Microwave weapon will rain pain from the sky

[Soylent Brice]

THE Pentagon's enthusiasm for non-lethal crowd-control weapons appears to have stepped up a gear with its decision to develop a microwave pain-infliction system that can be fired from an aircraft.

The device is an extension of its controversial Active Denial System, which uses microwaves to heat the surface of the skin, creating a painful sensation without burning that strongly motivates the target to flee. The ADS was unveiled in 2001, but it has not been deployed owing to legal issues and safety fears.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) in Quantico, Virginia, has now called for it to be upgraded. The US air force, whose radar technology the ADS is based on, is increasing its annual funding of the system from $2 million to $10 million.

The transmitting antenna on the current system is 2 metres across, produces a single beam of similar width and is steered mechanically, making it cumbersome. At the heart of the new weapon will be a compact airborne antenna, which will be steered electronically and be capable of generating multiple beams, each of which can be aimed while on the move.

more: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.600-microwave-weapon-will-rain-pain-from-the-sky.html


some of you may be familiar with the wheeled version already:

[dipsydoodle]

1. I'm guessing it needs to be close to the ground

Might be a good time to learn kite flying used steel wire.

[Soylent Brice]

2. "Independent of the mode of production, with this size of antenna the beam will show variations ...

... of intensity with distance - not just a simple decrease - up to about 500 metres,"

[meegbear]

3. We're gonna need a lot more string

[Soylent Brice]

5. no shit!

:rofl:

[dipsydoodle]

4. Sounds like

a crossbow might be a more practical solution then.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Still the driving term will be 1/r**3

[Statistical]

7. No reason it needs to be that close to the ground.

The unclassified range of the ADS is 700m. Likely it is substantially longer.

If the airborne ADS shows no improvement in range at a height of 150m it could still hit targets 680m away. At 300m in altitude it could hit targets 600m away. At 500m in altitude it could hit targets 500m away.

That whole Pythagorean theorem and all.

Likely do the the higher engagement distances of an airborne platform the new ADS will be stronger with a higher max range.

[Soylent Brice]

8. in any case it is highly unlikely that the full extent

of potential damage and range will never be released. at least not until they start selling it to private contractors after 10 yrs of use or so.

i agree, i think the airborne version will have a much larger intensity and range.

:scared:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Disagree, the land ones will. There will be power limitation on the ariborne ones

[Soylent Brice]

35. didn't even think about that.

excellent point.

[razorman]

6. How long before there's a handheld version, or something like

the "puke ray" gun in the movie, "Minority Report"? When do we get phasers?

[Buns_of_Fire]

22. I'm holding out for one that causes immediate, uncontrolled, explosive diarrhea.

"Look, this is going to be one helluva bowel movement. After it's over, he'll be lucky if he has any bones left." -- Professor Farnsworth

Or douse everyone with superconcentrated THC gas, and then drop packages of Twinkies and Doritos to keep them busy.

Or maybe an orgone ray that makes everyone so horny that they stop whatever they were planning on doing and start doing something else...

[Orsino]

27. How long before this weapon kills someone? n/t

[northernlights]

37. It's already caused severe burns nt

[Skidmore]

9. There is no person on earth more twisted or sicker than the one

who works at developing ways to inflict pain and death on others.

[Statistical]

11. One way to look at it is in the absence of less-lethal alternatives...

the military will continue to use the existing lethal technology that is cheap, effective, and reliable; bullets.

Given the choice I would rather be hit by an ADS than a bullet.

[Eryemil]

17. Does not negate what the poster above said in any way:

"There is no person on earth more twisted or sicker than the one who works at developing ways to inflict pain and death on others."

I am not a moralist by any means but it does raise an eyebrow.

[Orsino]

28. We can raise both eyebrows.

While another non-lethal alternative to usual military methods sounds like a good thing, it's not hard to imagine how terribly this weapon could (and therefore, eventually, will0 be misused. Anyone trapped in the area of effect will suffer...for the sake of "crowd control."

[OwnedByFerrets]

24. The difference will be that there are laws against using

bullets on crowd control....its doubtful that the powers that be will allow this to be illegal.

[Soylent Brice]

13. agreed.

[NashVegas]

20. And They Give the Nobel Peace Prize Named For the Guy Who Invented Dynamite

[EOTE]

31. But dynamite actually helped save a number of lives.

It's a lot more stable than the raw nitroglycerin and gunpowder it replaced.

[Canuckistanian]

10. If I ever saw one of those trucks

I'd do some civilian testing on how well it can survive a Molotov cocktail.

[Statistical]

12. Well you wouldn't have to worry about the pain ray then.

Less lethal is used in a situation where lethal force is not warranted.

Attacking with lethal weapon = lethal force response = bullets from automatic weapons.

So you would avoid being hit by the painray due to the fact that bullets are more effective at ending active threats.

[guitar man]

14. wow

Now there may actually be a real use for tinfoil hats :crazy:

[greguganus]

16. ...or mirrors on your shoes. n/t

[Soylent Brice]

19. exploding heads like popcorn kernels.

[greguganus]

15. New Shake N' Bake for insurgents! Coming to an Air Force near you! n/t

[OwnedByFerrets]

25. Its very doubtful it will stop at "insurgents" or their real name...

freedom fighters.

[yellowcanine]

18. I am sure there is no potential for "unintended consequences" here.

Seriously, what are they thinking? Shooting microwaves to heat up the skin surface? What if the "skin" happens to be someone's eyeball?

[Soylent Brice]

21. an artist's rendering:

[northernlights]

23. critical paragraph re: narrow window of "safety"

"Jürgen Altmann, a physicist at Dortmund University in Germany, showed that the microwave beams can cause serious burns at levels not far above those required to repel people. This was verified when a US airman was hospitalised with second-degree burns during testing in April 2007."

This is just plain sick. What kind of minds think this shit up? And what kind of minds approve the funding? :grr:

[Soylent Brice]

26. aside from congress,

from a 1996 memo:

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 96
“The Secretary of Defense shall assign centralized responsibility for
development (and any other functional responsibility the Secretary
considers appropriate) of nonlethal weapons technology to an existing
office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense or to a military
service as the executive agent.”

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/copeland.pdf

6th frame.

[Joanne98]

29. Only someone who's 100% evil would approve of something like this.

[mainer]

30. Wouldn't it be easy to build a shield against this?

Which means that enemy combatants would be able to protect themselves, while innocent civilians would be the victims.

[northernlights]

36. probably, andnot only innocent civilians

but any critters that happen to pass by. Pity the bird that accidentally flies through it. :(

And what about vegetation? Is this thing going to start fires going? x(


WTF is WRONG with these "people?" :grr:

[Echo In Light]

34. Sicko little boys who want COOL evil toys to play w/in the sand

Fuck. Them.