US Military "Heat Ray" Coming soon to a protest near you

[kpete]

The 'heat ray' system, which can be mounted on a military vehicle, shoots an invisible, high-frequency electromagnetic ray from what looks like a satellite dish.

Science fiction is becoming science fact as the U.S. military has developed a "heat ray" weapon to direct non-lethal electromagnetic waves at unruly crowds.

The U.S. military demonstrated the system to the media, which delivers an intense blast of unbearable heat, similar to that of a hot oven door opening.

"You're not gonna see it, you're not gonna hear it, you're not gonna smell it: you're gonna feel it," Marine Col. Tracy Taffola said at the public unveiling of the system at a U.S. Marines base near Washington, D.C. The "heat ray" has been dubbed the decidedly dull Active Denial System and can be used against crowds as far as one kilometre away.

The system, which can be mounted on a military vehicle, shoots an invisible, high-frequency electromagnetic ray from what looks like a satellite dish.

more:
http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20120313/unitedstates-marines-military-heat-ray-weapon-120313.html

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Don't throw out your tinfoil hat yet

Potential Countermeasures

Normal reflective material (smooth metal) will not protect from PEP pulses because the
first one will already damage the surface due to its high power. However, because it takes
many pulses to ablate to a significant depth (say, one millimetre), adding ablative material
of several mm thickness would be effective. Deformation of the lower layer could absorb
much of the fast mechanical-blow effect (although the total impulse would still be
delivered). In many cases the existing material (steel casing, thick winter clothing) may
already provide significant protection. The head could be covered by a helmet with visor;
the latter would lose its transparency after the first pulses.

http://www.bundesstiftung-friedensforschung.de/pdf-docs/berichtaltmann2.pdf

[Ilsa]

6. We need to develop countermeasures

to make our own army's weapon (that we paid for) ineffective.

[libtodeath]

21. Millions startving and homeless

yet we spend money on this so we can play thug around the world and likely here at home.

[DJ13]

2. So 30 years from now, when people subjected to the heat ray start suffering from cancer

... the government will claim they have no responsibility, right?

I would have thought the early military radio operators who had a high incidence of cancer from working around microwave installations would have been enough to prevent this kind of desperate stupidity from being considered.

[USArmyParatrooper]

3. Yes yes I agree!

The US military should only have weapons that kill.

On the contrary to the post above, DO throw away the tinfoil hats.

[Junkdrawer]

17. New "crowd control" toys keep popping up...especially during G20-like events...

Group of 20 Summit protests in Pittsburgh this past September were a threshold event. Not only were protesters detained and beaten by the police, but they were also subjected to new military-grade technologies that have pushed the boundaries of what kinds of actions are permissible for controlling large crowds of protesters, unruly or not. This fact, however, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media for several reasons. First of all, the commercial media ignores stories it can’t spin into easy and familiar narratives of good and bad, right and wrong. The story of the G20 protests and the subsequent police brutality that took place during those protests does not match the facile optimism of political campaign speeches, upbeat advertising, and entertainment spectacles. Instead, these corporate media outlets spin simplistic stories that redefine disorders as isolated disruptions or exceptional “tragedies.” Another alternative interpretation of these national “tragedies” and disruptions is possible by connecting together what they have in common. The actions of security forces in Pittsburgh in 2009, New Orleans in 2005, and the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004 all reveal the increasingly militant policies of the homeland security state since September 11. By tracing police actions back to those policies it’s possible to more substantively interpret the meaning of the Pittsburgh protests and what they mean for the future of crowd control.

....

http://www.gcadvocate.com/2011/05/the-militarization-of-crowd-control-2/

[pipoman]

4. If it feels like a 400 or 500 deg. oven

how far is the stretch to a 2000 degree oven and instant incineration?

[USArmyParatrooper]

5. "Feels like" =/= an increase in temperature.

So where does incineration come in?

[ljm2002]

7. May I suggest...

...that you volunteer to try it and then come back and tell us about it. You sound a lot like the waterboarding apologists who assured us that waterboarding was absolutely, positively not torture... until a couple of them actually agreed to try it. Boy did they change their tune in a hurry.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. +100!

[Junkdrawer]

14. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=416924

[USArmyParatrooper]

16. What a complete and utter fail in logic

Absolutely nothing I said even remotely implies any of that.

[ljm2002]

23. You are objecting to the term "incineration"...

...and you also say that it feeling hotter does not equate to an increase in temperature.

How do you suppose this weapon produces the sensation of burning? It is a microwave-based weapon. Ergo it seems safe to assume that the "sensation of burning" is caused by the motion of molecules on the skin being stimulated by the microwaves. In case you are unaware, molecules in motion == heat. Therefore, when it feels hotter, that means it is hotter: i.e., an increase in temperature.

Now as to the amount of heat content, that is indeed not the same as it would be for direct incineration. Because the weapon is designed to work only on the surface, it has less heat content than a device intended to actually cook its victim from the inside out as microwaves do.

But what happens if the ray's intensity is turned up? What happens if the weapon is mis-calibrated? What happens if someone is immobilized, and cannot escape the ray?

You might object to what you see as over-the-top language; however, your responses seem to be trying to minimize the dangers. We've heard the same minimizing of risks for other non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets, bean bags, and tasers. Yet people continue to be killed by them. At least in those cases, though, one might argue they are preferable to the known lethality of real bullets, during arrests and the like. So non-lethal might be translated as "much less lethal". Although law enforcement does seem to use them more often now, in situations where they would not be using real bullets anyway.

In this instance, you have a pain ray that will be used against crowds. I can predict with certainty that one of the lethal effects of this weapon will be death by stampede. Bank on it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. Once again, an epic failure of logic.

So disagreeing with you about incineration being possible means someone is a "waterboarding apologist"? There is absolutely NO correlation between having a disagreement about the science of the weapon and condoning waterboarding. NONE. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

I am happy to address those questions that you brought up, but first I'm dying to here you explanation how one correlates to the other.

[eppur_se_muova]

8. Wavelength is 3.2 mm (95 GHz) -- shouldn't be that hard to build a retroreflector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System#Effects

http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/corporate/mediacoverage/article/BEND-st-4Jul-pD8.pdf

[spin]

9. The dominate systems which rule our world

will use technology to suppress the 99%.

No surprise there. Welcome to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four". Soon we will all be controlled and watched by Big Brother. Post your opinions on Face Book or DU and the government will be watching. March in a protest and you will feel that you are in a microwave oven.

Isn't technology wonderful? It's good to be part of the 1%!!!

[excuse not to write]

10. But we NEEDZ teh ray, dammit!

To defend against

[surfdog]

11. The article says nothing about protests

it never mentions that will be used on protesters

So why would you put that in your OP ?

[PA Democrat]

15. Oh because there is NO history of crowd control weapons being used on protestors.

Just a week shy of the two year anniversary of the Pittsburgh-hosted G-20 summit that included the inaugural use of the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) sound weapon on Americans comes a federal lawsuit about its alleged harm.

The Associated Press (AP) reports:


The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Karen Piper, then a visiting professor at Carnegie Mellon University, who contends she was a bystander when protests occurred in the city on Sept. 24, 2009. Piper's hearing was damaged by the speaker, called a Long Range Acoustic Device, which the suit said "emits harmful, pain-inducing sounds over long distances."

The device is described in some detail:


The device concentrates voice commands and a piercing, car alarm-like sound in a 30- or 60-degree cone that can be heard nearly two miles away. The volume measures 140-150 decibels three feet away - louder than a jet engine - but dissipates with distance...Among other things, the device has been used by cargo ships to deter pirates and those who may wrongfully approach U.S. war ships.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/21/use-of-sound-weapon-provokes-l

[gratuitous]

19. It doesn't specifically mention protests

Although this quote from the military flak all but says it:

"You're not gonna see it, you're not gonna hear it, you're not gonna smell it: you're gonna feel it," Marine Col. Tracy Taffola said at the public unveiling of the system at a U.S. Marines base near Washington, D.C. The "heat ray" has been dubbed the decidedly dull Active Denial System and can be used against crowds as far as one kilometre away.

I note the repeated use of the word "you," as in the public being addressed by Col. Taffola. And I suppose the "crowds" mentioned by the writer could be folks at a sporting event, or parader-goers. But I suspect the "crowds" being referred to has a pretty definite meaning, even if it's not explicitly named.

[Junkdrawer]

12. How does a protest of hundreds, become a protest of thousands, become a protest of millions?

Turn the hundreds into martyrs which angers and guilts the thousands, etc. etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Well, we can always trust the military to use such devices with the greatest care and humanity.

And. only against real threats to our "freedom".

[libtodeath]

20. +1000

[KG]

28. this images come to mind whenever someone claims the military protects our 'freedoms'

[hifiguy]

22. Cops all over the country are

jacking off like monkeys on meth at the thought of turning this on the general populace at the earliest possible moment. And it will be placed in the hands of the cops just as every other weapons system short of nukes has been for the last thirty years.

[GopperStopper2680]

24. The thing is essentially..

a big microwave oven. It directs low frequency radio waves (IE Microwaves) at a target. The Navy is also researching and developing Phas-R, a laser 'area denial' rifle that looks like something out of Farscape. It would direct an infrared beam that would spread out and keep people from accessing certain areas. Personally unless you want to get into conspiricies about things like 'scalar weapons' I don't think energy weapons are a big deal. They'll never replace bullets. I spent two years in college studying lasers myself. Now...as to whether they'll pose eventual Human Rights violations that seems much more likely.

[woo me with science]

26. K&R

[Ilsa]

27. What are they expecting to be so bad that they have to use this

on us for crowd control? Are they already expecting worldwide economic collapse?

[GliderGuider]

29. Economic/ecological collapse would definitely be candidate scenarios.

I would expect that they're already gaming them.