According to Frontpage, the military’s much-touted “Active Denial System” may not be as non-lethal as it has been made out.

In an interview with Dave Gaubatz, a civilian anti-terrorism consultant, Gaubatz alleges that the microwave-based ADS is very much a lethal weapon and contends that it should have been used early on in the Iraq war to devastating effect:

[quote author=“Frontpage”]Gaubatz: The Ray Gun was designed as a lethal weapon. During my conversation with Ms. Mary Walsh, she advised she was told by Pentagon officials the Ray Gun had been tested on animals. I was very surprised to hear this because Pentagon officials have just confirmed animals are used for testing of weapons such as the Ray Gun at Kirtland AFB. I coordinated the security when the truck loads of animals were being brought in during the middle of the night. Dead animals can

I don’t quite see how a laser is going to stop a car any faster than a bullet would.  Either way if you kill or incapacitate the driver you still have a car loaded with explosives moving at a high velocity in your general direction.  Or does this device also automatically apply the brakes in such a situation?  I do grant you that it would be able to kill everyone in the car more reliably than a gun would, provided it can be focused on a fast moving target, but this hardly puts an end to the threat the vehicle posed.  Don’t microwaves heat up metal, too?  Wouldn’t you run the risk of detonating the explosives, or at least the gas tank, in such a situation?

I also find it hard to believe such a weapon could create a ‘death zone’ even the width of a football field.  Everything indicates this works by focusing beams, not diffusing them, so your zone would necessarily be fairly contained.  The wiki article also specifically states these beams cannot penetrate walls, so its use in an urban environment seems pretty limited to me.  If true then it certainly couldn’t take out a whole block at one time.

Charybdis - 01 May 2008 02:23 PM

I don’t quite see how a laser is going to stop a car any faster than a bullet would.  Either way if you kill or incapacitate the driver you still have a car loaded with explosives moving at a high velocity in your general direction.  Or does this device also automatically apply the brakes in such a situation?

Well Michael Knight used a ‘laser restraint system’ instead of seatbelts, so to someone who’s science knowledge comes from Saturday morning television, I’m sure that seems plausible.

I do grant you that it would be able to kill everyone in the car more reliably than a gun would, provided it can be focused on a fast moving target, but this hardly puts an end to the threat the vehicle posed.  Don’t microwaves heat up metal, too?  Wouldn’t you run the risk of detonating the explosives, or at least the gas tank, in such a situation?

Actually, microwaves mostly reflect off metal. Which rather renders the thing impotent doesn’t it?

(What all the best dressed insurgents are wearing this summer!)

The wiki article also specifically states these beams cannot penetrate walls, so its use in an urban environment seems pretty limited to me.  If true then it certainly couldn’t take out a whole block at one time.

Ah, but wikipedia still thinks it it’s a non-lethal device, having swallowed the government disinformation hook, line and sinker.

Actually, scratch that, whether a metal object will reflect or absorb microwaves is a bit of a complex question to answer.

David B. - 01 May 2008 02:06 PM

Many of the suicide attacks and firefights are in towns, cities, and residential, business areas. If the honest Iraqis knew we had a weapon that would kill everyone within a city block if an attack on American troops was made, the honest Iraqis would begin forcing the terrorists and their supporters out.

[Full interview here…]

Am I missing something or did he suggest threatening to indiscriminately massacre whole city blocks if a terrorist is suspected of living there? Perhaps it’s a good thing there are no tall building left in Iraq or he’d probably advocate flying planes into them!

Hmmm, this kind of indiscriminate retaliation to civilians after an attack on occupying troops is the kind of thing the Nazi’s were renowned for (e.g. Putten). And the kind of thing that today will bring you in front of an international war tribunal.

And thinking that this is the kind of action that would have “the honest Iraqis [...] begin forcing the terrorists and their supporters out” is contrary to what history tells us about harsh measures against civilians in occupied territories in retaliation for hostilities. It is the quickest way to alienate them from you instead.

LaMa - 01 May 2008 03:10 PM

And the kind of thing that today will bring you in front of an international war tribunal.

Well, not if you are an American, it’s the Pentagon’s motto isn’t it, “It ain’t a war crime when we do it!”?

David B. - 01 May 2008 02:35 PM

Ah, but wikipedia still thinks it it’s a non-lethal device, having swallowed the government disinformation hook, line and sinker.

Wikipedia does acknowledge that the device could be turned lethal with minimal tinkering or overriding of the presets.  It also discusses the possibility of even the non-lethal version becoming lethal under real world conditions.

Well, of course, they don’t want to be too obvious!

Guys, we all know the phasers can be set to kill or to stun.

Yes, but how do we get all the insurgents to wear red shirts?

I should point out that the current incarnation of the ADS device apparently needs *two* trucks to move around.. It’s not that useful yet.

And duh, of course you can beam lethal amounts of microwaves at someone. We already *have* things that kill people - they’re called bullets. The advantage of the ADS was that you *can* set it to nonlethal levels that nontheless keep people from going where they shouldn’t. Ideal for prisons or establishing security perimeters.

Or for cooking that cow that was COMING RIGHT AT YOU!