Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US Army: We won't use ray gun, because it's not lethal.

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   


I do understand that the "enemy" is out to kill, regardless of the reasons bestowed on them, so to make it fair they must fight fire with fire.

You would NEVER be able to legally use this on an Animal, so why a person?.. or why not a person.
This would be ideal for insurgency? Hurt and apprahend the "enemy", so no one is killed and no family member is pissed because their relative was killed and not seeking murderous revenge.

I can this being tested on the streets of America, before over seas.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Lovely. All those test subjects will get cancer now.

I guess they gotta test this stuff somehow.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


"We tried many ways to beat it but the ray-gun always won."

lol, they tried a sheet of wood and a bed mattress. Try a METAL parabolic dish.


Very interesting video though. I didn't know this type of weapon existed.

I bet it causes cellular damage.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Text This is actually one of the U.S. government's better ideas. It's a little mean of course, but if a rioting situation grew out of control, it would be better to establish order in a way that didn't kill anyone.

But, of course, no one wants to use a weapon that doesn't create mass murder. That would screw up their population control plots. Sucks.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Hence my comment above yours.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Well.. normally it wont kill,but prolonged exposure acts like a microwave oven cooking something. Or the power can be increased to cause more pain. I know use it and when they are writhing in pain shoot them dead. They could go back to mogadishu now and use it on the crowds this time. OR better yet. Mount this on a c-130 and use it on the entire city at one time.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Lovely. All those test subjects will get cancer now.

I guess they gotta test this stuff somehow.

i doubt there will be any real testing just the bullcrap manipulated results from military contractors



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


"We tried many ways to beat it but the ray-gun always won."

lol, they tried a sheet of wood and a bed mattress. Try a METAL parabolic dish.


Very interesting video though. I didn't know this type of weapon existed.

I bet it causes cellular damage.


Haha thats exactly why they wont use it, people will smarten up and reflect the weapon right back at the troops. What a waste of tax payer dollars, how many millions do you think they wasted on this?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Seems like the after effects could come back to bite the US military if they ever decided to deploy it. Saw a recent little experiment done by a child that boiled water on a stove, and microwaved water in the microwave, let both cool down and then watered two identical plants with each. Within three days the plant given the microwaved water was completely dead, which suggests microwaves could be changing the structure of water to make it harmful. They say radio waves, but that's still radiation right? Given what a home microwave can do to water to make it lethal to a plant, god knows what this could do to a person over time. After all up 60% of the human body is comprised of water and 70% of the brain. Scary thought my friends.

On another note, and I'm sure some of you will disagree, I support lethal force more than nonlethal. When you cause pain to an enemy, that's usually going to make them want to come back and hurt you. Moreso if your 'less lethal' means left lasting aftereffects and maimed one of their comrades on some level. Everyone understands lethal force in war, and while I don't support the military's decision for being in the middle east, I can understand why this is the opinion. There's lasting after effects for every conflict, but let's face it, a bullet permanently ends the threat of that human being attacking you. Perhaps I'm a bit biased as a rape victim, because there's been times in my life I wish I would have been simply killed instead of what happened to me, but perhaps in some instances death is more humane than a lifetime of suffering caused by 'less lethal' efforts. How much LESS lethal is it really?





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join