Energy beam weapon could be used in Iraq
MSNBC: Since 2003 US military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested — and were denied — an energy beam weapon called the Active Denial System. The device, which is perched on a Humvee or a flatbed truck, has a range of 500 yards and uses directed-energy beams that can penetrate a few millimeters under the skin causing pain. As the soldiers train it on a crowd, the pain makes them disperse.
"I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," Air Force science advisor Gene McCall told Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to an e-mail obtained by Associated Press. The system should become "an immediate priority," McCall said.
However, the international red cross and other non-profit organizations, and other governments have a number of concerns related to the deployment of energy-based weapons, including whether such devices break the Geneva Convention on torture and the convention on conventional weapons. See also an earlier Physics Today news pick on laser blinding weapons being deployed to Iraq.
Laser blinding weapons in Iraq
Federation of American Scientists web site on the Convention on Conventional Weapons
convention on conventional weapons web site
Active Denial System wikipedia entry
Comments
I believe the Red Cross is a "for profit" organization.
Posted by: Bob Brackett | September 14, 2007 2:55 PM
Use any means available to defeat the enemy. Their demand is convert or die, we need to take them dead serious or we will be dead!
Posted by: Steve Schultz | September 14, 2007 3:46 PM
Although filing tax statements showing various funds, and donations not including volunteer work, the red Cross is hardly a "For Profit" organization. The American Red Cross (the Organization) was
established by an Act of the United States Congress on January 5, 1905 for the primary purposes of
furnishing volunteer aid to the sick and wounded of the Armed Forces in time of war and to carry on a
system of national and international relief in time of peace to mitigate the suffering caused by fire,
famine, floods and other great natural calamities. The mission of the Organization has expanded since
that time to help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies.
Posted by: William Gray | September 14, 2007 4:00 PM
It is interesting that a non-lethal standoff weapon is objectionable citing the conventional weapon convention yet totally ignore the Protocol II of that convention against, mines, bobby-traps, etc. routinely employed by the enemy as standard fare.
Posted by: Bill Miller | September 14, 2007 4:19 PM
There are a lot of cheaper devices that could be used for torture to generate the same effect e.g. Hot plates at 40 - 50 degrees C or hot water hoses. It is absurd that this huge multimillion dollar weapon would or could be used for torture.
Posted by: John Yoder | September 14, 2007 5:12 PM
The government (US) has an obligation to be pre-emptive and netrualize the bad guys. Good intentions do not translate to good sense.
Posted by: Michael | September 17, 2007 1:43 AM
If you're "pre-emptive," that means they haven't done anything yet. Have they realized the long-term consequences of this?
Posted by: Jon | October 17, 2007 12:01 PM
Using the Active Denial System on a group of people who can't escape the beam, say those in prison for example, would constitute torture. Using the system on a group in the open WHO CAN RUN AWAY does not constitute torture. In fact, I'd say it's more humane than plastic bullets or tear gas because once they remove themselves from the targeted area, the pain goes away.
Posted by: Scott Remington | October 17, 2007 12:43 PM
We're talking about civilians assembled in a crowd. We really don't want to make it too easy for governments, including our own, to control large groups of people this way. It *should* be hard for the U.S. to control the territory of another sovereign country whose people don't want us their. If we feel that strongly that it's necessary, we should have a draft and send 500,000 troops. Otherwise, we should get out.
Posted by: Dan Kirk-Davidoff | October 17, 2007 2:02 PM