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."
Proving once again (Score:5, Insightful)
That we should have been investing in either freeze or death rays.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary's wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't fail any tests at all, it was merely not deployed. I can think of multiple reasons not to deploy this. The biggest being that it is really only useful as crowd control during riots, and even then could be relatively easily taken out. There's also the fact that leaving enemies angry enough to shoot at you alive would seem to be a bad idea. Since the US military, the only people using the tech, would not have enough manpower to roundup all the people they used this against, all it would do is cause greater US casualties in the long run.
I know why it failed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullets are more reliable, effective, and cheaper.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story (Score:2, Insightful)
If you use the wrong tool for the job, I call that failing. But it's not the tool that failed. It's you.
Re:Final report (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
Not really.
The truth is "conditioning" pisses people off. Useless missions to touch the edge, raze some troops for non-tactical entertainment, and run off are a good way to show the enemy that we're completely evil and have no respect for life. Defending our borders and encampments is fine; but dipping into enemy lines just to do some damage and run is not.
Unfortunately, any useful military strategy involves penetration. While defending our encampments has obvious tactical advantages, those encampments are worthless if they don't support military motion. Thus, our military is of the predisposition to advance through enemy resistance onto a target.
In any non-lethal strategy, we have problems. If the enemy is allowed to retreat, they will increase resistance further ahead: the 500 troops facing us at the next battle become 1000 troops. If the enemy is left for dead, they trap our troops in a pincer maneuver: the enemy troops immediately behind us don't have to mobilize for interception far ahead, and can prevent our retreat and attack from behind when we encounter more resistance. Alternately, we can take prisoners of war; this is a lot of prisoners to deal with though, quickly mounting to several times the number of active troops.
Thus, the only viable military strategy to win a war is to advance through enemy resistance, inactivating troops we encounter-- that is, killing them or butchering them to uselessness (remove limbs). For those being invaded, a repelling defense eventually wears out the political atmosphere and economics of the invader; but a decapitation exercise is a better strategy for either side. In either case, lethal force is necessary: invaders that don't die will continue to attack until you die for quite a while, without eroding the political atmosphere anywhere near as quickly as casualties.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story (Score:2, Insightful)
If you use the wrong tool for the job, I call that failing. But it's not the tool that failed. It's you.
Perhaps you should speak to the company that sells the tool [mediaroom.com] and advertises its use in military combat:
Raytheon's Active Denial System 2 provides military, civilian law enforcement, and security organizations with a truly non-lethal system that is optimized for situations where the use of lethal force may not be appropriate or warranted.
You know as well as I do what happened. The military took our tax dollars and dumped it into the development of this project under the guise that they wouldn't have to kill as many people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And now who is it going to end up being used on? Only you and me. No military value, surprise surprise.
Yes, the tool failed the purpose it was marketed, sold and purchased to fulfill. It worked in all tests and demonstrations except the one that counted.
Re:Not in Afghanistan... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, because causing a panic from invisible burning sensations is so much better. At least with water cannons people can see it coming so they know the gloves have come off and its time to run.
It simply isn't practical, unless you want to cause a panic.
Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir, need to start sampling beer from the Pacific Northwest. There's none better on earth.
Re:The summary's wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the submitter is trying to be clever by implying that the final test was whether commanders in the field would accept and use it - which for whatever reason they have elected not to do at this time.
Re:toast / bake / broil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Proving once again (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this was intended as a joke, but it does prove something about the 'heat ray' that is rather important: the military-industrial PR machine is operational and effective. This weapon is not a 'heat ray' at all; it is a _pain_ ray. The microwaves emitted by this device may cause some incidental heating of the skin, but that is not the intent at all. The microwaves emitted are of the precise frequency used by pain-emitting neurons. The goal is to have to pain neuron fire at full capacity regardless of the actual level of damage being caused. An article from 2007 ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-482560/Run-away-ray-gun-coming--We-test-US-armys-new-secret-weapon.html [dailymail.co.uk] ) describes this and introduces the idea of a pain ray... 3 years later the military is celebrating its 'heat ray,' a term which is less associated with the evils that can be caused by a 'pain ray.'
Re:The summary's wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's fair enough, if the soldiers in the field don't want it I would call that failing the final test. And besides that, it isn't really that great of a deterrence weapon, especially during a riot. Imagine you've got a thousand people, 20 rows deep moving in on an embassy and you shoot this off. Only the first row is going to get the full force of the weapon, people farther back might get little to none. Now you've got a bunch of people getting hit, probably trying to turn and run but can't because the people behind them keep pushing forward. If nothing else, the weapon has never been safety tested for such a scenario. It would be more useful to keep a small group of apparently unarmed people from approaching a location, but it seems overkill for that situation, especially because it doubtless takes time and effort to deploy. So you end up only using it in situations (rare situations to boot, when was the last time a mob attacked a US military base or embassy?) where it is practically guaranteed to be ineffective.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:1, Insightful)
The population won't about sound cannons in the US when they are all too concerned about vuvuzelas at a soccer match, far away.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the woman who was bean-bag gunned to death at a Red Socks victory rally.
I liked lethal force. Either it got used, or it didn't. Generally it didn't. All non-lethal force has done is change situations that would have been deflated peacefully into situations where people start firing non-lethal guns at each other. Or, rather, police start firing "non-lethal" guns at unarmed civilians, sometimes maiming and sometimes killing them.
Re:Final report (Score:3, Insightful)
You believe the war in Afghanistan is like a game of Risk?
There might be a little more to it than that.
Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w (Score:1, Insightful)
Problems I can see with it. (Score:3, Insightful)
"It only penetrates the skin the equivalent of 3 sheets of paper thickness..." So what, your eye is very vulnerable to microwaves, and it's going to be directly exposed. That depth can still do serious damage to your eyes.
"It's been tested numerous times on military and journalist volunteers..." Again, so fricking what! You are talking about a limited quantity of people in an area where movement isn't confined with people who know what's going to happen and from where. Just try that on any average mob of people anywhere in the world in normal real world conditions, and you are going to have a huge mess on your hands! They won't clear the target area efficiently, if they can even figure out where/why it's happening. It won't be even vaguely orderly, people will go different directions, collide, get pushed down or fall down, even get trampled. If panic ensues, a likely occurrence for those unfamiliar with this new weapon, you'll probably even have people moving into the target area since they are in a general panic and are UNABLE TO SEE WHAT IS TARGETED! It's well know to those that study these things, areas that are visibly marked are far more effective in keeping people out than any invisible system.
From the situations I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the weapon proponents entire claim that no serious damage will result since nobody will be exposed more than a few seconds is either utter incompetence, complete misunderstanding of even the most basic of human mob reactions, or they are lying through the teeth to make mint on new weapon system. I know which one I'm voting for.
Re:Failed to achieve satisfaction... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Final report (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're conducting a house-to-house search for malefactors, GET OUT OF THAT WAR. That should be a domestic problem to be handled by local authorities (with assistance if necessary, but it shouldn't be). If the population is harboring the resistance, that means you do not have popular support of the local population. If you do not have support of the local population in a war zone, you are the bad guys.
This is Afghanistan we're talking about here. They're a bit of a mess to begin with. We can give the locals the tools to build their society with (education, experience, seed funding), but we can't make them shape their society in the way that we choose.
And for god's sake stop giving guns to Israel. The promise of sweeping in and stomping North Korea if they invade the south has been a sufficient deterrent for years. Israel is seen as the spoiled brat invader of the middle east, and for good reason. We'd achieve our same objectives in the region, with far less hatred from the locals, if we just promised to defend Israel instead of giving them the helicopters that they kill Palestinians with. Everyone comes out of that conflict smelling like ass, and by sticking our nose into it we're just feeding the hatred.
I have relatives on the east side of the middle east, who are shocked how little Americans realize that Israel is a big part of the anti-American hatred. It's not the jewishness, or the western-ness. But the behavior of Israel as a government interacting with their neighbors, their invasions, their annexations of territory, suppressions of the Palestines, etc. Our goals for winning hearts and minds, and therefore getting out of the middle east faster with less likely of further terrorist attacks against the US, would be much better served by cutting all military and other aid to Israel, and simply promising military support in cases of an unprovoked attack against Israeli soil.
Re:Final report (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the same thought processes went into Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure you killed a couple hundred thousand people, but the alternative would be the deaths of millions on both sides.
Non-lethal weapons sounds good on paper, but they don't make an enemy go, "Ouch! You won, but you didn't kill me, thank you!" and it doesn't make others who would fight you as well thank you for saving their friends, either. It allows them the opportunity to get revenge. Dead people don't get vengeance. It is sad, but I think if you really think about it, that is the way it is. Reduced fatalities through applied lethal force. Sounds really contradictory, but it's true.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels (Score:3, Insightful)
It's international waters. Very few laws at all apply.
These anti-whalers are essentially pirates. They have rammed these other boats as well as tried to board them or otherwise sabotage them. If it were me, and these twats tried any of that, I would shoot them. And not with a heat gun.
And you know what? I would sleep fine at night.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:3, Insightful)
I liked lethal force. Either it got used, or it didn't. Generally it didn't.
That is a really good point.
Before all this "non-lethal" crap was deployed the police had two alternative, defuse a situation peacefully without the use of force or use force to hurt/kill people and fuck with their public approval rating. By selling all these gizmos (Tazer, ADS, sonic canon, etc.) as "non-lethal" the police have less reason to NOT escalate a situation and use these devices against unarmed groups. When someone gets maimed or killed the police can say that it was an "unfortunate accident" because they didn't intend to hurt anyone and that they only used $NONLETHAL_DEVICE to ensure the safety of the officers involved and the general public.
Yeah, now pull the other one.
Problem is the harder they push the more likely people will start pushing back, and since the public doesn't have all these "non lethal" devices they will have to go straight to lethal force.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not to worry! (Score:3, Insightful)
It also means a man who was lying on the ground cooperating with police in Oakland got shot in the back, when the police officer only meant to taze the cooperating gentleman in question. Or when a loudmouth jerk, instead of just getting dragged out of an auditorium, gets tazed before getting dragged out of an auditorium.
I would love to see these weapons get used in the originally intended way. And sometimes they seem to. But there is a very human side of us that seems to equate "non-lethal weapon" with "instant compliance button" rather than "some countries consider these torture."
I do hope that better training, rules of engagement, and consequences for abuse will help counteract that aspect of human nature. Considering that several states have criminalized filming police officers doing their duties, that hope is going to be grounded with a continued cynicism.