Ray Guns in Iraq

Remove all ads!

Evidently we have ray guns that we aren't using in Iraq. These are pseudo-weapons in that they would be used primarily for crowd dispersement. According to the article, these laser generators would be mounted on top of a humvee. They are "non-lethal", however those struck by the invisible beam get the sensation that their skin is on fire.

The reason it hasn't been used yet is that many in the military feel that using such a weapon would be construed as torture. I'm inclined to agree with that. According to the article, the beam penetrates the skin slightly. In what little information the army has released of it's testing, they say the most damage inflicted during testing is second degree burns. Second degree burns are burns that cause blistering - so that's pretty intense.

The other problem with it is that the main use of this device - angry crowd dispersement - means you would be targeting Iraqi civilians, and not just enemy combatants. I suppose a device like this is preferable to firing bullets into a crowd, but I'm not sure inflicting intense pain on the crowd is a heck of a lot better than potentially killing someone in the crowd.

It seems like this is a very strange means of crowd control. Don't we already have things like tear gas that function as non-lethal crowd dispersement? Your thoughts?

 

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Anyway, it really feels like this is just another military idea that's come "too little, too late" to do any good over there. It does seem like a good idea though, just not practical. Like you stated, we already have tear gas.

It would probably be illegal to set these people's skin on fire, so how is it not illegal to make them feel that way?

 

Starfox, the difference probably is that the other, where you actually set skin on fire, is quite potentially lethal and the another's not (at least nearly as much, if at all).

 

Well, considering that it's supposed to be for crowd control - meaning that it's designed to target civilians, then yeah, I'd say it is a bit too harsh.

Besides, as you mentioned, what's the point? Just send some tear gas and dispensers, they do the same thing and I'm pretty sure they're a lot cheaper, better tested (so you don't char someone by accident), and leave less lasting and unpleasant effects. The latter does not matter directly to the soldiers, but may mean a lot for the (Iraqi) public, which will probably get on the receiving end of these weapons at some point. I even think some armored vehicles had special smokescreen dispensers that could be refitted to adapt them for tear gas use. Of course, I suppose that way a few scientists, engineers and officers will not get to have their new toy field-tested. Tough luck for them.

Then again, it would not be surprising if the forces in Iraq don't, or at least didn't have any tear gas or other useful equipment. Apparently the planners forgot that if the soldiers had to perform some essentially policing duties, they will need some relevant training and equipment. Looking at page 3, apparently the soldiers didn't get any non-lethal weapons at all. Just looking at the article, of course, you'd never know tear gas and rubber bullets actually exist - it's like this is the first NLW ever. A brilliant bit of framing by the ever-"liberal" media.

[ August 30, 2007, 17:17: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

they have previewed this on future weapons on discovery channel.
you would have to have an extreme pain tolerance level to stay in the beam long enough to develop blisters. also, please remember that tear gas is very much affected by wind conditions. this doesnt have those limitations. also good for perimeter security. set the projecters up so they cover the outside 10' up to a fenceline & you almost negate the chance of anyone cutting the fence

 

But if the beam is invisible, how would you know which way to move to get out of it?

I also am amused by the say that it gives "the sensation that your skin is on fire". It probably feels like you skin is burning because, well, it is!

 

@Martaug: well, I don't know any of the details, but I'm less impressed. As for wind conditions, well, usually you don't have mass protests in windstorms. Besides, TG is a tried and true method used effectively in riots for decades. There is a huge experience using it in any conditions, tactics, etc. I'm not saying that it's a panacea, but that by and large it is essential equipment for such tasks - and this equipment seems (if I'm reading it right) to have been completely omitted. Seriouly the entire episode is a piece of weird thinking. The military asking for a new weapon when there is a piece of equipment that is cheaper, easy to introduce, and present in large quantities, and the planners forgetting that non-lethal weapons might be necessary in peacekeeping. Seriously, reality DOES beat satire.

As for using these lasers for perimeter defense, it could work, but they better be bullet-resistant. Seriously, the thing on the picture just screamed "shoot me".

 

I must say I have to completely disagree with you, Shaman - though I do see where you're coming from.*

Actually, that's not quite true. It is possible to die from tear gas. Not necessarily the gas per se (though it has happened), but from one's reaction to it. People can have particularly violent, convulsive reactions to the tear gas and choke on their own vomit. Also, as mentioned - the effectiveness of the tear gas depends on air quality and wind conditions, allowing some people to easily shrug off the effects of the tear gas. It doesn't take a gale-force wind to dissipate a cloud of smoke. Even with rubber bullets, there's still a very real danger of hitting a pressure point (like the temple) and killing the person.

These "pseudo-lasers" or whatever you want to call them truly are an effective, non-lethal means of crowd control, and hence, well worth the added expense over things like tear gas, which are a mixed bag at best. Just because tear gas has been used for decades doesn't mean it's all that effective - it just means it's the cheapest, most effective option we have available now. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.

There's another aspect I think you're missing: accuracy. Oftentimes a rabble is roused by one or two individuals within a crowd, not necessarily the crowd at large. Why tear gas everyone when you can isolate and incapacitate them? I'll take a bullet over a hand grenade any day.

*edit - I didn't read all of Aldeth's above article clearly. I'm familiar with a device like this which is really more like a "gun" in the sense that it can be focused an aimed, rather than an area-effect device, which is what I assumed the article was referring to. I still consider this more effective than tear gas, however.

[ August 30, 2007, 20:02: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Aldeth, I guess the idea behind is that if you feel your skin is burning and need to run, you probably run away from the thing that's causing it. And seeing that the controllers are probably only wanting to dissipate the crowd, they won't try and target the fleeing people too.

Hmmh... I seem to recall some stuff about metal hugely amplifying the effect, causing agonizing burns. However, it could have been some other experimental weapon.

 

Bah. Humbug.

It might be useful to disperse crowds, without necessiating protective gear that CS gas and the like would impose on troops for protection. Everyone who has ever had to operate under gas protection the summer will appreciate that. In Iraq's tropical climate that's a substantial benefit. That for the advantages.

Now for the illusions: What will happen is the same as with them 'non-lethal' Tasers that have become so popular with US police. It will be a difficult thing to control the ray and exposure, and inevitably the thing will kill people. Non-lethal is an orwellian term. It is misleading because lethality depends on the application and only an idiot of the highest order will expect an opponent to accept such terms.

"Heh! We attacked you non-lethally and now you're fighting back with real guns? Outrageous!"

Well, you fight (back) with what you have. People will not like getting zapped, much less so with impunity, just as people do not like to be forced. What then will happen is indirect escalation. They can't do a thing against this ray gun? So what? Let's mine a supply line in return.

[ August 30, 2007, 22:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

It seems to me that the idea behind of this ray gun is the same with the plastic bullets. They were too supposed to be non-lethal but reality has proven otherwise (14 people were killed just in Northern Ireland since 1975, I don't know the toll in other areas where they were used like Palestine and South America iirc). I suppose that the ray guns has the same disadvantage of the plastic bullets, they require extreme precision and I doubt that this is something that can be effectively achieved in the conditions of pressure and tension.

 

Rayguns and gay bombs.

God bless America.

 

I would suck in a fight. There's no two ways about it. I have crappy reflexes and an aversion to pain. Why do I mention this? Well, if I were to be in danger I'd want a technique that would be 100% effective at keeping me safe and out of harm's way. Hence, I like the idea of a shotgun -- superior accuracy not required, lots of noise, etc.

When police are facing a bunch of potential hostiles (or even one, for that matter) their lives are at stake. I don't blame them for putting their safety above that of the potential hostile. Therefore, I advocate the use of the most effective weapon possible. Now, there's a lot of folks who want the police to use non-lethal force on people who, IMHO, deserve lethal force. In an effort to appease them, governments have developed several weapon systems that are not highly lethal. But, there are no systems out there that can be 100% guarenteed to never cause a death. That's a fact of life that people are going to have to face.

Bottom line, if the ray gun actually keeps soldiers safe and is statistically less fatal than bullets or grenades, I say use it and naysayers be cursed.

 

You're taking for granted that this gizmo actually works as advertised. I don't see that.

Also, you seem to be caught in the belief that those the police deals with always deserve their intervention, and thus would deserve lethal force. Alas, that is not so, which is the silly reason why liberals invented 'presumption of innocence', 'due process' and abolished torture, among some things. Fortunately for you, I presume, conservatives have abolished the former and re-introduced the latter in the US.

Do you also believe those advertising that promises you 'phenomenal growth' in 30 days? In that case, I could forward you my spam folder. I also have some Nigerian friends that would like to make you a splendid business offer.

 

I take nothing for granted, Rags. Notice I said IF the gun actually works.

As for the belief that those the police deal with always deserve their intervention, of course their are times that the police overstep their bounds, but those times are really rare. Filthy criminals always cry and whine that they were picked on by the police. The idea that most police forces are idiots out to stomp on the civil rights of all human beings is garbage. I've had several interactions with police over the years and I've always cooperated with them and gotten the same level of respect in return. They are not chomping at the bit to use lethal force -- or any force, for that matter -- on every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Perhaps if criminals would just follow laws and be decent instead of seeking to violate the rights
of others the police wouldn't even have to make the decision of whether or not to use lethal or non-lethal force.

In any event, given that the soldiers in Iraq are in a different position that police in the Western world, I don't blame them one bit for being jumpy and wanting any tool they can get their hands on that might keep them safe, even if the ray gun does sound a little loopy.

[ September 06, 2007, 16:58: Message edited by: LKD ]

 

Conservative as I am I give the police the benefit of a doubt, too. That said, I know that these procedural rights I mentioned were not invented for nothing. Innocents get arrested, tried and executed, even waterboarded and given the KGB treatment. And the internal affairs divisions don't exist just to make for a nicer organigram.

You're 'I'm a tool user' line is a nice soundbite that sadly misses the point. Sometimes the polices does use disproportionate force, yes, and not maliciously (not that that doesn't happen), but, say, because they don't understand the situation properly. Because of not understanding the situation properly they will then use any tool at their disposal excessively, from fists over pepper spray, batons, tasers, guns or shotguns. What that in my view suggests is better, maybe proper, training, and not new toys.

This particular toy we speak about is useful for what exactly? The practical aspects I mentioned above aside, who will it be used against? While we're at it, what about those Iraqis? Are they just some faceless mob? Do they exist in reality? If they exist, maybe they have a reason to be mad? Maybe someone just shot up their neighbourhood. EDIT: I doubt they are just some self-enraging entity, or as the proverbial 'arab street' merely wax in the hands of propagandists.

What about Americans? Considering the proliferation of military gear from SpOps units to SWAT teams, and the general phenomenon of the militarisation of police in the US down to local police departments, how long will it take until it is used by, say, LA SWAT against protesters, US citizens?

Having seen those pics from the last big riot in LA, or the movie EDIT: Dark Blue, I don't blame US cops one bit for being jumpy and wanting any tool they can get their hands on that might keep them safe, even if the ray gun does sound a little loopy.

[ September 06, 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Maybe they don't understand the situation properly -- who can when things are happening really quickly? My point is that later on people have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, whereas a police officer doesn't. If he errs on the side of saving his own skin, I really can't blame him.

I fully agree that training up the wazoo is vital for police or soldiers, but it won't solve all situations or completely eliminate mistakes.

I was under the impression that this ray gun was originally designed for crowd control in the U.S., as THEORETICALLY it is less likely to cause a fatality than rubber / plastic bullets, tear gas, tasers, or a nightstick. If that theory proves to be correct, then go for it! If the theory doesn't work, then the riot police will have to go back to the other techniques, even though they too are flawed.

My basic argument is that sometimes there are crowds that need to be moved for legal, legitimate reasons. Usually they are asked to do so via a bullhorn. If they fail to comply with the legitimate rule of law, then some force is necessary. No amount of care and prevention on the part of police executing their duty legitimately can factor in all possibilities. A protestor may be asthmatic, and the tear gas will kill them. A person my be especially susceptible to electricity and be killed by a taser. Any number of scenarios may occur that are beyond the ability of the police to control, but that doesn't make them thugs.

I'm not familiar with the film you reference (Dark Blue?) if you could elaborate?

 

In the scene I had in mind Kurt Russel, a LA cop, drives through scenes of looting and mayhem - anarchy, wanton murder during an LA riot. I like the movie.

Maybe you can't blame a cop for saving his skin, even putatively saving his skin. The relatives of a person killed in error will be less generous. I am confident you'd be less generous would it be one of your relatives.
In Iraq that means very real repercussions for US troops killing in error, or indiscriminately, to save their own skins, or putatively save their own skins. Now if they could just zap them folks non lethally, that would be a deal, eh? I doubt it.

The idea of scaring people away with making them fear their skin will burn, and indeed it will burn on prolonged exposure, is something of a different quality than tear gas in my view.

I admit I was being a jerk, for the sole reason that I, rightly or wrongly, read a remarkable degree of gullibility EDIT: and IMO overly generous benefit of a doubt toward the executive branch in general out of your initial post. EDIT: No offense. The other thing is that I don't like this tool user argument, as it can be and is regularly used to justify about everything, from buying an electric drill for home improvement to arming police with tactical nuclear weapons. Almost as bad as 'better safe than sorry'.

What I know is that those folks who think this a silver bullet will find themselves disappointed. As far as Iraq is concerned this is a futile attempt to technologically fix a tactical problem that results from a strategic blunder.

Generally speaking, it might be useful as a tear gas surrogate, which the US Army is banned of using as a result of the CWC. I can understand the desire to get a surrogate crowd dispersal weapon. I am unpersuaded of it's utility.

[ September 06, 2007, 23:01: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Part of the training problem--with soldiers--is not so much that there's not enough, or that it's not good enough, but that it's the wrong kind.

LTC Odom, over at SMJ, wrote that

Show me the training facility where this is pounded into the head of the grunts, and I'll show you a facility that exists solely in your mind.

Which, much as I disagree with him, is where Barnett gets it right. We effing well need to dedicate a branch of the service to COIN and nation-building.

And not just for Iraq/Afghanistan

 

whats wrong with " better safe than sorry " ragusa?

thats like saying "oh , the sign says no gas for 200miles but i have half a tank & can go 180miles, i can stretch it out rather than stop"

think goodness most people who think thusly dont live long enough to contribute to the gene pool.
(yeah, i'm ribbing you somewhat but not much)