New energy beam weapon

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,008
Likes
1,261
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
Let's see now...we can't use regular weapons because they might kill some one. Now we can't use less than lethal (in this case harmless) because it might be seen as torture. Why build the darn thing in the first place?

The way this country is going, I'm glad I'm getting old.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20497575/


Energy beam weapon could be used in Iraq
But officials refuse, concerned non-lethal effects could be seen as torture

Elliott Minor / AP

An unidentified airman looks over the military's Active Denial System, a non-lethal ray gun that was demonstrated at Moody Air Force Base, Ga. The system shoots a beam of energy that makes people feel they are about to catch fire.

Saddam Hussein had been gone just a few weeks, and U.S. forces in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, were already being called unwelcome invaders. One of the first big anti-American protests of the war escalated into shootouts that left 18 Iraqis dead and 78 wounded.
It would be a familiar scene in Iraq's next few years: Crowds gather, insurgents mingle with civilians. Troops open fire, and innocents die.
All the while, according to internal military correspondence obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. commanders were telling Washington that many civilian casualties could be avoided by using a new non-lethal weapon developed over the past decade.
Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested — and were denied — the device, which uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.
It's a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it out of concern that the weapon itself might be seen as a torture device.
Perched on a Humvee or a flatbed truck, the Active Denial System gives people hit by the invisible beam the sense that their skin is on fire. They move out of the way quickly and without injury.
On April 30, 2003, two days after the first Fallujah incident, Gene McCall, then the top scientist at Air Force Space Command in Colorado, typed out a two-sentence e-mail to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," McCall told Myers, according to the e-mail obtained by AP. The system should become "an immediate priority," McCall said.
Myers referred McCall's message to his staff, according to the e-mail chain.
McCall, who retired from government in November 2003, remains convinced the system would have saved lives in Iraq.
"How this has been handled is kind of a national scandal," McCall said by telephone from his home in Florida.
A few months after McCall's message, in August 2003, Richard Natonski, a Marine Corps brigadier general who had just returned from Iraq, filed an "urgent" request with officials in Washington for the energy-beam device. The device would minimize what Natonski described as the "CNN Effect" — the instantaneous relay of images depicting U.S. troops as aggressors.

A year later, Natonski, by then promoted to major general, again asked for the system, saying a compact and mobile version was "urgently needed," particularly in urban settings.
Natonski, now a three-star general, is the Marine Corps' deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations. He did not respond to an interview request.
In October 2004, the commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force "enthusiastically" endorsed Natonski's request. Lt. Gen. James Amos said it was "critical" for Marines in Iraq to have the system.
Senior officers in Iraq have continued to make the case. One December 2006 request noted that as U.S. forces are drawn down, the non-lethal weapon "will provide excellent means for economy of force."



The CNN effect !!! [rofl][rofl][rofl]
 
Last edited:
So zapping (but not killing) them is bad, but shooting (and killing) them is good?

Weird....I certainly think that the weapon should at least be available to the generals to deploy if needed.

I guess though one issue I've had for some time in Iraq is that the soldiers out there appear, in many cases, to be doing the job of cops. They are great and blowing stuff up, but I don't think the average soldier joined the army to do police duty.
 
Last edited:
I never understood the whole "geneva convention says only use ball ammo" thing. Is that really still true? I had heard also that the troops are not given softpoint ammo because it is less reliable in feeding in machine guns. Or maybe it's that softpoint ammo from an M16 is no more effective than ball ammo? Anyone know the real story?
 
An unidentified airman looks over the military's Active Denial System, a non-lethal ray gun that was demonstrated at Moody Air Force Base, Ga. The system shoots a beam of energy that makes people feel they are about to catch fire.

Let me know when they catch on fire... otherwise I remain uninterested! [cheers]
 
Last edited:
FutureWeapons did a piece on this system. More of a crowd dispersal system, but still, now the military is afraid to use new technolgies for fear of a media/PR backlash? WTF?!?!!
 
Too late. They're already banned in Massachuseets, along with phasers and Romulan disrupters. (No, I'm not joking.)

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom