New US Army Heat-Ray in Iraq

[Ares1978 0]

So in other words it's worthless. Or as long as everybody can stand feeling like a burn victim or can cover every square millimeter of their bodies with tin foil and wear glasses that don't let that specific wavelength through.

[joltan 0]

So you think bullets are better?

Hell yes. Think about the potential these weapons have as siege weapons. Against civilians.

Compared to bullets!?! Bullets kill. Being moderately burned on 1/64th of your body doesn't.

If that's your eyes you're blinded for ever... hardly a weapon that 'doesn't harm innocent civilians' - at least you've got to aim a bullet while that thing is inteded for 'crowd control'.

[Oligo 1]

A nice, portable shield against the heat ray would be one of those "space blankets" that they sell in every camping store. Just stash it into your riot webbing and if the authorities bring out the heat ray, unfold the blanket and hold in front of you. Easy.

By the way, since the penetrance of the millimeter waves is so poor (1/64th of an inch), even thick leather clothes (wet them to increase effect) might protect you.

As for covering your eyes, regular mirrored shades are probably effective and if not, band-pass filter goggles can be easily bought from specialist shops (20 euros a piece). In an emergency, cover your eyes and avoid looking at the beam.

[Pathy 0]

Meh i heard about this awhile ago, a beam mounted on a Hummer........ my first thoughts were, how is a little burning sensation going to stop someone sneaking up and blowing the hummer to hell? I mean, in a full on war situation, its going to be useless, the range of ground based, infantry carried AT missiles is easily enough to get in range without being noticed.

Used to make insurgents submit? I think its a sadly naive thought.......

[Konyak! 0]

Sorry, I couldn't resist with all this talk about tin foil and mylar, had to whip up my mental image of the insurgents we'll see next year  

 

I think people who are overreacting to this gun need to try and imagine this the other way around.  Let's say all guns up until now were heat-rays, and the army started to develop a hand held device that could propel a sharp piece of metal out of it so fast that it would tear right through your opponent leaving him fatally wounded..  you'd be pretty outraged then  

Konyak

[red oct 2]

the heat ray concept sounds pretty flawed at the moment anyway. but the U.S. military (from what i heard anyway) has been using some kinda other riot control weapon that uses sound. the weapon (if you can call that) is like a large dish, and when its pointed at somebody, they will be overcome by a very loud noise. the effects will wear off once the person walks away from the path the dish is facing. and from what i understood, you can't simply cover your ears to protect yourself. and the sound is strong enough to bring somebody on their knees if need be. i saw this thing on TechTV, but can' seem to remember what it was called.

[GoOB 0]

Whatever happened to good old-fashioned water cannons? Oh, yes... I forgot that the population in Iraq does not have easy access to water, so bringing in a water cannon would CAUSE riots

[The Real Armstrong 0]

I think people who are overreacting to this gun need to try and imagine this the other way around.  Let's say all guns up until now were heat-rays, and the army started to develop a hand held device that could propel a sharp piece of metal out of it so fast that it would tear right through your opponent leaving him fatally wounded..  you'd be pretty outraged then  

I am. I still think weapon development should have stopped round the time we found how to hit someone with sticks and stones.

I am not afraid of the current weapon, I am afraid of what it will develop into. Because it will develop, as people will earn money producing it. So how long will these 'tin foil armors' protect you really? 50 years? 100? 150? 1000? Yea right.

[InqWiper 0]

Funny how some people start predicting doomsday just because the US military might start using a harmless laser.

There are already alot of weapons that are much more dangerous than this laser. A-bombs, H-bombs, viruses and so on..

Just because there is a laser like this doesnt mean there will soon be huge laser cannons which can burn a whole city in a minute. There are rules about what kind of weapons you can and cant use in war. There is already technology to develop alot of new more dangerous weapons but because there are laws against them and common sense says it would be stupid to start using them they arent used. What is stopping the US from sending up a sattelite with a mounted laser that can shoot anyone in the head anywhere in the world(law against space weapons?)?

Scientists have cannons that can fire bullets many times faster than the cannons on tanks. They use them for experimenting what the effect of an astroid hitting the moon would be for example. If scientists have cannons like this why dont finland and sweden have fixed cannons like this pointed against russia (or do they   ).

Everyone realises that if there are no rules about what kind of weapons you can develop then we will soon have killed eachother. Because there are rules and common sense there wont be alot of insanely dangerous weapons.

This laser really isnt a threat because its already possible to make lasers stronger than this one and the only reason they are even considdering using it is because its LESS leathal. If it was more leathal Im sure there would be no way they would use it. There wont be any soldiers walking around with laser and plasma rifles that can blow up houses dont worry...anti-personell mines have already been removed from the wise countries and they arent even a threat to the world.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]Funny how some people start predicting doomsday just because the US military might start using a harmless laser.

There are already alot of weapons that are much more dangerous than this laser. A-bombs, H-bombs, viruses and so on..

I think the very point is the fact that it can be used as a nonlethal device that people are afraid. You see, a weapon like this is significantly less fettered by the same morals that a lethal piece of ordinance would be subject to.

So one might contend that it could be ripe for abuse. Conceivably this could be used by uneasy soldiers at every checkpoint resulting in a lot of unwarranted terrorising of innocent commuters, just for the soldier's peace of mind.

"Oh I'm sorry your entire family had to experience the sensation of a hot iron slapped to your skin, but we didn't know if you were going to blow us up or attack us... at least you aren't DEAD!"

Do you honestly think innocent civilians are going to smile and shrug that off? No, of course not. If anything. A nonlethal weapon like that could possibly do MORE damage to an occupying force's relations with the civilian population if incidents such as that became prevalent.

[Oligo 1]

Ah, may I also point out that the weapon actually DOES heat up your skin, not just make it feel hot. So it may be non-lethal, but it sure as hell causes burns. Especially in moist and sensitive areas (eyes), since water molecules are good receivers of millimeter-wave excitation energy.

[Nemesis6 0]

"Minime, stop humping the laser!"

Had to say that. Anyway, I don't really know about this weapon... let's just hope it works the way it's supossed to so we don't get Baghdad Barbecue.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think the very point is the fact that it can be used as a nonlethal device that people are afraid. You see, a weapon like this is significantly less fettered by the same morals that a lethal piece of ordinance would be subject to.

So one might contend that it could be ripe for abuse. Conceivably this could be used by uneasy soldiers at every checkpoint resulting in a lot of unwarranted terrorising of innocent commuters, just for the soldier's peace of mind.

"Oh I'm sorry your entire family had to experience the sensation of a hot iron slapped to your skin, but we didn't know if you were going to blow us up or attack us... at least you aren't DEAD!"

Do you honestly think innocent civilians are going to smile and shrug that off? No, of course not. If anything. A nonlethal weapon like that could possibly do MORE damage to an occupying force's relations with the civilian population if incidents such as that became prevalent.

Thats a problem in the soldier not a problem with the weapon. Anything can be bad in the hands of the wrong person. A carpenter uses a hammer for hitting nails and a poor man from another country hits someone in the head with it to get the chance to enjoy the luxuries of a swedish prison.

The laser can be very useful, they just have to train people on how and when to use it. The american military will remain the american military though so I dont want to promise anything