US withdraws 'heat ray' gun from Afghanistan

[SecularMotion]

Source: BBC

A heat ray gun developed by the US military has been withdrawn from Afghanistan, army chiefs have confirmed.

The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal weapon that heats up the skin "intolerably" but, according to tests, causes no permanent damage.

Its invisible beam is designed to repel enemies and disperse violent crowds, causing anyone targeted to immediately move away.

US military commanders in the country have had the weapon at their disposal but have now decided against using it.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10765863

[go west young man]

1. Right.

;-)

[dencol]

11. They need 'em back home.

nt

[Javaman]

18. Sad, that was my first thought as well. nt

[saigon68]

30. They were worried that the Resistance would do this to our POWs

The mercenaries in Fallujah 2004

[Oregone]

2. As long as the company got paid to make it, mission accomplished

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Whattsa matta... Boehner wants his improvised tanning device

back??

[davidinalameda]

20. that's DUZY worthy

bravo!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. I guess calling it an oversize microwave isn't as scary sounding.

[quakerboy]

27. Actually, thats way more scary.

at least, if you've ever watched a microwave work.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. Ever hooked up a bare magnatron to a variac transformer?

Fun shit right there!

[Capitalocracy]

5. Honestly, I'd like to see more weapons like this, not less

Anything that makes it possible to bring more stability without killing a bunch of innocent people is a step in the right direction. They should be working on more non-lethal ways to police the country, if police the country we must. Bombs make enemies.

[daleo]

8. The easier it gets to "police" foreign countries

The greater the temptation to do so.

[Capitalocracy]

9. Yes, I'd rather they leave entirely.

But barring that, it would probably go a lot smoother if we didn't kill a bunch of people. Not to mention the intrinsic value of not killing a bunch of people, that's a good goal by itself. And if our intentions were as stated, ie, stabilize the country and get out, not killing people would be a great way to work towards that goal. I don't know if I believe that's our real goal, but if it were, non-lethal force would be a better way to achieve it than death squads and cluster bombs and DU munitions causing horrifying birth defects.

[daleo]

15. It's a difficult dilemma.

It's easier to get into wars than to get out of them. And the "deciders" rarely pay the penalty in blood or treasure.

[Hoyt]

12. I agree -- better than bombs. Poster above has a point too about potential overutilization.

[awoke_in_2003]

13. Stability in Afghanistan?

you should read some history.

[Riverman]

16. No More Policing Countries by any means! WTF! Idiotic

[Capitalocracy]

17. By "if we must"

I basically meant "if they insist on doing so". I'm against it, I'm totally against the war, I think the best thing we can do for both ourselves and Afghanistan is to GTFO. But if they're going to be there, it would be nice if they wouldn't kill so many people. That's the point I was trying to make (a bit clumsily).

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Please tell me you are being sarcastic

and not buying into this whole idea that these things are harmless. TASER's were sold to the public the same way, and still are.

[Capitalocracy]

22. If Tasers were used right, they'd be a good thing

Of course, they're horribly abused, and they're being used when no weapon or in many cases no force should be used at all.

I'm not saying I like it. I want the U.S. out of Afghanistan. All I'm saying is if I had to choose between bombs and the heat ray, I'll take the heat ray. That's all.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. The problem is, that's not how it plays out

weapons like that are going to wind up as torture devices, they always do. Once you give someone a device that ostensibly causes pain, but "no real lasting harm", they are going to use until they harm someone.

Also, how do you think these situations play out?

Heat ray is deployed against "subversive" elements protesting "legal:" government actions. People die (due to heart failure, unforeseen lethal complication, or they are simply trampled to death when a crowd panics). Who are most likely to die? Children and old people. What provokes a crowd from peaceful protest to violence? Attacking the crowd, causing pain and killing children and old people. Sooner or later, the crowd fights back with sticks, stones rocks, petrol bombs and then guns and bombs.

These kinds of devices are escalators of violence and torture devices.

I have heard discussion about using heat rays to break up rowdy mobs after sporting events. You want to prevent riots after the Super Bowl? Ban the sale of alcohol at the park and prohibit it from being carried in. Problem solved without multi-million dollar heat rays inciting violent drunken mobs to greater violence.

And yes, I know, some people will still break the law and get drunk, but better 1% of the crowd than 50% of the crowd.

The reason people love this kind up crap and want to believe that its the perfect solution is that its easier on the cop, and less time consuming, to use a stun gun/TASER, than talk to a person first, and possibly get them to surrender peacefully.

That and these devices make BILLIONS for the military/prison-industrial complex.

[Cleobulus]

23. If this weapon heats up skin, what does it do to eyes?

Maiming people can make them even worse enemies.

[Capitalocracy]

24. Blinding everyone would be bad too.

Although it wouldn't be as bad as the birth defects caused by DU.

[Cleobulus]

26. The fact is that most "non-lethal" weapons have side affects that would be devastating...

to people. Some of the more extreme ones, like microwave, heat, and sonic weapons can easily cause permanent damage to large amounts of people. Not as deadly as bombs, but then again we generally don't bomb mostly unarmed protesters.

[daleo]

6. So a regular amount of clothes probably blocks the effect

"The US military says the chance of injury is 0.1% as the beam only penetrates the skin to the equivalent of three sheets of paper."

This statement implies that it only fries one person in a thousand. Since it is meant to be used on crowds, that's not necessarily reassuring.

[Lightning Count]

7. So more lethal weapons and less non-lethal ones?

Why are they doing this?!

[saigon68]

10. Wait until "the Other side"

Start using the Necklacing treatment on our POWs


http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f166/brutal-necklacing-girl-22101/

[thereismore]

14. Because bullets are more humane? I don't get it. nt

[bemildred]

21. How well does thing stand up to RPGs and IEDs? Is it easy to move around?

What's its effective range? Does it need a large mobile power supply?

Let's put it another way: "Who were the ignorant morons who thought this sort of thing would work well in a guerrilla war?

[Thor_MN]

25. The sharks with frickin lasers on their forehads must be ready for field tests

The no-bid contract was undoubtedly let in 2005.