US release info on 'Heat Ray' gun. It's harmless... a first for the US!!

Crowd control weapon from the sound of things - be cool if you get a pocket version, imagine the fun on the underground ;-)

news.bbc.co.uk...

The ADS has been discussed a number of times here; many wonder if you could change, or better, select the wavelenght or power of the output. You know, from "pain" to "deep fat fry".

This has also been discussed here, here, here, here and to some extent here among others, which can be found by searching for "area denial system".

And remember: "... non lethal weapon systems that turned out to be quite lethal." For the titorites amongst us.

more weapons to kill, injure & torture the innocent
NO WONDER THE WORLDS HATES THE US & A !

A video on it.
Here.

Originally posted by OldBoy
more weapons to kill, injure & torture the innocent
NO WONDER THE WORLDS HATES THE US & A !

If you would like to make blatantly crude, personal remarks,
Please do so in proper grammar.
Because as poor as the United State's educational system is.
Yours appears in even worse shape.

Edit: First failed, this is a rough 'copy-cat'.
I felt it rude to comment off-topic, only, so here is my opinion of the matter:

It is an extremely useful tool.
The ability to disperse a group of people, quickly, and without causing them pain.
All the tool does is trigger the nerve ending's release of pain-corresponding chemicals.
Like holding the trigger at the gas pump.
Instead of coming out in short bursts -- With short squeezes -- It's full flow.
Though you're not causing any harm.
Not a 'little', not 'less than before', but none.

There is no 'torture'.
You cannot 'injure a person'.
And the system is entirely ineffective as a killing tool.

I imagine it may very well save lives.
Imagine being able to disperse the Iraqi's who park at security check-points to scout out our patrolling forces.
Or to rid ourselves of violent rioteers, or death-squads.
All in a single burst -- And without violence, without death.
Those men will go home to their families.
Angry, confused, and but having not killed a soul.
It may even help the way we are seen.
'These men did not kill us.'
'They had the ability to do so.'
'Instead they turned us away from a path that would lead to my death.'
'In order to save their lives, our lives, and the lives of the innocents we'd have hurt.'

Perhaps a bit philosophical, for the average man.
But would you continually run into an invisible line of searing pain?
I imagine it takes the fun out of being a martyr pretty quick.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Iblis]

I don't think this will be a good thing if it is turned on the American people. These types of weapons should specifically be barred from use on United States citizens.

Unfortunately that introduces the concern:

'Are we more valuable than the Iraqi people?'
'Why are you willing to use it on them, but not your own?'

In order to give pain, we must be able to take it,
Or else our ownership of such a tool might be questioned.

However, I'd point out a brief observation:
Use it only as a deterrant against insurgents, not as a means of control for the Iraqi populace.
By that same note: If anyone in the United States ever attempted sectarian, or political violence. Then they deserve the same.
But as for a means of crowd dispersal?
Let's stick to Riot Guards for that.

I have to admit that the comment about the whole world hating the US is a little strong.... Personally, and for my own well thought out reasons I dont particularly like a lot of things about the US - but heh, I dont like a lot about my own country either.

The funny thing is though, if you travel to a country, you always bump into someone you really like - and that is the point, no matter where you are you only ever like a few people around you anyway.

On topic though - the ray gun has got to be a better alternative to bullets and gas for crowd control - heh you could even blast them with a water cannon and as they are running away, dry them off with the ray gun!

Q

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Quackmaster]

True, though as-of-late, hatred towards the United States seems more of an international 'fad', so to speak, than anything else.
And this seems compounded by the fatalist, and apathetic 'fad' our country has also taken -- Something starkly in opposition to the 'Free love' and 'World peace' movements of the 70's.

Though as you said, despite any problems a country may have, there do appear sparkling examples of humanity that, at any one time, make you almost forgive their foster-state.

On another note, that discussion about water could certainly bring some evil elements.

'There? Does that burn? Does it?'
'Fine! Have some water!'

Whereupon they unleash water at some godforsaken PSI.
Fun times.

another link:

hosted.ap.org...

and here's a pic from the mounted weapon:
newsimg.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Iblis
Unfortunately that introduces the concern:

'Are we more valuable than the Iraqi people?'

Eh? Of course. Our own government had BETTER think that we're more important than citizens of a foreign nation. ANd their own governement had better think that its own citizens are its primary responsibility, and not the citizens of other countries.

In order to give pain, we must be able to take it,Or else our ownership of such a tool might be questioned.

Huh? Why? I sure as heck don't like to be punched in the face, but I'd do it to another person that was threatening me.

However, I'd point out a brief observation:
Use it only as a deterrant against insurgents, not as a means of control for the Iraqi populace.

The only proper detterent for people trying to kill you is to kill them.
This device will allow american soldiers to deal with angry and violent crowds of upset civilians, rather than having to stand by until the situation escalates to where the soldiers lives are in extreme danger, and they start shooting with machine guns, they can use this device which isn't going to be killing masses of people.

But as for a means of crowd dispersal? Let's stick to Riot Guards for that.

A riot guard is going to smash a person in the face with a baton if they try to cross the line of guards. This is probably in the same range of pain, but won't require reconstructive surgery afterwards.

arius
These types of weapons should specifically be barred from use on United States citizens.

Why? If I was in a crowd, protesting some government action, I'd prefer to be hit with a nonleathal weapon than a bullet to the head.

There is actually an older and still active thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please redirect your conversations there as this thread will likely be shortly closed.

FUTURE FRONT PAGE STORY.
"I thought it was set for stun", the officer later told his superiors. The officer in question is on trial for his life after accidentally vaporizing 365 people who were protesting the new child cloning clinic that just opened a month ago.

'Child-Cloning'.
'Vaporize'.

We are not on the topic of ray-guns, but of a specific tool.
Please remain on topic, and steer from 'paranormal' frontiers.

What "bs". Not the technology its proven and has been around for years.

The title "A first for the US" tell me what other nation has not killed people and remember it is the US that has Pioneered this device which will dispurse violent crowds without maiming or injuring people. The US as an evil bad guy is a joke. The US may not be perfect but at least it is trying to help where as other countries and their people are ok with people suffering as long as it is not them hmhmhm "Mainland europe". Oh and they talk alot which leads to nothing.

Does anyone remember that university Tazer incident a few months back?

Good luck to anyone with a social conscience who decides to go on a march this year.

Interestingly enough this beam is only 6mm in wavelength so can be absorbed by a dustbin lid.

Oh, and Iblis, you ever hear of Chinese water torture? It never killed anyone but was incredibly effective.

I can't wait to sneak one of these into the Democratic National Covention, or so as not to be biased, into the Republican National Convention.

If I recall correctly, this so-called raygun can hurt people quite easily if they have metallic objects close to the skin or if they are sweating heavily, or even if the operators turn up the power a bit. All testing so far has been very controlled and in no way could be representative of an actual crowd of demonstrators, insurgents, or what have you.

It is only a small step to make this thing lethal to humans.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Astronomer70]

I understand the Canadians are trialing a similar technology using a really long hose with a hair dryer on one end ;-)

On a serious note, although I know it cant even go through a dustbin lid yet I wonder if in time it could be developed to keep people trapped in disasters etc warm while rescuers go about their business?

Originally posted by Swordbeast
This has also been discussed here, here, here, here and to some extent here among others, which can be found by searching for "area denial system".

And remember: "... non lethal weapon systems that turned out to be quite lethal." For the titorites amongst us.

And Here. This particular one gave me hassles, But as the news has resurfaced, I will repeat what I have said there:


How dare the U.S. condem Saddam Hussein!

FACT:
The U.S. claims that Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on his own people.
The U.S. claims that Hussein did this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that Hussein did this to prevent upheaval and maintain his reign.
(Let's ignore the fact that the U.S. violated and ignored terms set by Geneva to go after him.)

Now for the juicy bit. Try to see if you can see a pattern building here...

FACT:
The U.S. would now like to use new weapons on it's own people.
The U.S. claims they want to do this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that they want to test it in crowd control situations.

Did you spot the similarities there?
Lets have a look at two scenarios.

Scenario A.
Jimmy lived in Iraq during Saddam's reign.
"I don't like Saddam" says Jimmy, "I want to protest!"
"How dare you protest!" says Saddam as he tests his weapons.
Later that week, Jimmy is in awful pain, with no cure for the chemicals used on him. He dies.

Scenario B.
Bobby Lives in The United States.
"I don't like Bush" says Bobby, "I want to protest!"
"How dare you protest!" says the U.S. Government, as they test their weapons.
10 years later, Poor Bobby is diagnosed with fatal melanoma. There is no cure. He dies.
If someone was to put two and two together and say "Hey! You killed him!"
U.S. Government would then reply with "He got cancer because he spent too much time in the sun."

The U.S claims that their weapons are non-lethal.
They may not be immediately fatal, but how do they know it won't cause chronic suffering or death in the long run? It is after all, only un-tested.
Weapons for Warfare should be tested in war.


Final Statment:
The U.S. has NO RIGHT to condem Saddam for actions and/or reasoning that they themselves wish to.

I fully understand your point, but in fairness I think you are using a little too much writers licence to compare the two situations...

Firstly, the majority of testing would be on subjects who agree to have it tested on them. I dont think the victims in Iraq were consulted before being subjected to their fate.

Secondly, even though I am by no means a fan of the US, you really have to stretch your imagination to claim the two scenarios are even remotely comparable.