Microwave weapon will rain pain from the sky.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Ventessa
No...but they need keep in mind we are HUMAN, and should be treated with some d@mn respect.

Directed energy weapons are designed for confrontation, conflicts, etc... The mere fact that such a systems exists speaks volumes. Instead of using cent cheap bullets to resolve differences, we developed a billion dollar program. A program which seeks to be as "less than lethal" as possible. This specific systems dissuades people from unwanted activity, and also protects them from permanent damage as a result of such unwelcomed behavior. Furthermore, respect is earned, not entitled. And if your only concern is that getting "microwaved" is somehow not respectable, well, too bad.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by WestPoint23]

Somewhat curious, how does a citizen earn respect from 'Their' government ?
I'd also be interested in what you think ' Our government' would consider " unwanted activity and unwelcomed behavior " I believe these weapons are developed, as you suggest, as a kinder gentler method for getting 'There' message across to us uppity citizens. Surely, if the government started gunning down their constituents they may start shooting back. I honestly think your position is ass backwards and if you think this is not respectful ( in your words ) well, too bad.

There is something I want to know.
Does that thing have a 'popcorn'setting?

Masers are not difficult to build but somewhat limited in their application.

Information Unlimited is a great site. You can order plans or kits from them as well as fully assembled product. Get 'em while they're still legal!

I think the only scenario in which this weapon wouldn't be so bad, ..... is if maybe a bad guy DIDNT have a microwave, .... and the only thing left in his rations was a hot pocket !!! everyone wins !!

Originally posted by dazbog
Somewhat curious, how does a citizen earn respect from 'Their' government?

That comment was intended as a general remark. However, to answer you question through my perspective; a fine citizen should strive to encompass (but not be limited to) the following: demonstration of lawful, respectful, humble, patient, and tolerant conduct in both personal and public life, a desire to better themselves through education and observation for attainment of a successful career and life; fulfilling both a personal passion and also positively contributing to society. Furthermore, knowledge of national history, understanding of constitutional matters, support for national interests and goals, participation in civil duties, and the exercise of political and civil freedoms and rights (all with the highest regard for the principles and ideals upon which this nation was founded upon) should be encouraged.

Originally posted by dazbog
I'd also be interested in what you think ' Our government' would consider " unwanted activity and unwelcomed behavior "

Without proper context and recognition of contributing factors, it is a difficult question to answer comprehensively, and not one that I care to discuss. However there is something indisputable that I think we all, as citizens, can agree on. Regardless of government attitude and behavior, the continual "normal" function of society, that is, under manageable and secure conditions, with a productive output and prosperous environment for all is paramount.

Also, a functional democratic political system is vital to the overall success of the nation. So to that end, anything which threatens to disrupt that (including the government) should be treated in a swift and devastating manner, but in accordance with the system. Otherwise there is chaos and anarchy, uncertainty and fear. I personally seek progress through action and optimism. I do not seek revolution through irrational reasoning and hatred.

Originally posted by dazbog
I believe these weapons are developed, as you suggest, as a kinder gentler method for getting 'There' message across to us uppity citizens.

You're free to believe as you like, even if such a belief has no merit. If by "message" you mean upholding law and order, then yes, of course. I personally do not want to live in a state where those facets of society responsible for such cannot provide that. The fact that they can, and are willing to do so in as a humane (even if imperfect) and civil way as possible is something that should be applauded.

Originally posted by dazbog
Surely, if the government started gunning down their constituents they may start shooting back.

If these constituents started gunning down their government, one would expect that they will also shoot right back.

Originally posted by dazbog
I honestly think your position is ass backwards and if you think this is not respectful ( in your words ) well, too bad.

You honestly don't know enough about my "position" to make anything but an ass backward presumption.

reply to post by WestPoint23
I hope you have the same standard of expectations when it comes to our elected officials.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, a functional democratic political system is vital to the overall success of the nation. So to that end, anything which threatens to disrupt that (including the government) should be treated in a swift and devastating manner, but in accordance with the system. Otherwise there is chaos and anarchy, uncertainty and fear. I personally seek progress through action and optimism. I do not seek revolution through irrational reasoning and hatred.

Let's all chip in, buy one and remove our governments then... They seem to be holding an awful lot of things back and causing a whole load of trouble for the average person.

reply to post by WestPoint23


WestPoint, I always look forward to your knowledgeable posts and know that they will be well thought out.

But this is one time I have to disagree. In the first place, why would the Pentagon be that concerned with crowd control?

Normally, the military is tasked with killing our enemies as efficiently as possible, in the greatest numbers, as quickly as possible.

Crowd control is bending into an area the military is not normally tasked with.

Second. Where exactly are these weapons to be used, and will they be used exclusively outside the US? And what guarantees do we have?

I EVER have some ### damned microwave used on me or mine, I'm going to break out the hatchet and the rest of the hardware, and I'm going HUNTING.

If this is designed for crowd control, or population control, I can guarantee you it will have the opposite effect.

I assume you served. The Constitution is what I swore an oath to. Not the government. Not the President. Not the Congress. Not even the military.

The Constitution.

They ever turn weapons like this against the citizens of the US, then they are guilty of treason, and should be hunted down and summarily executed.

Just because the pretty boys in the Pentagon like technology, doesn't mean that most of it doesn't originate in the civilian sector, and that there are other weapons systems our military aren't even aware exist.

They better sit this next one out, and get busy fighting our existing enemies where they find them.

And stay out of the crowd control business.

When "humans" get worked into a mob frenzy all the human-ness left in them goes away. They tip over and burn cars with old people in them, beat people to death, break every piece of glass in sight, etc. You've seen the clips. If there is a way to get them to stop without killing them then great!

reply to post by jjkenobi


People go on the warpath in a frenzy, you only have to drop a few and the rest get the idea.

Quick.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Speak for yourself, most of us can conduct ourselves in a fairly decent way 100% of the time, no exceptions. Generalisations like that are what ends up creating weapons like this, oh did i mention they get used on all of us not just the few % who lack self control?

It's sad how American's look at Iran and feel so bad for the riot control and beatings but they never think that America would do that. We need to get people aware. There is going to be a g20 protest this year, and there will most likely be a riot. I bet you my big toe that it will not be shown on the news widely here. There may be a few snipets but it will be really hush hush. The government also doesn't take to kindly to Anarchists either.

Originally posted by dooper
But this is one time I have to disagree. In the first place, why would the Pentagon be that concerned with crowd control?

Normally, the military is tasked with killing our enemies as efficiently as possible, in the greatest numbers, as quickly as possible.

Crowd control is bending into an area the military is not normally tasked with.

In essence you are correct, and traditionally that has been the case. In most respects it still is and will always be so. However the realty of the situation demands adaptation and change. As far back as the mid 1990's the U.S. military was aware that increasingly forces will be tasked and involved in urban areas. This environment poses several challenges, the most obvious being the terrain and nature of cities. In our case the issue is a presence of a large number of noncombatants in such a confined and fluid environment. This complicates military operations and has the potential to cause a great humanitarian crisis IF new concepts of warfare and force employment are not conceived and properly implemented. Given this known variable it is only logical to then consider the prospect of a less than welcoming civilian population in the dynamic environment which is conflict. To this end the United States military embarked on research and development into a new generation of stand off "less than lethal" weapon systems for such scenarios.

As we have seen in Iraq, 4th generation warfare virtually ensures that military operations in urban terrain is inevitable. Cities serve to significantly degrade the overwhelming superiority that U.S. force enjoy in conventional confrontation in open terrain. Not only are the effects of war most felt in urban areas, but cities serve as great "centers of gravity". This makes them crucial to the recovery of an occupied territory. The normal function of society ultimately demands that urban areas sustain a productive and secure environment. In the future, this situation will become more paramount as development shifts the balance of residence from rural to urban. In fact, it is estimated that by 2025 three fifths of the worlds population will resides in cities. The largest growth of this will be seen in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. All of these regions currently have "hot spots" of unresolved crises which intertwine with U.S. national interests. As such, future U.S. involvement in these regions is not only a possibly, but a likely reality.

A Concept for Future Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (1997) (PDF)

Originally posted by dooper
Second. Where exactly are these weapons to be used, and will they be used exclusively outside the US? And what guarantees do we have?

The Department of Defense’s primary goal and mission when undertaking these projects was for foreign operations and deployed forces. These systems have a variety of application for both land and maritime operations. They represent a "less than lethal" stand off approach to provide security where the heavy use of deadly force is deemed impractical for a variety of reasons. I need not list these reasons as they are self evident to any observant person.

These systems, in my opinion, do not make the deployment of the U.S. military for domestic emergencies more likely. That option has always been one which is limited by both law and perception, and it is not likely to drastically change. I do not buy into the doom and gloom predictions of a "police state". Barring any dramatic and unforeseen crises in which active duty personal need to be deployed in the CONUS to counter a civilian threat, I say you have little to fear. There can be no guarantee that such systems will be exclusively used outside the United States. And why should there be? It is a perfectly legitimate and effective way to provide "less than lethal" deterrent and force. The actual merits of the system, outside personal bias, are tremendous. As such, you can expect a slew of civilian security forces (police etc…) and private security forces tasked with security in sensitive and populated areas to employ such, independently of the U.S. military. However it should be noted that the security forces of this county are very aware of, and take great pains to, eliminate procedures and systems deemed not fit for use by societal view. For example, prior to this, water cannons represented the state of the art in crowd control and anti riot operations. Current water cannon technology is a far cry from that of the past. Such systems are used in numerous developed and Western countries. Including Europe, Asia, and the Americas. However, do to their past use as tools of oppression here in the Untied States, they are not used by any major U.S. security force. Personally I think that makes no sense. We readily accept other more dangerous means of crowd control, yet are so sensitive as to reject a valid system due to past abuse. It is another reason why I champion rational thought and an informed perspective. A perspective devoid of a corrupted emotional element.

Originally posted by dooper
If this is designed for crowd control, or population control, I can guarantee you it will have the opposite effect.

I do not think it will. I have seen ample evidence to suggest this system is more than just a little persuasive. More importantly this system is inconspicuous, remote, and precise. This is key because there always exists a need to identify, isolate, and target those feeding a dangerous frenzy, and not those simply there to get their point across. And finally, its effective range provides no opportunity to lash out and direct anger and violence. Curiously, certain individuals, instead of reflecting on why they are the target of crowd control, chose to become even more belligerent and unruly. This of course focuses more of the attention on them, which intern causes more unruliness, and well, you can see how that goes.

Originally posted by dooper
I assume you served. The Constitution is what I swore an oath to. Not the government. Not the President. Not the Congress. Not even the military.

The Constitution.

If you consider being two years into ROTC as serving, I do not. My underlying loyalty will always be with The Constitution. My core principles are also based on the ideals which this county was founded upon. So I’m very much in the same boat. I did not vote for the current President, do not approve with the majority of congressional conduct, intensely detest bureaucracy, and would never support a permanent junta. I'd rather not discuss how I feel about military coups.

Originally posted by dooper
They ever turn weapons like this against the citizens of the US, then they are guilty of treason, and should be hunted down and summarily executed.

This I cannot, and will not agree with. It is a statement and accusation which is groundless. It is a subjective view based not on information, but passion. This country is not perfect, it is a work in progress. There are many things which we need to improve upon, but we must do so in a logical and civil manner. As such, there are many reasons to be angry and upset, but no excuse to be alarmed and in crisis. The notion of revolution and open unlawful resistance is not one I take lightly. When a suffering is so great as to be a catalyst for such there will be no need for discussion. The course of action will be universal, and therefore just. Should that time come, and I dearly hope it never does, I will be one of the first to fight for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those are not hollow words, they are absolutely resolute. I say such comfortably knowing that they do not rest on a hair trigger. Should the need arise I can follow through with a resolved conscience, knowing that there are absolutely no alternatives.

Originally posted by dooper
They better sit this next one out, and get busy fighting our existing enemies where they find them.

And stay out of the crowd control business.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have made my point clear. The United States military does not seek or choose to fight within civilian crowds. But should they be forced to, they absolutely will, pursuing our enemies (foreign or domestic) WHEREVER we find them. And confronting them with the best possible weapon system fit for the occasion and environment.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by WestPoint23]

"Atlas Shrugged" was a warning
NOT A MANUAL

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by dazbog
I honestly think your position is ass backwards and if you think this is not respectful ( in your words ) well, too bad.

You honestly don't know enough about my "position" to make anything but an ass backward presumption. [/quote

" But should they be forced to, they absolutely will, pursuing our enemies (foreign or domestic) WHEREVER we find them."

Oh, I think the above quote pretty well defines your "position". You will do as you are told! And to hell with the niceties. It is your unwavering military demeanor I find troublesome. I flew 150 combat mission out of Phan Rang Air Base. Thank God , most of the officers I flew with would consider the above statement offensive. Here is a little secret, the only 'domestic enemies' currently occupy Capital Hill. Go get em skippy .

reply to post by dazbog


Why would anyone find that statement offensive? Currently the oath makes no distinction between enemies in the United States or abroad. Furthermore, going back to the original military oaths of 1775 (and everything in between) the same is still true, perhaps even more so. I therefore have no reason to be ashamed as my statement is consistent with the principles that everyone who has ever worn a uniform has sworn to uphold.



[edit on 25-7-2009 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by WestPoint23


Westpoint, thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're opinion is always valued, and well thought out.

I fear I tend to go with what I know works, and that my past experiences tend to migrate toward a more "barbaric" response.

Dear God, I hope you're right about a steady degradation toward violence, but I find little comfort in it as our current leadership seems bent on disassembling what we have.

Again, thanks, and on this small part, we can agreeably disagree.

Originally posted by Zoopedia
Would you rather them be shot dead?

You have to look at the the "slippery slope" aspect of this. Once the government has it, they will use it - just like all other weapons systems. First, it will be just as they have said. Later, it will be used in more and different ways as the government tries to deal with situations - perhaps here in the U.S. - where it seems crowd control is required. Will that be against illegals, or food and health care rioters, or for routine traffic stops - who knows at this point.

But once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't it back in - ever.

And if your only concern is that getting "microwaved" is somehow not respectable, well, too bad.

I have to disagree. The government is suppose to protect and serve its' perspective peoples.

The movements being made are an obvious defensive posture against the citizens they are suppose to be serving. It appears a purposed, "thinning of the race" to be coming; It is coming upon the CITIZENS of the world from every angle from the form of an economic meltdown designed by the elite, to created diseases, to God knows what else.

It was not intended for the Citizens of any nation to endure the kind of slavery the governments subject them to. They are suppose to rule; they are suppose to gather; they are suppose to be empowered.. It is fear that causes greed..

Edit to say; Look at the Georgia guide-stones. What do you think is intended upon our children?

Thank you.

Noconsequence..


[edit on 26-7-2009 by noconsequence]

I don't know what the joke is, this is a fairly serious matter. With this kind of technology you can seriously harm or kill someone without anyone being the wiser. There is no accountability when there is no bullet or bomb fragments to examine. What if a malignant neighbour decides to settle scores by secretly using homemade versions against their neighbour? What is the communicative effect of a dose of less than lethal weapons every day for say a year?

I find that when there is a seemingly intractable modern problem, that it is always best to consider what history says.

Here is what the ancients used to reflect energy as a weapon;

centralized mirrors

Archimedes used centralized mirrors (or many simple mirrors according to others) to burn from a long distance the ships of the enemy armada. We met the same technique much later on a siege of Constantinople during the Byzantine period

us.geocities.com...

Mirrors were made from polished brass or silver;


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ced1f7681221.jpg[/atsimg]

If you choose to exercise your democratic rights and demonstrate and the police set upon you goon squads armed with microwave weapons, it might worth carrying a polished stainless steel cooking pot lid to reflect microwaves back. You can of course carry an umbrella lined with copper or steel wire mesh as used in fly screens on windows. This how microwave oven doors are shielded.

I am not a Christian but this extract seems apt;

"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" - Job 37:18



[edit on 113131p://am3150 by masonwatcher]