U.S. Testing Pain Ray in Afghanistan

[tekisui]

Source: Wired

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan centers around swaying local to its side. And there’s no better persuasion tool than an invisible pain ray that makes people feel like they’re on fire.

Okay, okay. Maybe that isn’t precisely the logic being employed those segments of the American military who would like to deploy the Active Denial System to Afghanistan. I’m sure they’re telling themselves that the generally non-lethal microwave weapon is a better, safer crowd control alternative than an M-16. But those ray gun advocates better think long and hard about the Taliban’s propaganda bonanza when news leaks of the Americans zapping Afghans until they feel roasted alive.

Because, apparently, the Active Denial System is “in Afghanistan for testing.”

An Air Force military officer and a civilian employee at the Air Force Research Laboratory are just two of the people telling our pal Sharon Weinberger that the vehicle-mounted “block 2″ version of the pain ray is in the warzone, but hasn’t been used in combat.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/u-s-testing-pain-ray-in-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Twitter#ixzz0rEA0ZZ1j

[lib2DaBone]

1. Once perfected.. they can give it to all Police Departments in the U.S.

..our tax dollars at work.

[Deep13]

5. They already use electrical shock to control people.

As long as they can claim that there is no permanent damage, I don't see what would bevent them for using a pain ray here.

[Kokonoe]

6. Remote controlled with cameras from rooftops,

and all their policing problems are solved.:sarcasm:

[kenny blankenship]

2. We no longer measure our progress as a society in industrial output

but in the endless parade of new Wunderwaffen invented to make our domination of countries' militaries more lethal and quicker, and our domination of civilian populations more inescapable and irresistible. What a history they will write about us when we fall.

[Auggie]

3. Mobile torture

I despise this concept, and cringe when I think of the development time and money it took and how it could have been used to help people, not hurt them.

[lib2DaBone]

4. ..like the "Sound Cannons" they used at the G20 in Pittsburgh...

We can't get basic medical care in this country.. but they can work 24/7 on ways to kill and maim humans.

[MineralMan]

7. Let's test it on BP executives, instead.

[Ignis]

25. I'd rather we develop an Empathy Ray for use on those bastards.

[NJmaverick]

8. I have to wonder if the author actual read the article that he provided a link to

other wise how do you explain his remarks:

I’m sure they’re telling themselves that the generally non-lethal microwave weapon is a better, safer crowd control alternative than an M-16. But those ray gun advocates better think long and hard about the Taliban’s propaganda bonanza when news leaks of the Americans zapping Afghans until they feel roasted alive.

when the article clearly states:

In a phone interview, John Alexander, former head of the nonlethal weapons program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, told AOL News that he was not aware of the weapon's deployment, but that he thought it would be useful in Afghanistan for point defense, such as protecting a base. The barriers to deploying the weapon have been policy concerns, not technical problems, said Alexander, who has been a longtime supporter of the Active Denial System.

"Mostly the issues are the concern about publicity," he said.

Now I don't see how he could make suggestions that they should think long and hard (which gives the impression that the military is not doing that) when his referenced article states that they are doing precisely that for the exact reasons he mentioned?

[Ignis]

10. You mean the guy who "was not aware of the weapon's deployment?"

[NJmaverick]

11. If you read the rest of the article, one learns it hasn't been deployed

which is why he is unaware of the weapon's deployment.

[Ignis]

14. Niiiiice parsing.

You're using a quote from Alexander to make the case that the OP hasn't read the whole Wired article.

And yet:

1. Alexander's quote does not, in fact, appear in the Wired article; it appears in one of the articles linked from the article quoted/linked in the OP.

2. Alexander is not, in fact, involved with the current testing (or deployment) of these weapons in Afghanistan, nor did he work for the company that made these weapons.

3. The artificial definition you've carefully constructed for "deployment" parses out the fact that these weapons are currently in place in Afghanistan, and are currently being used for testing.

[NJmaverick]

16. Getting the facts straight is not "parsing"

rather it's a good habit for all of us to get into.


To address your claims, the author cites another article for the basis of his opinion piece. As I usually do I go back to the citation article and read the facts for myself, so that I can form my own opinion based on the facts. So when I went back and read the article Alexander worked off of, I was astonished how he managed to draw the conclusions he made (as well as make the comments he wrote) based off of his citation. The truth of the matter is that the weapon is over there and being tested, but it hasn't been deployed and it seems the major obstacle is still one of he bad PR the use of such a device can create.

[tekisui]

17. An obstacle that they are tyring, and no doubt going, to work around.

The WIRED article reiterates and warns of the dangers of deploying this weapon. It does not contradict anything from the article cited.

[Ignis]

18. You've misrepresented several facts, and continue to do so.

1.

"when the article clearly states"

No, it doesn't. The quote you presented from Alexander wasn't in the Wired article.

2.

"his opinion piece"

How exactly is the Wired article an opinion piece? Have you really never read a Danger Room article before? Do you think they're all editorials, or just this one?

3.

"I went back and read the article Alexander worked off of"

John Alexander is not the author of the Wired article; that's Noah Shachtman:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/noah_shachtman/

:shrug:

Look, if you think pain compliance (AKA torture) is a good thing, just say so.

[NJmaverick]

21. I think you are confused as to what I said, and my efforts to clarify

are falling on deaf ears.

[Ignis]

22. (OT: "depth ears" is a classic!) I quoted you verbatim.

But I'm willing to entertain any evidence that supports your claim of my confusion.

[NJmaverick]

23. Your first comment in your post, shows me you are not interested

in a conversation or listening.

[Ignis]

24. Well, put your Telepathy Hat away and get your info from the source:

I am interested in discussing this matter.
I asked a question because I want an answer, not to hear myself type.

See how easy that was? :shrug: No need to use any sort of divination to guess what I really, truly feel in my secret heart of hearts.

[YOY]

26. Gotta help but wonder if he talks like this in real life.

n/t

[Ignis]

27. RL lacks a convenient Edit button.

But here on DU, you can spew whatever crap you like, as long as you get back in there before the edit window closes!

[YOY]

28. Sad to say I do it at times too.

Never on such a grandiose level.

[Ignis]

29. Fine, I'll throw underhand.

Differences aside, I thought you'd have a sense of humor about your typo. :evilgrin:

You didn't. :evilfrown:

Oops. Mea culpa. My intention was good. Sorry if you were offended.

:shrug:

Can we carry on the discussion now?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. "America doesn't torture.."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kenny blankenship]

12. It's not torture. Torture is thumb screws and hot irons. This is a Pain Ray®.

Thumb screws and hot irons leave permanent marks. No one will ever be able to tell reporters or Red Cross workers that we used a taser on them or a Pain Ray®, and then be able to show them the scar. It's not torture. Torturers want their victims to give information and to confess. We just want people to scatter like cockroaches before us. Although, you could see how, in certain situations, a Pain Ray® could be very useful in obtaining information or confession from an uncooperative subject. And really, if that's all that's required to save American lives on the other side of the globe, who could object? But that's not its purpose. It's NOT a torture device. Stop saying that! It just inflicts intolerable pain until the subject complies with a perfectly legal order to disperse - or whathaveyou.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. I stand corrected. It is a "not as bad" humanitarian tool to urge people to be nice.

[tmyers09]

15. What. The. Fuck.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

20. Hasn't been used in combat

I guess the missing word is "yet." And, of course, used as intended according to the manufacturer's rigid specifications, it'll probably be very useful for something. And we can rest assured that nobody in the military, no contractor, nobody nowhere on our star-spangled all-American side will ever use this device at close range, or for extended periods of time, or just because he's sitting around bored one day and the prisoner in cell 2-G won't shut the fuck up.

U!S!A! U!S!A! U!S!A!