backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 115 comment(s) - last by Eris23007.. on Dec 7 at 7:08 PM

ADS ACTD System 1 mounted on a Hummer -- Image courtesy Wired News
The Air Force's non-lethal Active Denial System is ready to rock

The United States Air Force has certified a new weapon that will be used on the ground against insurgents in Iraq. The $40 million USD Active Denial System (ADS) took ten years to develop and is a non-lethal weapon that shoots millimeter waves at offending parties.

The beams fired by the ADS feature 3mm wavelengths as opposed to a 12cm wavelength used in an average household microwave oven. As a result of the shorter wavelengths, the weapon does not represent a radiation risk to victims and will not impose long-lasting damage in most cases.

Human volunteers (active, reserve and retired military personnel) subjected to the beam felt immediate and immense pain from the ADS weapon. The beam causes a person to feel that he or she is on fire and triggers a "flight" response. A result, Air Force officials say that the weapon has what is called the "Goodbye effect" meaning that subjects turn tail and run. "If hit by the beam, you will move out of it -- reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to experience it again," reported one test subject.

Tests on the volunteers revealed that most subjects reached their threshold for pain within 3 seconds while no one could hold out for more than 5 seconds at a time. After roughly 10,000 test exposures, there were only six reported cases of test subjects receiving blisters from exposure to the beam. One test subject did, however, receive second-degree burns in controlled laboratory testing.

There are defenses to the beam according to the military -- the beam cannot penetrate rock or stone. And even if a person were to hold up a sheet of metal or try to wear protective clothing with metal plates, a small exposed area of skin would be enough to produce a successful Goodbye effect. Tests also showed that damp clothing further intensifies the effects of the beam. Wired News reports:

In one war game, an assault team staged a mock raid on a building. The ADS was used to remove civilians from the battlefield, separating what the military calls "tourists from terrorists." It was also used in a Black Hawk Down scenario, and maritime tests, which saw the ADS deployed against small boats... It might also be used on the battlefield. One war game deployed the ADS in support of an assault, suppressing incoming fire and obstructing a counterattack.

Current versions of the ADS have been mounted to Hummers and fire 2 meter diameter beams that have an effective range of 500 meters. Smaller versions of the weapon have also been tested on the Stryker armored personnel carrier. Tests are also underway to produce an airborne version of the weapon. "Key technologies to enable this capability from an airborne platform -- such as a C-130 -- are being developed at several Air Force Research Laboratory technology directorates," says Diana Loree, program manager for the Airborne ADS.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Cool
By SakuraChan on 12/6/2006 2:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
If there's any riot in my country I'll use this thing,
love it it's brilliant... though it's for military purposes.




RE: Cool
By therealnickdanger on 12/6/2006 2:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
There are "riot control" models in testing phases, I believe. It's amazing the steps our country goes through to try to prevent death where we can - even in war - and we're often called the bad guy.


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, that would be because of our "proactive defense" policy of invading sovereign states and removing the government. Some people might think that is a bad thing.


RE: Cool
By therealnickdanger on 12/6/2006 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
If by "sovereign" you mean malicious dictatorships...


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 3:08:10 PM , Rating: 5
Malicious dictatorships are only a problem for the U.S. when we decide it is a problem. The U.S. "overlooks" or and even supports many such dictatorships (or worse situations like genocide) all around the globe. So you can't argue it on moral grounds. If U.S. policies were truly based on a moral principle, this would compel similar action elsewhere, which it hasn't.


RE: Cool
By Sahrin on 12/6/2006 3:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone believes they were based solely on moral grounds. However, assume that a building is make of a steel bars, and (for the sake of the metaphor) assume that the bar at the base which holds up all the other bars is evil. I don't think anyone could say that is it morally right to destroy the building to get at the evil bar near the base. Don't miss the forest for the trees.


RE: Cool
By lemonadesoda on 12/6/2006 3:20:35 PM , Rating: 3
A lot of the youngsters here don't understand geo-politics and US international policies. (I'll rope UK into that statement also). You make some very valid points. +1


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. And what bothered me about the original statement was the smugness, and if anything, the US has not earned any right to be smug in that respect.

I love my country, I want us to be successful in everything we do, and Iraq is a real tragedy. But we have to slap ourselves out of the state of denial we are in now with respect to these policies, which are both wrong and ineffective.


RE: Cool
By Clienthes on 12/7/2006 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 1
A lot of the (apparently) oldsters have some issues with geo-politics too. He raises bullsh*t points.

The US went to war with Iraq because they refused to submit to UN mandates. The UN didn't want to go to war in Iraq because they were abusing the situation there for money. The end result of this war, if the US follows through, will be an Iraq that is better off in the long run than it was before, and is less of a threat to peace in the region. The UN made itself irrelevant by refusing to follow make good on its own threats.

As for US foriegn policy, it isn't based solely on morality. It can't be, and no countries is. It is funny, though, how the right thing to do politically (not letting the UN bully you) also often ends up being the right thing morally (Iraq will be better off under the new government than it was under the old).

People are so short sighted. There are people dying in Iraq; that is terrible. A vastly larger number of people will be far better off because of their sacrifice. Some politicians don't want you to focus on the long haul, though, because the election is only a year away.

Also, for the record, the US does not make a habit of supporting ruthless dictators. There have been times when it was necessary, but those are rare exceptions with a much larger picture that has to be taken into account. Agree or disagree with the rational, but there always is one. The US also doesn't make a habit of taking them out just because they are bad. That's part of the bigger picture that you and the guy you replied to are to myopic to see.


RE: Cool
By alcalde on 12/7/2006 5:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
"The US went to war with Iraq because they refused to submit to UN mandates."

Are you talking about Gulf War I or II? If II, you have to be kidding. Does the name "Hans Blix" mean anything to you? The weapons inspectors were all over Iraq and said there were no weapons. People like Cheney said, "Aha! That's proof they're hiding something!" Never mind what the intelligence agencies and past weapons inspectors were telling them....


RE: Cool
By Eris23007 on 12/7/2006 7:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Frankly, GW I never ended - Iraq never complied with the UN resolutions that would have ended the use-of-force authorization. In fact, the U.S. continued to enforce no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq right up until Op Iraqi Freedom began. Air strikes were common.



RE: Cool
By Oregonian2 on 12/6/2006 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 1
This argument is a fallacy and gets old after a while. If a drug company hates all diseases but chooses to spend its limited resources fighting only some of them where they see possible success and a maximum beneficial effect vs cost ratio, does that mean the company is morally faulty else it would fully fight every disease that exists all at once (even though they don't have the resources to do so)? The U.S. has limited resources and although morally driven, it has to be pragmatic in choosing what does about things. To be morally pure is something that only works for students and college profs outside the limits of the real world. Compromises are required in real life and that includes picking and choosing where to solve problems and where not to (or at least leaving some for "later" or for someone else to do it -- there's more than one drug company in the world ).


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 4:40:26 PM , Rating: 5
But the point is, that the U.S. sits on the sidelines of most situations like pre-war Iraq. Especially in recent history, we usually don't get involved proactively in civil wars or genocide - so why is Iraq so different? Why did we have to feign intelligence to justify it to the American people? What is the point of that whole exercise?

Let me put it another way, if a significant percentage of the world's oil reserves was in Darfur or other places in Africa, would we be getting involved there? And what is the cost and risk of getting involved in, e.g., Darfur, especially compared to the ~1/2 trillion dollars we've spent in Iraq?


RE: Cool
By Oregonian2 on 12/6/2006 5:28:43 PM , Rating: 4
First of all, how do you know things aren't being done proactively all the time (despite one U.S. party refusing to do things long term and demanding that things ONLY be done after the fact when in an emergency state -- short term actions ONLY, "what's the problem NOW".).

Iraq is different because of its place in a long term strategy having to do with the whole region and the problems that seem to bring world attention to that region on a constant basis. Trying to have a free democracy based major country in that region (rather than religion run states) would be good for the region as a whole in the long term. That's where the benefit of freeing Iraq of its dictatorship would be expected to bring a much larger benefit than just that for the Iraqi people -- it would be good for the entire region long term.

As to "feigned intelligence", I don't think it was. I think it was more just inept intelligence plus inaccurate quoting and inaccurate focus provided in the media for political reasons. For instance, justification for the war had a long list of things any one of which was sufficient justification. One or two were picked on as being false and somehow therefore makes the whole thing unjust -- while the logic of it simply isn't true. If I've a bowl of ten one dollar bills and two turn out to be counterfeits, I'm still not devoid of having money.

As to the oil issue, note that the U.S. doesn't get oil from Iraq at all. Actually, the amount of oil the U.S. gets from the entire middle east is a small percentage of oil used (U.S. does import a lot of oil, but mostly not from there). The oil supply in that region is more of an issue for Europe that gets most all of their oil from there (and perhaps why European countries probably were reluctant to make a disturbance in that region -- excepting for the U.K. which has a morality similar to that of the U.S. (her former colony) and who has her own oil fields).

As to the costs in Darfur, I have no idea. It could be a lot more than Iraq. However would such action only help Darfur or would it help the entire region as well? Is there any other country in the world that could help there or is the U.S. the ONLY country that is
willing to be blasted when we DO help and get blasted if we DON'T help?


RE: Cool
By SilthDraeth on 12/6/2006 5:30:50 PM , Rating: 3
Wars have always been, and always will be fought for power, resources, and religion.

We are, in this day dependent upon oil as a nation. So we fight wars to secure out interest in it. That there happens to be moral justification is a way to pat ourselves on the back perhaps, and pretend like the war was fought for the moral reasons, and not the other interests. The argument can go on forever.

This weapon though, is pretty awesome.


RE: Cool
By rcc on 12/7/2006 2:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot population, which I suppose could be tied to power and resources. : )

After all, one must do something with all those second, third and fourth sons.


RE: Cool
By Clienthes on 12/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cool
By rykerabel on 12/7/2006 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
And you really think we don't have people in Darfur there now?

Lazy media.


RE: Cool
By rushfan2006 on 12/6/2006 4:01:28 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize this is basically how every government in the world operates since the first forms of formal gorvernment started.

No government is wholly "good", "clean", "innocent" or "moral"....NOT A SINGLE ONE.


RE: Cool
By Etsp on 12/6/2006 5:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure there was, at least, ONE that pretty much matches your description. It probably didnt last very long due to violent invaders, but, it probably existed.


RE: Cool
By rykerabel on 12/7/2006 1:37:49 PM , Rating: 1
yes, there was in ancient greece, in Athens city state and guess what... it was a totalitarian dictatorship with a benevolent ruler. while he had control, the government was all sweet and nice and pure and all that... but really, how likely is that to ever happen again?


RE: Cool
By montgom on 12/6/2006 4:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
Find a country that meets the high ethical standards you speak of, they don't exist. Countries are made of people, so all countries are imperfect and will never meet any idealized version suggested here.

now, would i prefer to live in USA or russia? Venezula?Turkey? France?

Pick your "poison", Bob


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 9:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that such a country exists, or that the US is such a country. The US tries to do the right thing, but many times politics and other things get in the way.


RE: Cool
By JNo on 12/7/2006 7:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
Argentina! That place rocks and the women....


RE: Cool
By Clienthes on 12/7/2006 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
Examples?


RE: Cool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Cool
By Aikouka on 12/6/2006 3:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, from everything I've read and seen, Iraq just illustrates how bad religion can be when intertwined so deeply into someone's daily life. I was watching the news this morning and one remark from this important news guy (I forget his name, but supposedly he's important :P) was that people're worried whether or not the Iraqi military forces put their job or their religion ahead when it comes to their duties. A lot of people believe the latter is the case.


RE: Cool
By rushfan2006 on 12/6/2006 4:08:42 PM , Rating: 4
We get it. You are an atheist, did you not receive your cookie and $5.00 reward certificate in the mail yet?

Being highly involved with one's religion on a daily basis in and of itself doesn't make one dangerous, deranged, insaned or any other number of negative vibes you wish to spin on it merely because you are against religion.

My grandmom is one of the most "religious" people you could meet -- goes to church constantly, attends church functions all the time....its God Bless this God Bless that -- you get the picture.....she couldn't hurt a fly if you paid her (she'll get on your nerves granted...but she wouldn't hurt a fly).

I myself believe in God...and go to church (not as much as I should though)...I don't have designs on destroying a nation or goals of world domination or ethnic and/or racial cleansing.

It's not the person's involvement in religion -- its what that religion is about and its about who is forcing what doctrines and beliefs down your throat everyday.

Every major legitimate religion I know of is central to love and peace (and I'll save you the burn....I know I get fired up too much for a "Christian"....I'm a work in progress and I know I have a long way to go.....lol).



RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your point, but I think the concern is not religion per se, but the case that seems to happen a lot where religion is used as a tool to manipulate people to do things that are not in their own or society's best interest. In Iraq, it appears that religious leaders are doing their best to promote instability and division, rather than peace and unity.


RE: Cool
By Aikouka on 12/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cool
By Clienthes on 12/7/2006 12:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't the religion, for the most part, its the people who practice it. Nut jobs are Nut jobs. Every faith has 'em, even the faith of no faith.


RE: Cool
By Oxygenthief on 12/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cool
By Aikouka on 12/7/2006 2:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, Oxy, it's nice to see that someone understands this unlike the people that modded both of us down for no reason. Like I've mentioned in another thread, the mod system does not say "I agree" and "I don't agree". I guess Bush's No Child Left Behind program was a couple years too late for some people ~_~.

Mean and spiteful remarks aside, Rushfan also littered his post with one of the worst fallacies in logic. My comment discussed how religion can tend to warp people's mind to believing in violent measures to reach goals that their religion promotes. So rushfan brings up one person to deny my claim that this occurs. So now, I'm going to put my statement into logic.

Scope
X = People in the World
Y = Religions of the World

ExEy(Rxy & Vx)

There exists at least one person and there exists at least one religion where that person belongs to that religion and that person is violent.

"Violent" may be an oversimplification, but it works :P.

Now, you're trying to prove my statement wrong by saying that your Grandmother (x) who's a Christian (y) is not violent (~Vx), therefore my statement is wrong. You'd be right if I said every religious person is a violent zealot, but that wasn't the remark at all. The only way to prove an existential argument illogical is to show that it is Universally false (i.e. not true for every case of x and y).

So, in other words, I don't care if your grandmother is nice, that proves nothing. My grandmother is quite nice too, but that doesn't mean I'll turn a blind eye to the fact that there is a religious problem over there. Sunni officers will only go after Shiite citizens and vice-versa. The amount of discrimination is horrid.

If you even go back to when the Pope made those remarks about spreading islam by the sword, did you see what happened afterward... Islamic people flooded their streets in protest, burning visages of the pope. Those are quite the ideas of violent tendencies if I've ever seen them.

Also, if I wanted to, I could even go and bring up things like the Crusades, etc... but there's really no need.


RE: Cool
By Clienthes on 12/7/2006 12:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq can't prove anything yet. History will tell us whether it was effective or not.

But anyway, that proactive stuff was ineffective media spin by the republicans. Little did they know how successful the other side would be at convincing the world that nothing beyong tomorrow is worth thinking about.


RE: Cool
By TheDoc9 on 12/6/2006 3:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
A government that harbors and supports people who want to blow you up no less. Unlike previous wars the bad guys have learned that using a standard war machine won't defeat the u.s. Now they enlist people who WANT to blow themselves up. There's a great documentary out about it called 'obsessed'. It shows what this war is really about.


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 3:18:09 PM , Rating: 3
Did Iraq, prior to our removal of the government, harbor any such terrorists that were hostile to the US? No.

Now that we have removed the old government there, and now have one that is "allied" with the US, does the country harbor any such terrorists that are hostile to the US? Yes, lots actually.

Did the US invasion of Iraq create further polarization in the Middle East, and further inspire many people to fight against and die for the cause of battling the US and our allies? Absolutely.

So, what's your point?

What this war is really about, is that we took a long-shot chance to improve the situation, but due to botched judgement and intelligence, poor planning, poor execution, and a total inability to recognize that failure, that we have actually made the situation quite a bit worse.


RE: Cool
By michal1980 on 12/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 4:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
What did Husssain do to try to kill Americans? Sure, after the first Gulf War, America was not exactly his favorite country, but I haven't seen any evidence that he had any plans or capabilities to kill Americans. No terrorists, no WMD, etc. - all just bad intelligence in the end.


RE: Cool
By michal1980 on 12/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Cool
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 3
How about his personal public admition he organized and Iraq funded assassination attempts on George H.W. Bush in 1994 and on Bill Clinton in 1997? Lets start with those americans.

We can move on to an admittedly eight year program to weaponize plutonium between 1989 and 1997 in direct violation of treaties he himself signed in 1983, 1986, and 1993.

We can continue if you like...but I'm only extending the divergence of this thread from topic.


RE: Cool
By Eris23007 on 12/6/2006 6:53:26 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, Iraq hosted terrorists hostile to the U.S.

One example: Abu Abbas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abbas), who executed an American citizen when he hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985. He moved to Iraq shortly after the hijacking and was sheltered from extradition by Hussein's government. He continued to lead the Palestine Liberation Front, a group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, until his death shortly after being captured by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2004.

Saddam Hussein also sponsored Palestinian suicide bombers to the tune of $25,000 in payment directly to their families after a successful attack. Granted, these attacks were against Israel, but these groups are also actively hostile to the U.S. as shown by their own public statements.

Please note, none of the above is opinion - simply facts that contradict your statement. I reserve comment on the rest of the debate.


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 12/6/2006 9:06:50 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I think you have to contrast the situation in Iraq with that in Afghanistan when you talk about harboring terrorists. Iraq was not a problem in that regard, whereas Afghanistan was.

And as you state, Hussein directed his attacks toward Israel, not the United States. That makes it Israel's problem, not ours, right?


RE: Cool
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 4:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
Only if we wish to disregard the value of foreign policy written by Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Some of the only foreign policy positions universally adopted by every sitting President since their introduction. As policy statements they do not carry the force of law, in fact, they can be altered by any administration at any time, but both have clearly stated the US has an, to quote Kennedy, "unfading responsibility", to defend its allies against foreign powers hostile to "US interests" (Truman) / "US foreign relations" (Kennedy).


RE: Cool
By Clienthes on 12/7/2006 12:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with some of your points, but I think everyone has expected this process to be a lot less painful that it realistically could have been. Maybe the president too, who knows.

It hasn't been very long, in reality, and it is too soon to call Iraq a failure. It will be if we give up now, though.

Stable governments aren't delivered with a "30 minutes or free guarantee".


RE: Cool
By rykerabel on 12/7/2006 1:45:15 PM , Rating: 1
I feel the need to make some corrections:
Did Iraq, prior to our removal of the government, harbor any such terrorists that were hostile to the US? Yes.

Now that we have removed the old government there, and now have one that is "allied" with the US, does the country harbor any such terrorists that are hostile to the US? Yes, but fewer.

Did the US invasion of Iraq create further polarization in the Middle East, and further inspire many people to fight against and die for the cause of battling the US and our allies? Not at all, can't get much more polarized than thinking the US is the "Devil" which is what they have been thinking long before we went there.

So, what's your point?
The majority of the people in Iraq WANT our help and ASKED for our help. You can side with the terrorist all you want, but don't expect much respect.


RE: Cool
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 4:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did Iraq, prior to our removal of the government, harbor any such terrorists that were hostile to the US? No.


That sir, is a flat out fallacy.


RE: Cool
By lemonadesoda on 12/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cool
By Aikouka on 12/6/2006 2:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe, Miss Sakura, I don't think you're going to be finding one of these at your neighborhood friendly Wal-Mart anytime soon ^_~. Although you could try to play home inventor and modify a microwave.

It makes sense though that dampened situations increase the intensity of the heat... since microwaves work better on foods with higher water content as the water particles begin to bounce around quickly and cause heat. The thing literally is a giant, directed, low-intensity microwave.


RE: Cool
By SakuraChan on 12/6/2006 2:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
I could, if the goverment approve the Legislation of using
this thing to a civilian :) or else it will be a waste of time.


RE: Cool
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 4:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
<sarcasticly> Alright everyone, put on these plastic sweat suits from the wrestling store. We have to get dehydrated before we attack the Americans!


RE: Cool
By AxemanFU on 12/6/2006 4:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if it is tested to be effective on subjects that are high on meth or hashish or other drugs? The insurgents in Iraq are frequently found to be high on various drugs, or even to have taken adrenaline injections or steroid injections to give them a bit of extra juice. I know police can have serious problems tazing people high on meth or cocaine. I think your skin's nerve endings being microwaved would probably hurt like hell even if you were on drugs, but hopefully it's been tested.


Long range flamethrower effect?
By jeffbui on 12/6/2006 2:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure with adjustable wavelength and power, this non-lethal weapon can be made lethal (and painful).




By armagedon on 12/6/2006 2:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
true, this is the press released version. They don't tell you about the secret one which gets your internal organs boiling and explode.


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By dice1111 on 12/6/2006 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would be lethal with just prolonged exposure, nevermind adjusting the thing.

Is it hot in here, or is it just me cooking from the inside out?


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By Sahrin on 12/6/2006 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Microwaves do not cook from the inside out. Stop the spread of bad science, read a physics text.


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By TheDoc9 on 12/6/2006 3:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
There is something fishy about claiming a smaller wavelength is perfectly safe...


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By dice1111 on 12/6/2006 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
Obvious jokes do not stop people from being way too literal. Stop the spread of dull cynicism, read a comic strip.


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By Sahrin on 12/6/2006 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't grant that my brand of cynicism is dull.


By lemonadesoda on 12/6/2006 3:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
No, just poisonous


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By dwalton on 12/6/2006 3:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Microwaves can cook from the inside out, its just not an fundamental part of how microwaving works. All foods or material exposed to microwave radiation won't cook "inside out". But some foods, because of their compostition (more moisture on the inside versus its surface), when exposed to microwave will have heat up faster internally versus on its surface.

I've actually put a KFC biscuit in a microwave and continually zapped it because it never felt warm to the touch. Yet, after finally biting into what look like a totally perfect biscuit, my teeth exposed a steaming charcoal black center.

Plus, a woman was just arrested for microwaving her baby to death. The case confused the investigators at first, because the baby only exhibited burns internally and yet externally looked fine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15937773/


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By glennpratt on 12/6/2006 4:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my God... A coworker mentioned this at lunch... I nearly lost my lunch. I'm definitely not even clicking on the link...


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By dwalton on 12/6/2006 4:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah...talk about a dispicable act devoid of any humanity.

If just the thought of it doesn't affect you emotionally, then....


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By casket on 12/6/2006 4:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
Microwaves cook the water evenly in food....
However, usually the inside of food is "wetter" than the outside. Things dry out. In addition, the air cools down the outside of food, which has more surface area.

Summing things up...
1. In Theory, microwaves do not cook from the inside out.
2. In practice, they heat up the inside of food faster than the outside of food.


RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By FallenMystic on 12/6/2006 3:15:45 PM , Rating: 3
The unfortunate thing to the design is its size; they might as well have painted a target on the oversized satellite dish. Based on its max range, (500m according to the article,) a well placed sniper round, RPG round etc... would render this a very expensive paperweight. Yet another item in the long lines of good though/concept; poor implementation.




RE: Long range flamethrower effect?
By dwalton on 12/6/2006 4:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
A RPG or sniper round can effectively make anything, short of a tank, an expensive paper weight.

I fail to see your point.


By FallenMystic on 12/7/2006 12:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
As the individual below stated it's the size of the thing, yes an RPG round etc... can take out most things; but if this thing was sized more appropriately it would be a much more useful weapon. With the design of this thing it would be about the same as a soldier coming out for desert warfare wearing winter camos; not necessarily gonna get him/her killed... but sure will shorten his/her lifespan.

When it comes to weapons unless its an "all or nothing" item, (ICBM etc...) size is roughly equated to effectiveness; on a battlefield if you are too big, too cumbersome you are the first target regardless of effectiveness.


By mindless1 on 12/6/2006 9:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, but suppose it was the size of a thimble and impossible to destroy. What would the enemy do? Same thing they'd do to this, aim for the transport and power supply, because disrupting one of many weapons does not render the attacker harmless.


Sad...
By oTAL (blog) on 12/6/2006 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 3
Any development in non-lethal weapons only gives more ways for dictators to control the populace... it is very unfortunate...

On the upside, this would be a nice weapon if adapted to police work... some situations would be far simpler to solve since you don't have to worry so much with hitting friendlies.




RE: Sad...
By Kougar on 12/6/2006 2:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
Usually dictators will simply use death as a means of control, so why would they bother with an expensive non-lethal weapon that couldn't hope to have the same effect.

While I think it's a good idea and has it's uses... all it would take is one of the many shoulder-fired rockets to take out one of these, at which point things would get real ugly real fast.


RE: Sad...
By smitty3268 on 12/6/2006 3:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Only the dictators who don't care what the world thinks. Places like China would love this, and other little petty dictatorships that are friendly with the US are probably begging to get one too. OTOH, people like Kim Jong Il probably prefer death for the message it sends.


RE: Sad...
By Sahrin on 12/6/2006 3:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
This point has been made above me, but your comment is so idiotic its worth mocking it twice:

Since when do dictators rely on non lethal means to control their populace? Let's do a quick checklist of a couple of major dictatorships and their chosen method of controlling the populace:
Stalin: genocide.
Hussein: Genocide.
Taliban: Genocide.
Royal Iranian Regime: Genocide.
Milosevic: Genocide.
Fascist Germany: Genocide.
Imperial Russia: Genocide.
Imperial Japan: Genocide.
Imperial Spain: Genocide.
Jackson Administration: Genocide.
Khmer Rouge: Genocide.
Kruschev: Genocide.
Imperial China: Genocide.
Communist China: Genocide.

Perhaps are we seeing a trend?


RE: Sad...
By Aikouka on 12/6/2006 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Stalin controlled his people mainly through an impoverished state? He took the crops from the farms and sold them for military technology that made his people so famished that they ended up eating bark off trees. I remember a Western Civilization II course in college where we discussed portions of World War II and how the Russian people practically welcomed Nazi Germany into their country and even offered their support. However, Hitler didn't take kindly to "others" (xenocide in this case), and he refused their help.


RE: Sad...
By Sahrin on 12/6/2006 3:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
Stalin's paranoid psychosis led him to commit "purges" of different branches of the government (primarily focusing on the military officer Corp and the state security/intelligence organs). All told, the lowest estimates of Russians executed to sate Stalin's hunger for power put it in the 3-7 millions range.


RE: Sad...
By Kuroyama on 12/6/2006 3:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, his point is good. You are correct that a ruthless dictator will just shoot everyone, but there are plenty of countries that are a step below that. Consider most of the recent peaceful revolutions in ex-Communist countries: governments in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgystan were all changed when the masses protested rigged elections, troops refused to fire on them, and eventually the dictators quit. I think the key point here was that the soldiers didn't want to kill their own people, but with a non-lethal weapon like this it is quite possible that none of these governments would have been toppled.


By Hulk on 12/6/2006 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 1
Should we have gone into other areas around the world on a moral basis? Probably?

Why Iraq? Because there was a moral basis AND the possibility of a serious threat to us. They did after all invade their neighbor and disobey 17 UN Resolutions. Coupled with the wake up call of 9/11 and one can see why something had to be done. This is not to say mistakes weren't made in the doing of it.

There were quite a few terrorist training camps we found in Northern Iraq. So yes, there were terrorists in Iraq. Iraq was giving aid and comfort to any anti-American forces. The situation in Iraq is tough but if this country were behind it 100% it would already be over.

The terrorists are manipulating the liberals in this country with magnificent ease and to great effect. Just look at this thread for proof.




By TomZ on 12/6/2006 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There were quite a few terrorist training camps we found in Northern Iraq. So yes, there were terrorists in Iraq. Iraq was giving aid and comfort to any anti-American forces. The situation in Iraq is tough but if this country were behind it 100% it would already be over.

Yea, right - they were right by the WMD (both never found). It is well-known and well-reported that Hussain was a very paranoid dictator, and he thus never allowed any outsiders like Al Quaeda to operate within its borders.

It's not a question of being liberal or conservative - or of manipulating the facts. We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons, most/all of which turned out to be false. Now we are stuck in this situation and trying to find a way out that makes sense. It is not the kind of situation to be proud of (much less smug about). Instead, it is a problem that needs to be properly fixed, and those who were responsible held accountable. I'm glad to see that happening this year - FINALLY.


By Oregonian2 on 12/6/2006 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
No, only ONE of the reasons was shown to be false (WMDs). Things like saying that the 9/11 Al Quaeda was operating there were denied by the administration from the get-go and that there was no known connection between 9/11 and Iraq. That was repeated by the administration from the start so much it became nauseating that the press would keep asking and asking and asking (I used to watch live press conferences). And now people somehow think that connection was on the justification list only to be disproved later. Mind you some political hacks running for office tried to say assert this too, but anyone paying attention since the start knows it to be hooey (to be polite).


By TomZ on 12/6/2006 9:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
I think you are dabbling in revisionist history. The way I remember it, WMDs were the PRIMARY reason for the war, with the secondary reason being the "abstract association" with terrorism and 9/11.

Regarding the WMDs, don't you remember all the testimonies by Powell and Rice, all the interviews of White House officials on CNN et al., the illustrations of the "mobile labs" that could scramble in a moment's notice, the talk of all the different possible WMD substances that Hussain supposedly had?

Regarding the connection with terrorists and 9/11, if you remember, Bush never explained a direct connection, but he implied it many, many times by talking about the two together, often in the same sentence. Clearly the implication was that the two were related.

These two points are what convinced Americans and their representatives in Congress to approve the Iraq war, and these two points turned out to be completely wrong.


By Clienthes on 12/7/2006 12:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
The primary reason for the war was Iraqi violations of UN resolutions. They were supposed to allow inspectors verify that they had no weapons, refused, and so they US pushed for invasion. The UN balked, the US and allies went to war anyway. The UN balked because they had financial ties to Iraq that were shady at best.

So I suppose "WMD" were the primary reason for the war, but not so much because we were sure they had them, but because Iraq basically told the UN to go f*** itself with regards to inspections and disarmament


By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 5:24:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think you are dabbling in revisionist history. The way I remember it, WMDs were the PRIMARY reason for the war, with the secondary reason being the "abstract association" with terrorism and 9/11.


Perhaps you should read the Declaration of War. It states the reasons for war. WMDs don't appear in the document.

quote:
Regarding the WMDs, don't you remember all the testimonies by Powell and Rice, all the interviews of White House officials on CNN et al., the illustrations of the "mobile labs" that could scramble in a moment's notice, the talk of all the different possible WMD substances that Hussain supposedly had?


And he did have them, by his own admition after his capture. However, he also says he dismantled them between 1997 and 1999, but kept the dismantling programs secret at the time, because admiting to dismantling them would be an admition he had violated international agreements and risk economic and military repercussions. Some intel experts say the dismantling is a lie, others say Hussein has been telling the truth about them since his capture.

quote:
Regarding the connection with terrorists and 9/11, if you remember, Bush never explained a direct connection, but he implied it many, many times by talking about the two together, often in the same sentence. Clearly the implication was that the two were related.


This is one area where your criticism of the war is entirely founded! The US' history of using military enforcement of UN resolutions and agreements has been a mixed bag at best. The Bush administration chose this particular fight as being worth the cost of life to enforce and needed the public to demand action from Congress to do so without invoking the War Powers Act. It would have been idiotic, in that context, to address the populace in an emotionally distant way. That would make the relevant actions of the Bush administration legal, and (following the doctrine of separation of powers) appropriate.

It nonetheless smacks of pride and dishonesty. Perhaps an amendment is missing here. One that defines the role of the Presidency to inform/persuade the public to support or oppose war. But that could get even more dangerous...


By Ardan on 12/6/2006 4:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
The terrorists are manipulating me since i'm liberal, huh? The last four sentences in your post were very ridiculous. Here I thought at least 25% of the posts above you were bad enough, guess I was wrong! Just because we're behind the troops and support them 100% doesn't mean a stupid idea with a half-assed 'plan' will work. Everyone knows that now, and I'm glad I didn't support this in the first place.


By msva124 on 12/6/2006 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just export all these elitists with IQ's over 100 to a different country? That'll show them. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, liberals.


By fxnick on 12/6/2006 9:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There were quite a few terrorist training camps we found in Northern Iraq. So yes, there were terrorists in Iraq. Iraq was giving aid and comfort to any anti-American forces. The situation in Iraq is tough but if this country were behind it 100% it would already be over.

The terrorists are manipulating the liberals in this country with magnificent ease and to great effect. Just look at this thread for proof.


100% RIGHT


Safe?
By Goty on 12/6/2006 3:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
How would a 3mm wavelength be significantly safer than 12cm? A 3mm wave can still be considered a microwave, if a high energy one (bordering on IR).




RE: Safe?
By Meaker10 on 12/6/2006 3:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
Less likely to smash apart your DNA.


RE: Safe?
By Kuroyama on 12/6/2006 3:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Higher frequency waves are not absorbed as deeply into the body. Just a conjecture, but the 3mm waves probably are mostly absorbed on the skin and hence merely cause pain, while the longer wavelength 12mm waves are absorbed more deeply in the body and hence might begin to heat up your organs.


RE: Safe?
By Goty on 12/6/2006 5:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Burns beneath the skin are the result of RF radiation (go grab a HAM Radio antenna, you'll see what I mean).


RE: Safe?
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 5:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is it has something to do with the size or density of a water molecule compared to wavelength and amplitude. But there could be other factors. Microwaves harm people cause their bodies contain reactive substances other than just water; iron for instance.

Maybe the relevant factors are more mechanical than chemical. Under many circumstances metals naturally for crystaline structures in multi-molecular distributions. Crystals do funny things when excited by microwaves, so not only the material but the structure of the material composing the body could be important. Bones have lots of calcium...

I'm just tossing out guesses here, but there could be all kinds of reasons that don't have to due with the heat aspect that comes to mind as soon as we hear the word microwave.


RE: Safe?
By EarthsDM on 12/6/2006 9:48:31 PM , Rating: 1
I have a Quantum Mechanics final exam Tuesday, so I could explain it. However, although microwave radiation WILL NOT cook things from "the inside out" (if material is evenly distributed), knowledge of Quantum Mechanics WILL cook your brain from the inside out, so I'll spare you. : )

Testing has found that the radiation that this weapon emits does not generally penetrate skin. However, depending on the reflective properties of the objects around you (street, walls, etc) you can easily receive twice a 'safe' dose. This is similar to how snow reflected sunlight can cook your retinas and cause snow blindness. : (


...
By yacoub on 12/6/2006 2:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
"...the weapon does not represent a radiation risk to victims and will not impose long-lasting damage [b]in most cases[/b]."




RE: ...
By jaybuffet on 12/6/2006 2:23:58 PM , Rating: 1
I suppose it's better than, oh i don't know, being dead....


RE: ...
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 5:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the weapon does not represent a radiation risk to victims and will not impose long-lasting damage in most cases


It's like rubber bullets, and tasers. My guess is targets are better off being hit by a weapon that rarely kills you than one that often kills you. Just my $0.02.


Resilience
By ADDAvenger on 12/6/2006 3:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
To me the real question about this thing is not so much how far can it shoot or does it come with a death ray setting, but how does it hold up to an AK? That's a pretty big dish on that Hummer; it wouldn't be hard to hit at all, even from two hundred yards, which is a crapload farther away than it'll be shot at in urban combat.

Also, I do wonder if you can 'unfocus' the thing for a larger zapping spot at closer ranges. Eg, widen the beam from two meters at five hundred yards to say eight meters at fifty yards. IMO that would be a far more effective weapon.




RE: Resilience
By Sahrin on 12/6/2006 3:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ever seen what happens when you put metal in a microwave? Now imagine putting a couple of clips into the magnetron. I smell collegehumor/youtube!


3 mm info...
By casket on 12/6/2006 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave

A normal microwave is 2.4 Ghz... or 12 cm wavelengths... this is the "S" Band.

This weapon is 100 Ghz... or 3 mm wavelengths... this is the "W" Band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band




RE: 3 mm info...
By casket on 12/6/2006 4:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
In comparison:
an industrial strength microwave is 900 megahertz...

so 900 mhz is stronger than 2.4 Ghz (conventional microwave oven)...

and 2.4 GHZ is stronger than 100 Ghz.


Implications of "peacetime" abuse
By lemonadesoda on 12/6/2006 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the ADS feature 3mm wavelengths as opposed to a 12cm


I hope this device doesnt end up for civil "riot control" use, like rubber bullets did. We've had enough deaths and permanent disabilities and blindness caused by overzealous use of rubber bullets.

I would hate to think of the human fry-up caused by pointing this device in close proximity to human targets, especially if detuned to microwave fry the poor victim.

Imagine a Tiananmen square type-situation. A non-aggressive protestor standing in front of an ADS Hummer. The trigger-happy ADS Commander turns up the ADS to 100% and goes zap-ha-ha.

http://www.historie-nu.dk/Tiananmen.jpg

The problem with "safe" weapons is that they are still weapons and still dangerous, especially in close-range. e.g. Recent NY police shooting where 60 rubber bullets fired at close range kill the target.




By Gooberslot on 12/6/2006 8:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually the first thing I thought of when I read this story. I suspect this thing will be used a lot more on civilians that on actual "bad guys."

Someone is protesting the government and you don't like it? No problem, just nuke 'em.


new weapon
By msva124 on 12/6/2006 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Brilliant. On that note, why don't we classify criminals in the US as "insurgents"? I'm sure the cops would love to use this thing. Steal a candy bar, get zapped.




RE: new weapon
By Sahrin on 12/6/06, Rating: 0
What if it gets stolen...
By kitchme on 12/6/2006 3:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how difficult it is to use one of those...I can imagine one of those stolen by enemy and there goes a whole base of marines running away like some silly chicken...




TIN FOIL HATS
By The Boston Dangler on 12/6/2006 9:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
They're not just for kooks anymore!




Non-lethality is questionable
By THEiNTERNETS on 12/6/2006 6:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
These weapons have already been in use in the country for some time. As "friendly" as ADS systems sound, directed energy weapons also appear to be capable of extremely ugly results.

I think it's great that we want to try and keep from killing people in the wrong place at the wrong time but this whole "oh they're just little invisble waves designed to make you perceive pain, not actually cause it" is military marketing hoopla.

If you don't believe me, check out "Star Wars in Iraq" and learn what else directed energy weapons are capable of--they sound pretty un-Geneva terrible to me.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13...

"Al Ghezali reported that he had seen three passengers in a car, all dead, with their faces and teeth burnt, their clothes intact, and no sign of projectiles."

"There were other inexplicable aspects: the terrain where the battle took place was dug up by the American military and replaced with other fresh earth; the bodies that were not hit by projectiles had shrunk to just slightly more than one meter in height."




Long term exposure effects.
By ElJefe69 on 12/7/2006 1:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
Uh, I duno about you, but if this shit was aimed at my nuts, I'd get worried. I also would make it a point to find the person who aimed it at me and beat them before I die.

Imagine your nuts blistering. shoot me in the fucking head first please!





AIDS
By tacorly on 12/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: AIDS
By dice1111 on 12/6/2006 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
If you left out the "orl" in your handle, you could pronouce it "Tacky"


RE: AIDS
By Sahrin on 12/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: AIDS
By lemonadesoda on 12/6/2006 3:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you left the h out of your handle, you'd be a pest control.

Sarin, also known by its NATO designation of GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance whose sole application is as a nerve agent

;-)

... this handle-altering business could go on forever. We'd better stop it here.


RE: AIDS
By jmunjr on 12/6/2006 4:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you took the "orl" from the guy above, removed the "l', added two spaces on each end, and inserted it in the middle of your handle, you'd be the question the waitress asked me at the Barbecue place yesteday..


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki