Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Upon a related search about Martial Law, here is an interesting non-lethal form of crowd control called ADS.

 

Wired News: Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

 

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

 

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

 

According to documents obtained for Wired News under federal sunshine laws, the Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

 

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

 

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

 

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

 

The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt and highly motivated escape behavior." In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds.

 

The beam penetrates clothing, but not stone or metal. Blocking it is harder than you might think. Wearing a tinfoil shirt is not enough -- you would have to be wrapped like a turkey to be completely protected. The experimenters found that even a small exposed area was enough to produce the Goodbye effect, so any gaps would negate protection. Holding up a sheet of metal won't work either, unless it covers your whole body and you can keep the tips of your fingers out of sight.

 

Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.

 

System 1, the operational prototype, is mounted on a Hummer and produces a beam with a 2-meter diameter. Effective range is at least 500 meters, which is further than rubber bullets, tear gas or water cannons. The ammunition supply is effectively unlimited.

 

:hyper:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"People should not fear their government. A government should fear it's people."   V   "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty." -

I don't like this, at all.   The intent of the American militia, and the right of the public to bear arms, is to keep the government in check. The government must always know that it can only piss the

If these weapons are used anywhere, they will eventually be used against "fellow Americans" too ! And as for the definition of "crowd of violent revolutionaries", I suggest you try and find a copy of

Excellent. No damage. Just pain.

 

Brilliant riot control. Now what on earth is this goodbye effect?

 

Lets see. 94GHz. Heats the skin, obviously will inflict pain. Supposing the rays are allowed to be incident on the skin for too long?

 

Ofcourse not. Reflex action will force you out of the way at the most, from what a 10,000 case study seems to show,

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.

 

Definitely it won't be as damaging as any other method of inflicting pain, or say... repulsion.

 

Cool article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other parts to the ADS type systems being test used by the military. Another form involves directional sonic waves. These are used to incapacitate people. If used in a large crowd like a riot, one could cause all people in the area to double over covering their ears. Of course those wearing hearing protection would be immune, but those would be easily identified and the second system described here could be used. Since the sonic solution has much less damaging effects, it would be considered more humane than the radiation method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like this, at all.

 

The intent of the American militia, and the right of the public to bear arms, is to keep the government in check. The government must always know that it can only piss the population off to a certain point, then the population will rise up and force the government to respect the Constitution.

 

Well, that's the understanding I have of it, at least.

 

The population cannot afford nuclear weapons, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. So, what's left? Public demonstrations. Massive gatherings of crowds to intimidate the government to the point that the government simply have to listen to their complaints. The effectiveness of an armed militia to keep the government on its toes, has been nullified long ago with the government's arsenal far outstripping the public arsenal in terms of number of weapons, and technological advances.

 

And now, using the kind of weapons described in the article, mass demonstrations won't hold up anymore, either.

 

I live in a country where mass demonstrations have been broken up time and again for decades, denying the biggest part of the public their right to participate in government decisions - and the demonstrations have only been broken up because the government's non-lethal firepower (rubber bullets, etc.) proved stronger than the protestors' wills.

 

I think the advance of these so-called 'non-lethal' firearms is a wolf in sheep's clothing, however good the intentions might be, and will open the door for serious abuse. Hey, it's not lethal, so why not use it? It's fine seeing it used by your army in Iraq or some other abstract far-off place which doesn't happen on your doorstep. But take a closer look at your local Police departments, are they stocking up on these weapons? With the limitations to freedoms being slowly brought in to civilian life, what will happen when the government does something really silly, and you and your fellow townpeople want to protest?

 

I don't like it at all.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is true of some of the initial paperwork filed by the American colonies when they were declaring their independence from the mother country. At that time, several philosophers stated that there comes a time when the people must rise up if they feel that the government is wrong. Thus they were garaunteed the right to bear arms and a lot of other freedoms to keep the government (for the people...) in check. However, as weapons became much stronger and much more dangerous this idea faded away (after all, who is going to violently overthrow a government with a pistol while that government can shoot a laser guided missile at your home from 400 miles away.

Today it is generally held that regardless of how out of hand the government gets, violent revolution cannot and will not solve the issue. Instead, it is expected that the people will turn to the poles, call for a midterm vote, impeach the president or judiciary or whatever they may call for. This "peaceful" method is much preferred among democratic societies.

 

Boer, these weapons aren't being designed for use against Americans. They are designed for use in war time, or foreign peace-keeping, missions. Reduce the number of the enemy and innocent bystanders that you might kill by simply disabling them without permanent injury. Most Americans feel this to be a better method than smart bombing a crowd of violent revolutionaries demonstrating in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the motivation behind the design of these weapons, it's their use that will be the important factor. See my post about getting concert tickets if you want to see how sometimes well intentioned designs are misused.

 

I found a much greater context in Boerseun's point than just this one specific application of a non lethal weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boer, these weapons aren't being designed for use against Americans. They are designed for use in war time, or foreign peace-keeping, missions. Reduce the number of the enemy and innocent bystanders that you might kill by simply disabling them without permanent injury. Most Americans feel this to be a better method than smart bombing a crowd of violent revolutionaries demonstrating in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

 

If these weapons are used anywhere, they will eventually be used against "fellow Americans" too ! And as for the definition of "crowd of violent revolutionaries", I suggest you try and find a copy of "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" in your local video library. It will show you how frustrated law and order agencies simply cease to make the difference between a peaceful demonstration and a violent riot, and how this attitude is encouraged by "the powers that be" as soon as they feel treatened.

 

Seen from a country like Belgium (and I think that can be extended to a lot of countries in continental Western Europe), Americans - and Brittish for that matter - seem to take a lot of violence for granted. And even this non-lethal weapons are violent. Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually quite an interesting topic, in and of itself.

 

Public gatherings, be it peaceful or not, is clearly a manifestation of the public's will. And any 'democratically' inspired government should be careful in suppressing it.

 

When any country unilaterally invades another, and the populace is unhappy about it, that country cannot and should not attempt to interfere in public displays of civilian unhappiness, whilst trying to maintain an image of respect for democracy and individual freedoms.

 

The US hammered the Palestinians to go to the polls to elect a government, a government by the people, true to democracy. So the Palestinians elected Hamas, and the US is unhappy about it. Sorry, but that's the way the cookie gets completely stomped on.

Same in Iraq. If the Iraqi public sees the US' unilateral actions there as imperialistic, and they try to physically remove the invader from their soil (wouldn't you have done exactly the same?), is it a good thing for the US to blast them with these kind of weapons? Sure - on the face of it, it seems all dandy; nobody'll die. But that's exactly why I see it as a wolf in sheep's clothing: because of the non-lethal nature of the weapons, it will be used more easily - I mean, come on, it's humane, innit?

 

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!

 

Wrong answer!

 

These weapons make it easier for anybody in charge to suppress public will and opinion, be it in downtown Baghdad, or downtown Chicago.

 

And I actually don't care if these weapons weren't intended to be used on Americans - that smells a bit like a one-sided affair to me. These weapons were intended to suppress civilians (of any nationality), voicing public opinion, and to suppress it in the face of saturated media coverage where the loss of civilian life makes for bad PR.

 

A wolf in sheep's clothing, I tell ya.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find making people curl up in a ball because of the noise a lot less violent than making them run around feeling like their skin is on fire. I also find such acts a lot less violent than shooting someone, even with bean bags or rubber bullets. I find it a lot less violent than spraying them with fire hoses, tear gas, pepper spray or mace.

Most importantly I find it a lot less violent than a mob that overturns cars, burns everything they can get a hand on, throws bricks or stones, tramples people, etc. These things happen everyday. They've happened in the streets of Mogadishu, Baghdad, Paris, and LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I actually don't care if these weapons weren't intended to be used on Americans - that smells a bit like a one-sided affair to me. These weapons were intended to suppress civilians (of any nationality), voicing public opinion, and to suppress it in the face of saturated media coverage where the loss of civilian life makes for bad PR.

No less suppressive than a president or autocrat or what have you with their finger on a nuke. I don't get it. Are you some sort of government conspiricist?

Anyway, this thread wasn't about arguing how a government could use these things. I could argue the worst of the worst cases too.

Moreover, I don't get involved in politics. Sorry, I wasn't trying to say whether or not a weapon should be used. I was simply discussing the technology and its benefits over other technology.

Would you not agree that such use of a weapon is less violent than driving a pusher truck through the mob, or asking 600 armed police officers to push and possibly club any protestor that doesn't do as they're told and go home?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...