls).

I don't know about you, but I've always retained the same freedoms I've had since birth.

I think you're confusing conveniences for freedoms.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by realism
who gave anyone the right to harm anyone? and to be honest i was talking about protesters in general, people who try and defend human rights etc, the powers that be are taking away our freedom of speech inch by inch, you can't speak out against government without being branded a terrorist! what happens when innocent civillians are killed over someone elses argument? is that ok? is war ok, is it ok that we can't say anything for fear of getting gassed/ shot and now burned?

whatever anyway man!


Realism out!



The hell kind of crazy alternate universe do you live in where england is like that? From out here, it looks like your government is rather dull and ineffectual and so overly concerned over the safety of it's citizens that it bans stupid things like those ridiculous star trek swords and such. Even here in america, you can say whatever the hell you want without being branded a terrorist. The media runs enough anti-government pieces that the right-wingers accuse the media of a massive leftist conspiracy, while the leftists complain that the media is controlled by the government. Doesn't seem like england is any different.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
whats with the hostility over here? i wasn't talking about england, i was talking about the world as a whole, the human race as a whole... however you want to dress it up or however political you want to get bottom line is, hurting people is wrong, whoever is doing it! and i live on the same planet as you i just don't like what i see sometimes!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
and if you want to talk about the british government that should be a whole other thread! it's not how you think, the amount of laws you have to avoid just to get through a day here is stupid, don't smoke, don't park there, don't fart, pay your taxes, all of them, we have to pay just to drive through london!.. the reason they are in place has very little to do with our safety and wellbeing! it's more to do with our control and the governments money pot. and don't even get me started on the 10p tax! i don't know how other people from england feel, but freedom? really? i think not!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I can just bet police services are looking at this weapon with a bit of drool slipping from their lips. I wonder how long it will be before this is used on demonstrators that protest against their government, or systems like this are in place at sensitive facilities like the White House or embassies ???

Your ok with them owning belt fed machine guns, high power rifles and claymore mines but a microwave weapon frightens you?

Interesting use of microwaves....though I'm leaning towards the sound weapon myself its interesting to see...



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
"we have to pay just to drive through london!"

And as a London resident, I'm all in favour of the congestion charge - we need a lot less cars in central London.

The police here are unlikely to get the ADS though (too expensive), luckily they tend to go for the verbal solution first and aren;t as fond of Tasers/Pepper spray/pump-action shotguns as their US counterparts.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
not sure that charging people more money is the only way... we need less cars everywhere, not just in london, but when i pay my tax/ insurance etc i find it a bit frustrating that i have to pay extra for driving through London or toll bridges and such. sorry to be off topic but it really quite annoys me!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by realism
not sure that charging people more money is the only way... we need less cars everywhere, not just in london, but when i pay my tax/ insurance etc i find it a bit frustrating that i have to pay extra for driving through London or toll bridges and such. sorry to be off topic but it really quite annoys me!


Well it's a might hypocritical to want less cars everywhere, but to complain about a tax levied to cause exactly that. It might not be a graceful solution, because it'll disproportionally affect the poor and lower middle class, but it's a solution. Not to mention it costs money to upkeep bridges and roads. I'm not fond of tolls, but then again, I don't own a car, and get by with a bike.

If there are to be less cars about, there are going to be a lot of frustrated and inconvienced people.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
The U.S. military promoted this system as a form of crowd control that would only make the target feel a burning sensation on the surface of the skin. Apparently it can be dialed up to a lethal level that kills the subjects it's aimed at.


And you just described about 99.9999% of the "nonlethal" weapons out there. ANY weapon can kill, or cause severe injury.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join