This is a revision of a previous diary. Thanks to Cenobyte for some new info and thanks to many readers for their observations.
There is never anything pretty or appealing about what weapons do, even if many of us can't help but think of weapon technology per se as kind of cool (from the elegance of a samurai sword to any impressive explosion). But the worst thing about weapons is, of course, that they maim and kill. And they don't care whether the person maimed or killed really deserves it...they just tear up what ever they are pointed at.
Needless to say, when you are fighting for the hearts and minds of a nation's population while also fighting militants in that country, innocent deaths and even the death of actual combatants (who of course are also sons, brothers, fathers...) leads to continued resentment. So the development of non-lethal weapons is something talked about a lot. Well it seems like the latest is already deployed in Afghanistan but it is unclear if they plan on using it.
I have heard a fair amount of hype about non-lethal weapons. These are weapons that can temporarily incapacitate someone without causing permanent harm. Sound waves, light, tasers, etc. have all been tested for use as non-lethal weapons. Yet still we find ourselves caught in fights that (whether the fight itself is right or wrong) leads to people being maimed and killed.
Seems the military has come up with a new generation of non-lethal weaponry: the somewhat frightening sounding "Heat Ray." Of course for me this conjures up the martian heat ray in War of the Worlds or the cool energy weapon trucks in old Godzilla movies. But the current weapon, which is being deployed in Afghanistan but without a plan for its use just yet, causes a burning sensation but only actually affects the outer layer of skin (which is mostly dead cells anyway). From BBC News:
The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal weapon designed to disperse violent crowds and repel enemies.
It uses a focused invisible beam that causes an "intolerable heating sensation", but only penetrates the skin to the equivalent of three sheets of paper.
The discomfort causes whoever it's pointed at to immediately start moving away. They often scream but the US military says the chance of injury from the system is 0.1%...
Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a US military spokesperson, says the kit is now in Afghanistan but no decision has yet been made on its use...
The beam produced by the ADS can travel more than 500m (1,640ft) and is seen as an important new way to limit unnecessary deaths and minimise war zone casualties.
Of course, as is usual with military equipment, the name is stupid. I mean "Active Denial System???" What the hell does THAT mean? Doesn't an "Active Denial System" sound like a huge sound system that shouts out "NO!!" to people? Why not just call it a heat ray and be clear about it?
Well, it beats high explosives and bullets. From what the diagram on BBC News indicates, the weapon takes advantage of the fact that nerve cells in the skin (the pain receptors) are below the level of dead skin where the heat reaches, but are sensitive enough to register pain before anything but dead skin gets damaged.
Cenobyte found an article (and video) from Wired magazine from 2008 describing being test subjects for this project and how the dangers are not being accurately and honestly discussed. From Wired Magazine:
Pain Ray Test Subjects Exposed to ‘Unconscionable Risks’
Last fall, Nathan and I agreed to be guinea pigs in a demonstration of the Pentagon’s controversial "pain ray," a directed energy weapon that creates an intense burning sensation designed to repel a potential enemy.
We were told that the so-called Active Denial System, tested thousands of times, was all-but-harmless. But a newly-obtained accident report shows that just six months prior to our test, the weapon’s operators were dangerously undertrained — exposing test subjects, as one official puts it, "to unconscionable risks..."
The Active Denial System, or ADS, is a less-lethal weapon that uses directed energy — millimeter waves — to heat up the top layer of skin. It is specifically designed not to cause any injuries, such as burns. There have been several incidents of blistering, however, and the most serious accident took place last April, when the Air Force revealed that an airman taking part in a test of ADS had been injured severely enough to be treated at a burn center. Few details were made available about the incident...
Now, DANGER ROOM has finally obtained a copy of the full report, which fills in crucial details about what happened. The unredacted report, available here, shows how a series of operator mistakes, compounded by missing safety equipment, led to to the accident. But don’t blame the operators: it appears the accident took place because personnel operating the weapon didn’t have proper training. This, in turn, led to a number of missteps, and ultimately, overexposure.
Crucially, the report states, the "ADS Crew did not realize that the ADS, when it came back to ’stand-by’ mode, had defaulted to the previous setting of 100% power and allowed at least a 4 second trigger pull." A casual, or secondary, factor was related to hardware: specifically, there was no working built-in range finder during the test, which could have helped prevent over-exposure.
Two people who reviewed the unredacted report for DANGER ROOM said the accident raises some basic questions about the weapon. Built-in range finders "have been basic features of high tech line-of-sight weapons and sensors for decades" and typically will prevent operators from using systems in an unsafe fashion, says one Pentagon official familiar with weapon’s development. "Yet those critical safety features, that were integrated into the HMMWV [Humvee] ADS System 1, were removed by the AFRL [Air Force Research Lab] prior to testing, exposing the test subjects to unconscionable risks."
Read more at the actual article (including the link to the unredacted report of the accident...gotta give you incentive to go to the Wired article.
Here is video of the weapon's demo: (from the same article)
So the weapon IS subject to operator misuse which can lead to problems (much as with a taser). The article also points out that the accident happened with an earlier prototype and that since then the weapon has had a good track record in testing.
There was some discussion in my last version of this diary about how the thing works. Basically it is indeed a microwave weapon, but that might be misleading. Microwaves are used for a wide range of applications, from communication to microwave ovens. The ADS uses wavelengths in the 3 milimeter range, which is on the border between far infra red and microwaves. So it is NOT equivalent to a microwave oven which uses 122 millimeter waves. The 122 mm waves will have much greater penetrating power, which is why you can cook things through in a microwave oven. But as everyone is aware, even with these more penetrating waves things don't cook well in the center. With the 3 mm waves, it can only penetrate .04 m into the skin (essentially blocked by a single skin layer...and the first skin layer is made of dead cells). Tests have largely shown the weapon causes little or no harm, though two test subjects did get second degree burns. Again, as pointed out by the Wired article, this was during an earlier phase of the project. The eyes would be more succeptable than the skin but this doesn't mean that they would get damaged by this weapon (assuming not misused as in the cases of the second degree burns) since the .04 mm penetration would not get very deep into the eye. I also see no reason why metal would melt from this weapon if someone is wearing metal. Microwaves interact with water. Metal actually reflects the microwaves, not absorb them. Electric charges can build up on metal (hence the arcing in a microwave oven) but this is partly becasue the microwave oven itself has metal walls. I can imagine some arcing occuring between, for example, body piercings, but the burns would be limited and minor.
There is general controvesy over the intended use. Some argue that it is not reasonable as a battle field weapon because on a battle field you are trying to kill, not drive off, the enemy. I think that is not true. Wars are not won by just killing opponents. Particularly when you are at the same time trying to convince the populace as a whole that your intentions are benign. I also think that non-lethal weapons are a must in modern urban warfare. Reading descriptions of the war in Chechnya or the Israeli invasion of Beirut (or, for that matter, Stalingrad or the battle for Arnhem in WW II) it is clear that combat in a city creates a massive risk for bystanders. It is impossible to target only enemy combatants. Use of non-lethal weapons can drive off or incapacitate enemies in a city without killing non-combatants. The question is how effective would this heat ray be? Many walls (depending on metal and/or water content in its building materials) can block the heat ray. Good for limiting civilian casualties, bad for targeting snipers. But it could be useful in driving off enemies in street combat. Clearing a street or square would be well within the use of this weapon. To me this makes more sense than battle field use where a truck mounted weapon would be hard to deploy.
Which brings us to a common objections. It seems that this weapon is quite usable for controlling street protests. That use is played down no, but during the Bush years this was a stated purpose of the heat ray. Now street demonstrations can be violent and can be malevolent (lynchings, stonings, riots...). Not all crowd control is a bad thing. However, thinking about the Bush administration contemplating handling crowd control in America with heat rays is rather disturbing given the poor civil liberties record of Republicans. Though I don't believe Obama would have any desire to control peaceful dissent, sadly one day we may have a dissent-hating Republican in office again. However, to me this weapon is of limited value for crowd control. The price tag alone means that though it could be used by National Guards if they are called in (remember Kent State) but not by local law enforcement. Thankfully Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not likely to be able to get his hands on this thing. There are much cheaper methods for crowd control, including tear gas. These have their flaws as well, but the cheap cost alone make them preferable. So I think it would take a pretty radical shift in how our society functions before this weapon would be turned on American citizens. That said, Bush wanted to take it that way.
But this brings me to another point. If a government goes that route, it doesn't need a heat ray to squelch dissent. In NYC civil liberties have been curtailed by Mayor Bloomberg with hardly any resorting to violence. Defense of civil liberties is equally important whether or not heat rays are available. American citizens need legal and political barriers to abuse of power by the likes of Bush or Bloomberg. If those are not in place, it doesn't matter if tear gas, batons, motor scooters (a favorite of Bloomberg's during the protests against the RNC) heat rays, or just plain guns are the tool of oppression. The legal and political protections are what are critical.
So I do feel that the development of non-lethal weapons is important. I prefer that to bigger and better ways of killing and maiming. And I do think there are appropriate uses of non-lethal (less-than-lethal is perhaps a better term?) weapons like heat rays and tasers. But the concerns and implications and dangers need to be out in the open and discussed.