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."
toast / bake / broil (Score:3, Funny)
I guess it didn't have enough settings - I'm sure they were looking for a 'Death Star' setting, for the truly pesky insurgents.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably couldn't figure out a way to switch it to "Blow".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Tinfoil hats you say? Aha, clear proof that this death heat ray was developed specifically to be used against the slashdot protest crowd when ACTA is signed into law!
the real question is (Score:2)
what the hell are they going to do with all those sharks?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Send them to law school?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Proving once again (Score:5, Insightful)
That we should have been investing in either freeze or death rays.
Re: (Score:2)
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:Proving once again (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the ice beam will be ready for the invasion of the arctic. And the death ray will surely repel the zombie hordes.
Seriously, a heat ray against a desert people? That's like throwing sand and large ocean waves at Hawaii. You might as well invite them back for warm tea in a room without air conditioning.
Re: (Score:2)
You know you've been playing too much Nethack when your first response to this is: Why should we use wands of fire, cold, or death when we've got a bunch of wands of striking and sleep handy?
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no...he meant lazier, but they're not really beams. More like a bonfire with a bale of weed.
Translation (Score:2)
"We were going for that District 9 weapon effect [youtube.com], but couldn't achieve it so this ray gun is scrapped for now."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Afghanistan... (Score:5, Interesting)
So does that mean they're bringing them home and will be using them domestically? /tinfoilhat
Failed to achieve satisfaction... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm kinda baffled why anyone in the military thought a heat ray pain gun would help them achieve satisfaction... but who am I to judge someone's kink?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Toronto is not in the US.
Re: (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, 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: (Score:2)
The trouble with that is there would be no way to control crowds short of shooting them. The "Kent State" method has all sorts of drawbacks. I'd rather deal with "stray noise" or "stray pain waves" than stray rifle bullets any day.
Re: (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"
Re: (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 "
Re: (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: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.
Re:Not to worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Make / DIY version! (Score:2)
My money's on the Maker / DIY crowd! Hopefully, it works better than the Arduino powered Bedazzler [instructables.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure these things will start showing up in U.S. police departments soon enough.
...and in grocery stores next to the Jiffy Pop.
Exactly (Score:2)
the military doesn't understand psychological war? (Score:4, Funny)
say it simply gave you an itchy feeling, no more
ok: then the military should have acted like it was an anthrax ray or something horribly nasty. and then let simple fear in the people it was pointed at do the rest of the work: "get the hell out of here, the americans have some scary new technology that causes your eyes to glow/ flesh to fall off in a month/ all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"
Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w (Score:5, Funny)
"get the hell out of here, the americans have some scary new technology that causes your eyes to glow/ flesh to fall off in a month/ all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"
What, they are going to introduce beer in large quantities?
Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w (Score:5, Funny)
Or how about beer with alcohol in it. Introducing the native Americans to alcohol worked out pretty well, for the Europeans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir, need to start sampling beer from the Pacific Northwest. There's none better on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, any local microbrewery is about the same. Most have high quality.
I spent my honeymoon in the Pac NW, but I've had better beers back at home (and I've had worse ones).
Don't get me wrong, some were worthy of note and I wrote them down, and sometimes I even crave them and wish I could be back there right now, but I do that for local microbrews as well. It probably isn't necessarily indicative of area, just smaller batches and far more interest in making something taste good than something that tastes con
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about beer with alcohol in it. Introducing the native Americans to alcohol worked out pretty well, for the Europeans. :)
Well, how about trying their pipe then... I'm sure opium is pretty common around there... I'm sure that'll work out pretty well for the Taliban, they're already stoned... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need fancy multi-millon Dollar gadgets to make people run away. A loudspeaker with a few tracks from say Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Katy Perry, will do far more damage.
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.
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: (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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'd call it "using the wrong tool for the job". If you need a screwdriver, and I offer you a hammer, that hammer didn't "fail". It's a perfectly good hammer, it does what it's supposed to do, but it is the wrong tool for the task you require.
Right now the U.S. military is looking for new weapons to deal with the Taliban insurgency on the Pakistan border. They're not dealing with massive crowds of civilian riot
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one could say that by not being the right tool for the job and not being deployed, it failed its "final test".
Re: (Score:2)
So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
A powerdrill is the wrong tool for hammering a nail, but it doesn't fail at the job. Damages the powerdrill though.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also say by the above logic our whole mission is failing in the sandboxes we are in. We bought the whole toolbox, but we keep using the wrong tools for the job.
Re: (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 thi
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's 1 am and your mother goes into labor. Your father is not around because he was killed recently in a random act of violence. You get her into your beat up, barely functioning, pickup truck and start driving to the nearest hospital. As you round a corner you see an odd flash from a dark alleyway but don't pay any attention to it. Your focused on taking care of your hysteric mother. For your failure to stop a soldier in the dark alleyway opens up with a 240B Machine Guns [wikipedia.org].
Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Literacy is not 100% in that area in the world, and I doubt many people driving vehicles are tested and licensed before being allowed access to a vehicle.
Most people in the world outside of United States understand to STOP when a group of soilders with guns standing by the side of the road. Especially when barricades are involved. They can at least read the body language.
It didnt go "ding" when it was done. (Score:2, Funny)
Microwaves & Cold War (Score:2)
My physics PhD ex told me about one of her professors. In the 1950's in Nevada, he was working on DoD projects concerning radar. Well, it gets awful cold in the desert at night, and it's still awful cold in the morning. So my ex's professor and the rest of the crew would stand in front of the RADAR set and let the microwaves warm them up.
Re: (Score:2)
talib don't surf!
11,000 times on 700 volunteers (Score:5, Funny)
That's 15.7 times each. Being shot with that thing must feel awesome. You'd think the military would have caught on once the volunteers started queueing up for the fifth or sixth time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming they tested it on one person at a time. More realistically, they would fire it on a much larger group to test its crowd control capability.
So really, this paints the picture of a group of 100 people getting hit with the ray, standing up and cheering, "FUCK YEAH! Hit us AGAIN! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" about 1000 times.
I'm thinking they tested it on drunk frat boys.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That makes sense. The experiment plan is easier to get past the ethics committee that way.
16 times! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they could use it on riot police in cold weather. Keep 'em nice and toasty. Put a foil-lined cocoa packet in your back pocket, and have a tasty snack when you're done.
I guess it's too expensive or unreliable (Score:2)
Redeployed (Score:4, Funny)
Not the only failure... (Score:5, Funny)
The cold ray failed as well.... It seems the troops were firing it at themselves to keep comfortable and keeping beverages cold instead of fighting evil...
I know why it failed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullets are more reliable, effective, and cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a stat (this is original research but this isn't the wikipedia so fuck it) that 3,000 bullets are expended for each enemy killed.
This has been fairly constant for all wars since at least the Civil War (don't have data on the Revolution or earlier euro wars that had bullets in them; but the CW and both world wars and Viet Nam followed this model; can't remember if I saw data for the first Gulf War (i mean, it lasted a couple of days and we were cluster-bombing cars and rounding up prisoners more than
"Failed test" (Score:2)
Put them on Japanese whaling vessels (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Though maybe those Sea Shepard people would be guilty of the same crime, throwing their stinky cheese onto the fishing boats or whatever it is they do. But someth
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Back of my mind (low-reliability recollection) says they actually did that.
It also tells me they're using them on boats off the east coast of Africa to deter pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval [wikipedia.org]
Not many craft in Japan's fleet can outrun a 200+ knot (230+ mph) torpedo.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't cause large groups of people (Score:2)
to burst into flames at long range.
Hence useless.
Clearly (Score:2)
the targets/victims kept falling on their buttered side.
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: (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-a
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, with it being about 1650 AD in that part of the world, I can see why commanders aren't keen on using this on civilian crowds.
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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it failed because they were firing a heat ray at a bunch of desert-dwellers. It's not like these guys are going to go, "oh, ow, it burns!" They live in the goddamned DESERT. Burning isn't a sensation, it's a lifestyle.
It's kinda like using pepper spray on a true spice lover. They're just gonna smile and ask you for the recipe before they kill you.
Re:Final report (Score:5, Funny)
Ultimately, upgrading your units to use the heat ray is not worth the points cost. Despite the superior strength and AP, you need to be within 12 inches to use it. This is assault range, and at most you are going to get one round of shooting before your opponent closes in. There's an excellent chance you will not get to use it except with bike mounted troops.
The heat ray is ultimately a weapon of opportunity, and you would be better off with the plasma gun for 5 more points. It's rapid fire and gives you a couple good rounds of shooting. Another alternative is a combi-gun with a melta attachment, for all intents and purposes you are going to get to use it the same number of times in a game. Even a standard rapid fire rifle is going to result in more shots against infantry, and the probability of a hit...
oh wait...
this isn't a conversation about 40k, and we are not talking about fantasy SF weapons that don't work. We are talking about real world fantasy weapons that don't work. My mistake!
M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't an ordinary war. It's a house-to-house search for malefactors. Or at least it should be. Clear an area, leave a presence to prevent it from being taken again and to cap anything that was hiding, then move your main force on to the next one. Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
Unless in the process you turn good guys in your pwned sectors into bad guys by acting like the bad guys they once helped you exterminate.
Regardless, in the process you don't allow yourself at any time to f
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
In case you aren't, you've just tried to critique a concise, insightful summary of what's wrong with Israeli policy (and US) with a bunch of meaningless fluff.
Please, allow me to give you some _real_ anti-Zionist sentiment. Fuck Israel! Fuck those shit-for-brains hardcore fundamentalist asswipes who are still stealing land, shooting protesters, starving children, and crying in public "poor us, poor us." I'm gonna Godwin-by-proxy, but you-know-who with the armbands and th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy.
I doubt that. You'd have to have numbers, or infinite luck.
The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas, and in most areas the good guys are all too willing to help me out. It's not terribly easy to root out small numbers of them from large populations, but it's doable.
In areas where bad guys are numerous, we switch from house to house picking and choosing to clearing the entire area. This is where war gets mess
Re:Final report (Score:4, Interesting)
The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. 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.
This was not meant to be used against the enemy or anyone else on the "other side". This was intended as a non-lethal crowd control measure.
Shooting into a crowd is bad press and will certainly galvanize a population against you, making them enemies. This "heat ray" eliminates the news story about the 10-yr-old kid who was shot in the head by a ricochet bullet (reported as intentional genocide by the press) with his crying mother screaming over his lifeless body.
So when the angry crowds form over the aid tent that was accidentally bombed, you have three options:
1) Fired into the crowd, dispersing them, but causing more crowds to form all over the world.
2) Hold you position and get torn to little pieces by the angry crowd or the actual enemy who is dispersed among the crowd, encouraging them.
3) Run, encouraging the enemy to stage protests at other strategic locations.
I prefer option four:
4) Utilize something like this heat ray and disperse the crowd in a harmless fashion until the local political leaders get control of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take 700 x 15 trials each, and then see how many people .1% is.