Pentagon to use directed energy weapons in iraq!

www.rense.com...

Above is a link to the story although i remember reading about a microwave energy tank being used in iraq already [trying to find the story]
Seems that this could be a testing ground for new tech. what do u think?

www.rense.com...

although a yahoo search found others as well I liked this one the best.

Just melt your enemies, tanks, men, guns, etc. Horribly cool.

just sounds horrific to me. probably illegal although when has international law or the geneva convention stopped the us anyway

Exactly why should the US allow international law or the Geneva conventions to deter us from fighting an enemy that has NEVER respected either? Have you ever heard the term fight fire with fire? I have and I agree. The best way to fight these bastards is by being bastards ourselves.

God bless America and Allah curse the Muslims (or at least those Muslims too stupid to be anything but a zealot!).

And, if you read the first posted article, the US is trying to find non-lethal ways of dealing with these scum-buckets.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Mr No One]

There are several threads on ATS which deal with active denial technology. The fact is these are non lethal weapons systems which have the potential to save lives rather than take them.
In my opinion tear gas should be deployed in Iraq, but this would violate the CW treaty. Strange isn't it the police can use it on us but we can't use it in foreign lands.

To hell with treaties, when you are fighting an enemy who signs up to the treaty then adhere to it, if they are not signed up then use what u want. They will.

Damn straight munro_dreadgod & thanks for the assist there mad scientist. I am fed up to here (holds hand above head) with people like arnold_vosloo who ignore the reality of the situations we face just to cry "America is a big meanie"

i agree with what every 1 is saying about regimes around the world not adearing to geneve contvention and all other treaties and all other regulations but they rules are there to set an example ,ever heard of this, u may be the law but dosnt mean ur above it, we need to uphold all of this for the greater gd of every 1 ,but fair enough fight fire with fire but mybe a little water should be used instead ,ever heard of dangling a carrot

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
just sounds horrific to me. probably illegal although when has international law or the geneva convention stopped the us anyway

Why??? How is a directed energy weapon really any diffrent than a bullet or other conventional round at the end of the day? I dont really see how there is any difference in our soldiers taking a hostile threat out with a rifle, air support, artillery, or a directed energy beam, laser or whatever else works as long as it does.


I have always read the US is really working on developing non leathal weapons that take advantage of directed energy technology and as others have already stated this will save lives instead of taking them.

Guess its down to a decision when to take lethal action. More pressure on the command structure.

IMO taking lethal action with a directed energy weapon is no different than taking lethal action with a rifle, cannon, tank etc... just as taking non lethal action with a directed energy weapon would be no different than shooting someone with a bean bag, or rubber bullet, or using tear gas to disperse a crowd.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by boosted]

A bullet kills what you aim at the kind of weapons possibly being talked about here could kill 100's Civilians included hence the 'but'. Although i don't disagree with your thinking.

Directed energy is the way to go full stop

But time we started melting these suckers with particle beams. And as far as I am concerned there is no international law that says no direct energy weapons. And when your enemy wants to fight from mosques and fill it up with little girls. We have every right to use direct energy weapons. Nice decision by the Pentagon

now if they could just scale the second weapon up to a giant scale somthing that could be mounted in orbit. Orbital bombardmant mooohahaah..... First it fires a hight energy laser pulse to force the air out of the way of the beam and as you know energy travels well in near vaccum states. Then have that energy weapon fire down the hole the laser just shot. Then you have a good way to just blast them all day long with no threat to ground or air troops

By Mr No One-

Exactly why should the US allow international law or the Geneva conventions to deter us from fighting an enemy that has NEVER respected either? Have you ever heard the term fight fire with fire? I have and I agree. The best way to fight these bastards is by being bastards ourselves.

Interestin Mr No One.....And i thought the US always takes the moral high ground....
Its very disappointing to see americans wishing death on a single religous group in an almost gleeful way...
You r a disgrace to americans and r nothing more than a religous bigot and a warmonger....

Surely you can only take the moral highground when the other guy has morals?

Here's a previous thread on the subject :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MACROSVIII
Interestin Mr No One.....And i thought the US always takes the moral high ground....
Its very disappointing to see americans wishing death on a single religous group in an almost gleeful way...
You r a disgrace to americans and r nothing more than a religous bigot and a warmonger....

Are you kidding me? What moral highground is there with these people? As Munro said, you can only take the moral highground with people that have morals.

And if I am a warmongering bigot for wishing death on people who wish death upon me, then so be it. I never claimed to be better than anyone else. Let me know your opinion when these worthless wastes of oxygen and space kill someone that you know, or devastate a town near where you live (or better yet, THE town where you live). Or even if they come after you personanlly. Let's hear about your moral highground then? I pray this doesn't happen, but if it does come back and preach then - if you can.

My guess is, you are one of the bleeding heart liberals who spend the vast majority of their time shut away from reality so you can see the "best" way to handle everything without every experiencing it first hand. Its so much easier to claim you are better than everyone else from the tippy top of your white castle.

i do not want to misinterpret ur reply...but from what i can see u approve the war on Iraq despite the fact that Iraq does not (and did ot before the war) have the capability of striking American Assets, whether they are CBG's or any heavily forward bases in the region, since they no longer had an air force, never had a navy, and had a mere shadow of the army they had before the gulf war (first). On top of this they had no ICBM's, no real MRBMs, just Scuds and a few chemical rockets. The truth is that Iraq was not a real threat to the US, at least in comparison with N. Korea....
...Yet we seem to find talks just fine, even when international observers were kicked out...
The double standard we hold wears thin to me...