A New Military Ray-Gun, page 1

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:53 PM

link

The United States Air force has developed a new non-lethal weapon known as the Active Denial System. The Air force created this in the hopes that it may save many lives.

www.foxnews.com
During the first media demonstration of the weapon Wednesday, airmen fired beams from a large dish antenna mounted atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios that U.S. troops might encounter in war zones.The device's two-man crew located their targets through powerful lenses and fired beams from more than 500 yards away. That is nearly 17 times the range of existing non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets.

Anyone hit by the beam immediately jumped out of its path because of the sudden blast of heat throughout the body. While the 130-degree heat did not cause lasting pain, it was intense enough to make the participants think their clothes were about to ignite.

"This is one of the key technologies for the future," said Marine Col. Kirk Hymes, director of the non-lethal weapons program at Quantico, Va., which helped develop the new weapon. "Non-lethal weapons are important for the escalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I like this line of thinking, the Active Denial System can be mounted on helicopters, ships, and guard towers. One big downfall with a lot of non-lethals on the market is that they have to be reloaded, or refilled. This runs on electricity so anywhere with a generator will do.

Related News Links:
www.jnlwp.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">jnlwp.com
en.wikipedia.org
vault.galeropia.org
www.why-war.com

[edit on 26-1-2007 by JamesMcMahn]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:09 PM

link

Its cheap and effective what more can you ask for, besides a cup holder. I hope the military continues to research non-lethals seriously.

johnsky

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:26 PM

link

The only downsides I can see in this is how it is used.

Should someone actally want to start a lethal confrentation, what better way to start it than to fire non-lethal weapons, convincing the enemy you are actually trying to 'ignite' them, and in turn, they fire back with lethal weapons.
It sure would make you look like the innocent one, should you get the media to word it correctly.

Another point to bring up about non-lethal weapons, especially those that simply make you think youre in danger. Those who know of the weapon, cannot really be deterred by it. They will understand it to be a non-lethal weapon, and they will continue on their original path.

Other than that, to disperse rioting crowds who do not expect it. It's perfect.

WestPoint23

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:58 PM

link

It does not matter how much you know about the weapon, the pain it provides is extremely painful, you cannot tolerate it. It's like putting your hand on a really hot surface, you don't think "gee this is hot, let me see, should I keep my hand here or move it away?". You automatically move without thinking because it's a natural reflex. Same with this, the pain is so sudden and intense your body makes you move out the way. Unless you're a Buddhist monk and have that kind of self disciple/control you're definitely not going to be continuing on your original path. Plus if you do there's always the lethal option as a last means...

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:11 AM

link

Originally posted by johnsky
Should someone actally want to start a lethal confrentation, what better way to start it than to fire non-lethal weapons, convincing the enemy you are actually trying to 'ignite' them, and in turn, they fire back with lethal weapons.
It sure would make you look like the innocent one, should you get the media to word it correctly.

If the crowd, terrorist, etc. fires back then you would simply foucus the beam on him. The pain should make him drop his weapon.

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:49 AM

link

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It does not matter how much you know about the weapon, the pain it provides is extremely painful, you cannot tolerate it. It's like putting your hand on a really hot surface, you don't think "gee this is hot, let me see, should I keep my hand here or move it away?". You automatically move without thinking because it's a natural reflex. Same with this, the pain is so sudden and intense your body makes you move out the way. Unless you're a Buddhist monk and have that kind of self disciple/control you're definitely not going to be continuing on your original path. Plus if you do there's always the lethal option as a last means...

At 122 degrees Fahrenheit you involuntarily jerk back, also the beam can be amplified to a higher temperature that would definitly make someone move.

HondaCivic

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:56 AM

link

This reminds me of the bomb that someone invented that will knock out electricty/technology and what not but not kill anybody. Its like a static field that disrupts stuff.

I like how they are thinking of new ways to save people, but then again if they dont die, they just gonna go back to doing what they did before (talking about them physcho people)

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:42 AM

link

Originally posted by HondaCivic
This reminds me of the bomb that someone invented that will knock out electricty/technology and what not but not kill anybody. Its like a static field that disrupts stuff.

I like how they are thinking of new ways to save people, but then again if they dont die, they just gonna go back to doing what they did before (talking about them physcho people)

Are you talking about the EMP bomb. I personally am not against murder, if it has a reason.

GT100FV

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:36 PM

link

It's not murder if it is justifiable. Murder by definition is the unlawful taking of life. The more options available for the military that are non lethal, the better, and this is a good system.

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:20 PM

link

Sorry, I should watch my words. I was exhausted when I wrote that reply. I also have been desensitived to murder.

apc

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:52 AM

link

This is really cool! But... I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to sue for getting skin cancer.

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:45 PM

link

Originally posted by apc
This is really cool! But... I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to sue for getting skin cancer.

The Active Denial System doesn't use cancer causing radiation.

apc

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:07 PM

link

You'd be surprised what can cause cancer these days... especially in California. I swear you'd think you'd get a tumor just by breathing the air out there.

I wasn't being that serious, but it is certainly a possibility. Who knows what could turn up in those exposed after a decade or two.

I'm most interested in the future of this technology. Primarily in the miniaturization of it. It's not a question of if, but when this will become handheld.

grimreaper797

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:44 PM

link

I wonder how long till they use these to disrupt protests that they think have "gone too far" because they are shouting or refuse to leave the area they are protesting in.

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:03 PM

link

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I wonder how long till they use these to disrupt protests that they think have "gone too far" because they are shouting or refuse to leave the area they are protesting in.

Its supposed to become widely available in early 2010.

JamesMcMahn

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:16 PM

link

Here is a PDF file from the United States Air Force concerning the Active Denial System.

JamesMcMahn

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:37 PM

link

Originally posted by apc
You'd be surprised what can cause cancer these days... especially in California. I swear you'd think you'd get a tumor just by breathing the air out there.

I wasn't being that serious, but it is certainly a possibility. Who knows what could turn up in those exposed after a decade or two.

I'm most interested in the future of this technology. Primarily in the miniaturization of it. It's not a question of if, but when this will become handheld.

When it becomes handheld it will probably replace the taser in Law Enforcment.

that1guy789

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:11 AM

link

a tazer and this beam your talking about are totally different. once a tazer is atached to you it is impossible to stand when to trigger is being pulled(im talking from expierence). with this ray gun all you have to do is move out of the way. you still have your weapon and your not on the ground.