"You're Gonna Feel It:" U.S. Military Unveils New Crowd Control "Heat Ray" Weapon

[Better Believe It]

"You're Gonna Feel It:" U.S. Military Unveils New Crowd Control "Heat Ray"
Marine Col: "I think our forces will figure out the many different applications that it would have.”
by Common Dreams staff
March 14, 2012

The U.S. military has unveiled its newest approach to crowd control, the Active Denial System, a heat ray that sends out a high-frequency electromagnetic ray. People hit with the ray feel an intense, unbearable heat. The military touts the ray's "far-ranging" capabilities and is looking at "many different applications" for its possible use.

Marine Col. Tracy Taffola said at the public unveiling of the system at a U.S. Marines base near Washington, D.C.: "You're not gonna see it, you're not gonna hear it, you're not gonna smell it: you're gonna feel it."

In a video to demonstrate the new weapon, USFORCESTV explains that the heat ray "boasts a reach far beyond any other non-lethal system" -- a reach of "about 7 footballs fields."

The video shows various volunteers quickly running away from the heat ray, a situation unlikely to be available when the ray is aimed at a large crowd or if protesters are penned in in some way, as was witnessed by the pepper-spraying of Occupy protesters by police officers at very close range.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/14-6

Cops can hardly wait to get their hands on this new weapon to break up demonstrations in violation of our Bill of Rights. BBI

[USArmyParatrooper]

1. Cool, I support it.

Thanks for sharing.

[think]

4. What purpose does this kind of weaponry serve the military?

I can only see it used in situations where there are unarmed civilians. It would seem to be a huge waste of resources for any combat purposes.

[USArmyParatrooper]

6. To deal with high risk situations without having to kill.

There are a lot of times when a young trooper must make hard decisions about someone else's life. Just one of many examples, if someone standing guard and can't let anyone through an area - and they don't want to let people get to close due to suicide vests or vehicle bound IED's. They will be given an SOP for when people try to approach, an "escalation of force." It could start with a verbal command to stop, followed by pointing their rifle and the person (or people) repeating the command, followed by warning shots and then finally lethal force.

There could be a huge crowd just outside a military facility with people throwing rocks and molotov cocktails, perhaps with some of them armed. That's a huge security concern, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to just fire rounds into the crowd.

There are lots of times when force is necessary for the safety of our troops, but also where lethal force is excessive.

[think]

8. Thank you for your response. Although I'm totally against this because I fear it will be used

against US protesters I appreciate your input and respect your position.

However, considering the weapons and tactics already being used against Occupy protesters and other protestors already, there are legitimate concerns as to whether this will be used on unarmed US citizens who are protesting here in America. That does not wash well with me.

[USArmyParatrooper]

11. I'm not worried about it.

A police force using such a device would be far too controversial.

[Better Believe It]

16. And why are you certain the military brass won't use this weapon in the Northern Command against us?

I take it you're unaware that U.S. military forces have been used in past history to bust labor unions, strikes, demonstrations and protests in the United States.

Am I correct or are you in fact aware of that terrible history and violations of our rights by the military brass?

A little history lesson:

In 1932, unemployed veterans marched on Washington, DC demanding payment of a bonus due in the future. The "bonus marchers" were routed by the military on orders of President Hoover. The idea of World War I veterans who had come home as heroes being confronted by the army was a national shock and doomed whatever hope Hoover had for reelection.

[Zalatix]

47. The fact that Hoover wasn't tried for treason says we're screwed the next time that happens.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Surely you concede the necessity of drawing up strict standards for the use of this weapon

Even tasers are misused. I hope you also see the probability of this weapon being licensed to police departments that are not as well run as the military you serve in, or the possibility of nations who are not as committed to freedom as the United States is misusing it, as well.

[USArmyParatrooper]

12. I think those are fair concerns.

And yes there should be strict standards for its use. As far as the police using it, maybe I'm naïve but I can't see any police chief wanting to draw that kind of attention to themselves. Without a doubt using the device on American people would be highly controversial.

As far as other countries go, I think any of the rogue countries like Syria are perfectly content with firing live rounds into protest crowds.

[customerserviceguy]

15. I would have agreed with you

on that, until I saw the tactics being used on the OWS protests across the country. That image of that asshole cop pepper-spraying seated protesters is still with me. I recall the tactics used during the late Sixties, and the cops of that era would have loved to have had a weapon of the type we're discussing here.

The Syrias of the world will have no want or need of this weapon, they're perfectly fine with bullets. But I wonder about emerging democracies having access to something like this. It may prove too tempting for an autocratic leader to simply corral people he doesn't like into a torture canyon and deliver a fate that might be more painful than death to eliminate peaceful protest.

This thing should be regarded in the same light as nuclear weapons, its proliferation should be tightly controlled.

[Better Believe It]

13. Do you think the military and cops should use this weapon to bust political demonstrations/strikes?

[USArmyParatrooper]

14. That depends.

I don't think the police should use this device at all. But the military deals with much more volatile situations than local police do.

I don't think anyone should ever use this device to break up political demonstrations just for the sake of them being political demonstrations. I will even go further and say I don't think political demonstrations should ever be broken up, period unless there is a separate and unrelated reason to break it up.

For example, if somebody is on private property and that person wants them removed, the protesters are trespassing. If the protesters become violent then they are a public safety concern.

In other words if the protesters are breaking a law, that law needs to be enforced.

[Better Believe It]

17. How about the military using the weapon to break up OWS demonstration if some right-wing judge ....

or corrupt politician declares the protest to be unlawful?

Does that depend upon whether or not you personally agree with the judge or politician?

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. Do you have any recent examples

Of active duty military being used on protesters?

[Better Believe It]

19. The military has provided a video on how the weapon will be used on protestors.

I suppose you can ignore that and past military history of troops being used against demonstrations.

Such historic documented events are of no interest to you?


So many places and so many opportunities to spread the "American way of life" with sorta due process and other stuff.

[USArmyParatrooper]

20. You're reaching.

The video demonstrated a scenario that I outlined in Post 6.

You didn't answer my question. What is the most recent example you can find of active-duty military being used on American protesters?

The military has and has had for quite some time things like teargas and rubber bullets. Can you post for me examples of the military using those things on the occupy protesters?

I'm sorry, but your fear mongering has absolutely no effect on me.

[randome]

22. Thanks for the objective viewpoint. It is appreciated.

[backscatter712]

43. Legalized mass-torture. That's really fucking special. n/t

[truedelphi]

62. I remember Mike Malloy talking about this. Among his concerns -

What if the person being targeted with this has a metal plate in his head?

What about a mouthful of metal fillings?

No one has any idea of the permanent damage such an individual might acquire by being blasted by such a machine.

[saras]

2. Like the rest of our "non-lethal" tortures, it kills the weak before stopping the strong

It's very poorly tested for long-term safety.

It is very close in principle of operation to other technologies known to have detrimental long-term effects.

Cool.

And it's really indiscriminate - if you live or work or have any other business within a mile of any demonstration, no matter how trivial, you had just better get the hell out of town if you know what's good for you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

7. Surely you wouldn't just make that up.

So substantiate your claim that it kills the weak before stopping the strong.

[just1voice]

41. You substantiate your denial

The police have used all kinds of weapons on people in the past and present, regardless of future law suits. A lot of innocent people get abused as well, as in the case of "Boss Hogtie" in D.C. where the police corralled 300 people and arrested them all, many of whom were innocent bystanders and tourists.

Abuse is the norm for police departments, they don't worry about repercussions.

[USArmyParatrooper]

45. You're the one that made the accusation.

The onus of proof is on you.

They've tested the device on 11,000 volunteers and determined it to be highly effective, with only two injuries.

You claimed it fails to stop to strong and kills the week. On what basis did you make that claim?

[Better Believe It]

46. "They've tested the device on 11,000 volunteers" When? Where? Were any of them civilians?

Links please.

In the video it looks like they tested the raygun it for all of ..... oh ..... two seconds on military "volunteers" before they turned it off.

The "volunteers" simplyturned their backs to the heat raygun and their pain clearly ended!

What happens if the device is aimed at protesters for several minutes and stayed on them without being turned off?

Please provide links and information on those type of tests .... if you have any.

[USArmyParatrooper]

50. I'll provide the link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10646540

Sorry it was 11,000 tests on 700 volunteers.

Please provide your link proving that 1: It is ineffective on the strong, and 2: it kills the weak.

Let the record show your response will not contain a link

[Better Believe It]

55. Thanks for confirming that your statement was wrong. It was 700 "volunteers", not 11,000.

Your unreasonable demand that I provide a link "proving that 1: It (the raygun) is ineffective on the strong, and 2: it kills the weak. Let the record show your response will not contain a link" should be addressed to the poster who raised those points.

I never raised those two points in my comments and therefore won't provide a link to verify something I have not posted on DU.

Is that acceptable to you?

[USArmyParatrooper]

56. I'm stuck on the mobile version.

So I can only see the names of people I'm quoting at that very moment.

So yes, 11,000 test runs and 700 volunteers. by the way why did you put volunteers in quotes?

[Taverner]

3. Great. Occupiers, take care!

We are truly fucked.

[stuntcat]

24. and maybe every future protest or march too, should take care

What if this is something police everywhere will have? Especially in cities.

I've been in a lot of big anti-war or environmental marches, we were peaceful but we were a big crowd. We can't assume things will always be as in-control as they are now, or that the people with these weapons will always follow the same rules. This could totally be used to keep people from trying to protest ANYTHING, or even from getting together.

There are already too many people who don't care what happens. I've been mocked by my own "democrat" inlaws for being a "concerned citizen" Every time I go to anything they think it's dumb. But whatever, at least I CAN still go.

[randome]

25. Guns can be used to prevent protests, too.

So why would anyone automatically assume that these military weapons are going to be given to local police?

[Taverner]

37. +10000

[obliviously]

40. Occupy frying pan! nt

[Ron Green]

5. Negotiating with people is hard work.

Microwaving them is easy.

[Bozita]

10. Prediction: Local cops will be given Homeland Security grants to buy this thing.

[randome]

23. So why aren't they given grants to use other weapons now?

[Better Believe It]

27. They are. Millions in federal funds are being used to arm local cops with advanced weaponry.

Defend The Fatherland funds.

[randome]

28. You have links to prove this?

Because I see no mention of 'advanced weaponry' grants.

[former9thward]

31. Homeland Security has given 34 billion for weapons in the last decade.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html

This new weapon will be in local police hands sooner or later.

[randome]

32. Guns. That's what they've bought.

And bomb-disarming robots. And kevlar vests.

And a couple of towns bought assault trucks that aren't even used.

And a town in Texas bought a drone they have no use for.

For you to imply that the police are about to turn on us is disingenuous. And you have nothing but your own paranoiac fears to think that this new military weapon will be used by anyone but the military.

[woo me with science]

35. Nonsense. First, it's not just one town in Texas.

Drones are going to more police departments already, as just a quick search online shows, and they are being purchased with federal grants. The administration is also bringing home military drones from Iraq and Afghanistan to be converted for domestic use, and that certainly means police departments.

You can damned well be certain that they will find uses for them.

[Better Believe It]

42. You're right. The cops will never be used against the people. Never have, never will.

It's never happened in American history, certainly not recent history.

And U.S. troops have only been used to spread freedom .... here and abroad.

And anyone who says the ruling rich have used cops and military forces against working people is just a paranoid leftist or subversive un-American.

And if you believe all of that let me tell you about a nice bridge I'd like to sell you .... it's in Brooklyn.

[L0oniX]

21. This will certainly help avoid another Kent State murder ...because military...

force never gets used on the people of this country ...pffft!







http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XYy470fpCVM/SwIybCCiGJI/AAAAAAAAAZw/ZGaYN4e9s74/s1600/Kent+State+shooting.jpg

[cstanleytech]

49. Umm this is a non lethal device that doesnt look like its as likely

to kill if used unlike a gun.
You remember guns right? They're those things that fire things called bullets which when they impact cause death like at Kent State.

[L0oniX]

53. Did I say "gun"? DUH!

[dogknob]

26. Active Denial System: who comes up with these names?

It is a device that will ultimately be employed to protect the interests of people who are in active denial.

[Ricochet21]

29. Yes, it's what we need

more money spent on violence. Blech. No one ever learns. Just disgusting.

[girl gone mad]

58. "Active Denial System"

Sounds more like what we've got going on in this thread.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. Got to be a weakness in these things. Find a way to ...........

gum up the works and let the "black bloc" do something useful.

[blue neen]

33. Who is Common Dreams staff?

Who are Common Dreams staff?

[felix_numinous]

34. The defense of such weaponry is they will be used appropriately

--nice language, nice ideals, but in the real world where we all live, we know that this is not how things go down.

Ya, just in time for spring, all the newfangled energy weapons and gagets are trotted out so we can see them--got it.

[backscatter712]

44. "They will be used appropriately"...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That's bitter laughter.

Join in if you like.

[cstanleytech]

48. Odd, here I thought it was a better option than bullets to control crowds that

are doing things like tossing rocks and or other objects in "protest".

[randome]

51. It's the DU contingent that wants to believe government is evil.

And we should all be afraid all the time.

[sabrina 1]

67. Is it? Was the DU 'contingent' wrong about the Bush administration?

Seems to me the DU 'contingent' you have such a problem with has been correct about most of what has been going on over the past decade. The DU Contingent has been more accurate on most issues than the MSM as a matter of fact.

[gratuitous]

36. When Colonel Taffola says "you" at the public unveiling, over and over again

I just wonder who "you" refers to? I don't suppose there were a bunch of terrorists in the room. Who could the good colonel possibly be referring to? Who, who, who? The mind wonders.

[Mopar151]

38. What sort of shielding will work on this thing?

A Faraday cage? Magnetic shielding? ( I've made a bunch, temping at MuShield) Would a big induction coil draw power out of the field, or interfere with it?

An example of induction heating

[ShadowLiberal]

39. Sounds like a perfect weapon for terrorists to get their hands on, and dictatorships

Such a weapon sounds like a perfect tool for terrorists to use to cause mass heat strokes, and probably even killings in heavily populated areas. Sure it may not be 'real' heat, but if it feels like unbearable heat it'll hit people just like real heat and cause heat strokes if they can't find a way out of the invisible moving heat zone. Who would suspect a mass heat stroke on a hot day of being caused by a terrorist?

I read a lot of science fiction books, and one book had a very similar device that some terrorists used to try to kill important politicians with (though in the book the terrorists hijacked a low orbit satellite and fired the heat from the satellite at a political rally, rather then shot the heat through a window or an upper story building).

This also sounds like the perfect tool for dictatorships to use. How far do you think the Arab spring would have gotten if the army had sat up in tall buildings around rallies and fired it at the people? The news networks, even the ones not controlled by the dictatorships, would have reported the Arab spring as just a fringe thing that people were quick to lose interest in. Iran showed that you CAN stop those kinds of protest with sheer force, and this would be much easier to deliver sheer force and torture to large groups of people at once.

[Bigmack]

52. What if people shield themselves...

... will it still burn?

Mirrors..? Any ideas?

My first thought was.. "How will demonstrators get around this thing?"

Any physics majors around?

[woo me with science]

54. DU rec. nt

[Heywood J]

57. If memory serves from the last time this was brought up here,

the short-wavelength radiation had the capability of causing blindness and sterility due to the heating of tissues in the eye and testicles.

[titaniumsalute]

59. Imagine getting your hands on this

I would pop my neighbors popcorn each evening and freak them out.

[USArmyParatrooper]

74. The device won't pop popcorn. nt

[Marr]

60. Isn't it funny that it's basically the anti-OWS contingent around here that is fine with this?

And of course, they're also just totally sure that it would never, ever, ever be used domestically, so don't worry about it.

[Better Believe It]

61. Not "funny" but yes it is revealing.

And of course this new government "protest control" device will only be used against protestors who are "out of control".

And they will justify and be just fine with that use.

[woo me with science]

64. I propose an experiment.

I'd love to see DU archives showing posts of trolls who were quickly identified and tombstoned during Bush's presidency.

Then I'd like to compare the content of those posts with some of the arguments we now see every day on DU by certain folks here.

Would make for a very interesting side-by-side comparison, I bet.

[TBF]

69. I think so as well. nt

[white_wolf]

63. Debt forgiveness, single-payer healthcare, improving our education system?

Forget about it! We have to spend our money on useless tools of oppression and violence. All hail our glorious empire or else... I think I'm going to throw up.

[woo me with science]

75. Libraries, schools, the arts...

Very good point you have there.

[gulliver]

65. Argh. Commondreams again.

Everything it touches it makes dubious.

[Better Believe It]

66. Do you wish to refute the article or do you prefer a "drive-by" attack on the website?

[TBF]

70. Really? I suppose you prefer FAUX news. nt

[randome]

71. As for me...

...I prefer not to cower under my bed like a frightened kitten every time the military creates a new weapon.

All this fear-mongering is pointless.

[TBF]

72. Which has nothing to do with news sources -

but I am well aware of your status-quo point of view.

[randome]

73. I prefer to call it 'objective'.