Heat Ray Gun Fails Final Test; Nixed From War 299
eldavojohn writes "The heat ray gun to be deployed in Afghanistan has failed its final test and will not be deployed. US military commanders who have had it in the field now have declined to use it. After being tested more than 11,000 times on around 700 volunteers, it failed to achieve satisfaction from the military and will not be deployed."
Another misleading /. summary (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA. There's nothing in the linked story about it "failing" any test. What happened is that the military decided that no operational need for the weapon existed in Afghanistan.
The ADS does work for crowd control, but generally the military isn't dealing with crowds of rioting civilians attacking their outposts. They're dealing with insurgents fighting with guerilla tactics and IEDs. The ADS is the wrong tool for the job.
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Informative)
They need to find whoever made that stupid decision and hit them with it.
Who knows? I mean, there was a very interesting thread on the last story about how to circumvent it [slashdot.org]. Perhaps the first thing they did with it was turn it on their own soldiers only to find out that a resourceful individual could easily bypass it with shielding or simple armor? If that's the case, what's the point of deploying more expensive bulky power consuming equipment when you're most likely going to end up using lethal force anyway? They could have identified this as one ineffective step in a cat-and-mouse game ... the details were thin as I submitted this I looked for more sources than the BBC but came up short.
No, the BBC Changed the Story (Score:5, Informative)
"US 'heat ray' gun fails final test"
This morning, when I read this article and submitted it to Slashdot, that was the title. The words "fails final test" were all over the article. Unfortunately Google doesn't seem to offer a cache for it but those words are all over [google.com].
The summary isn't wrong, it's just that the BBC changed their story. In the original version the final test was actually putting it to use in Afghanistan. And the US Military Leaders decided ADS doesn't work in that war scenario.
The ADS is the wrong tool for the job.
So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
Re:Another misleading /. summary (Score:3, Informative)
Civilian cars are often shot up at military check points because the drivers don't understand that they are supposed to stop. Since soldiers have to assume these could be car bombs they shoot to disable the vehicle but in real life that means people get killed. Often times children are involved or like it happened in Iraq pregnant women who the husband tried to rush to the hospital. A non-lethal weapon system that'll get a car to stop would be great but obviously microwaves can not penetrate a car so this weapon system is useless to help with this pressing problem.
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Another misleading /. summary (Score:5, Informative)
"Civilian cars are often shot up at military check points because the drivers don't understand that they are supposed to stop."
Military checkpoints often lacked APPROACH BARRIERS and SIGNAGE. Even if someone is shooting at you from a distance, if you don't SEE the muzzle flash or SEE/HEAR the IMPACTs you may keep driving or even speed up to get (what you assume is) "away".
Re:Not to worry! (Score:3, Informative)
Now with that said I too doubt such a weapon was really used. Although considering how much the cops messed up, I wouldn't put it past them.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:3, Informative)
They already have the sound cannons that cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, and can rapidly cause permanent deafness.
They were used against protesters to the G20 meeting.
Just to protect against your comment being skewed as "police were causing permanent damage to protesters", the Toronto police were approved to use the LRAD in voice mode but blocked from using alert mode. Used as per their instructions and judge's orders, the devices are unlikely to cause permanent damage. Similarly, being authorized to carry guns isn't the same as shooting protesters dead.
Sources:
Re:Not to worry! (Score:5, Informative)
Now I'm not sure about a case of instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, but from the videos you can tell how terribly inhumane this weapon is.