Ray Guns in Iraq

Remove all ads!

On the surface, nothing. Then again, "better safe than sorry" is used to back up all sorts of insanity like, say, going into Iraq even though common sense and all the intelligence at the time indicated that Iraq was no threat, that our going there would compromise our efforts in Afghanistan, and that we would be trapped in a never ending quagmire which would engender ill will from the international communities as well as causing a great many unnecessary casualties.

 

Drew got the point. It could be used to argue for shooting anyone who knocks at your door late at night, through the door – considering all the potential evils in the world – to be safe. That is is of course insane and nonsense, and consequently utterly useless as an argument.

'Better safe than sorry' expresses a sentiment, at best. It says basically: "I don't know, but this sure feels right."

It is no surrogate for an argument, and shouldn't be allowed to pass as one.

 

I think I've referenced David Drake's position before, and I'm going to do so again, even though the use of quotes has been pounded recently. Drake spent time in Vietnam and was permanently scarred by what he saw there. It comes out in his books. Given that said quote actually reinforces the anti Iraq war movement, I feel comfortable using it. I'm sorry if I don't get it word for word.

"What I want people to realize is that if you put a soldier into a dangerous situation with a gun in his hand, he's going to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation alive. If the consequences of that disturb you, then you should seriously rethink putting that soldier in that situation."

My translation? My position on Iraq has completely reversed -- they never should have gone in on such BS intelligence, and once they figured out the intel was BS, they should have left ASAP. But as it stands, I cannot fault soldiers for wanting to protect themselves, and if they can do it with something less lethal, they should give it a chance.

 

The problem with that is that we already knew the intel was BS when we went in.

 

Tear gas is starting to be seen as a chemical weapon and the military is being 'encouraged' to find different non-lethal methods of crowd control.

This ray gun is basically a high frequency radar. There have been many cases of sailors getting injured fire control radar in the Navy (an Aegis system caused serious damage to several sailors on another ship). The powerful radars used in the military can kill if someone is too close for too long.

This particular weapon uses extremely high frequencies to limit penetration and only cause temporary discomfort. Works well in theory and has also worked in testing, but the testing was very controlled. I think it needs more testing before being used. One of the concerns is the generation of 'hot spots' due to something a target has on (contact lenses, belt buckles, bullets, explosives,...). I also haven't seen any data on what happens to tissue for prolonged exposure, especially the eyes.

 

I believed that governments in question when they said that they had "proof" of Saddam's possession of WMDs. It wasn't so implausible to me -- everyone knew from the Kuwait invasion that Saddam was aggressive, and other states were looking to join the nuclear club. Evidence exists that he WANTED nukes, but sadly the evidence on their existence was not forthcoming.

 

@LKD: Whether or not you felt it was plausible, there was still ample evidence that the books were being cooked....even during the buildup to the war. The legion of anti-war protesters had been saying exactly that since before we even went to Iraq.....and the legions leaving the intelligence community in droves were also a pretty big tip-off. Sorry, but those of you who feel the WMD argument regarding Iraq was valid at the time just didn't look hard enough. It was obvious even then (which is one of the reasons I just can't get behind most senate democrats for the primaries, since they foolishly supported the war).

 

And everyone also knew from the aftermath of that very same invasion that he had no weapons to speak of after just about everyone (including all of his neighbours) joined the Gulf War on NATO's side. In 2003, when the majority of the UN was opposed to invading Iraq, no one mentioned any sympathy for Saddam Hussein - all those who opposed did so because they knew there no WMDs and that the invasion would lead to a pretty big mess. Dick Cheney himself said in 1994 that invading Iraq was not needed, would be a big mistake and would gain the US nothing. If only he'd showed the same clarity of thinking a decade after.

Yes, that's true. And I WANT to have godlike powers.
Come on. Every single power-hungry mad politician in the world wants nukes. 99% of them never even try to get them. The whole "he wanted them, so he must have them" argument was the stupidest thing to come out of Cheney and Rumsfeld at the time.

[ September 09, 2007, 00:38: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

After T2's post, there is little more to say about the Active Denial System. I know of similar hazards from communications equipment, especially HF radio and directed radio links.

LKD,
I wouldn't exactly take David Drake's books as a guideline. They're fun to read, sure, but so what? It's still fiction. Everyone in war will try to save his own hide? I'm not so sure. I think that is a over-simplification.

I remember a British officer remarking that the UK in Northern Ireland only achieved success by not retaliating in kind, but by practising extraordinary self restraint after the renowned 'Bloody Sunday'. They took much greater losses than they inflicted on terrorists. But they won.

If it's all and only about survival one could as well leave soldiers in their barracks, or better safe than sorry, send them to underground bunkers. But apparently being a soldier is about more than just survival. Officers are expected to put the lives of their soldiers on the line to achieve objectives, and, while trying to avoid casualties, expect, and accept, losses. That is just how it is.

What I want to say is that there always is the question of objectives, what the soldiers are supposed to achieve. Blaming soldiers for trying to save their skin is perfectly adequate if them trying to save their own hide undermines the objectives they are ordered to achieve. That is partly what the surge is about – it gives up the previous emphasis on force protection in an attempt to achieve objectives that couldn't be achieved before. Whether or not that is succeeding is another story.

Where I get back on topic is the emphasis on 'force protection' that leads to use of vastly superior fire power on perceived threats, real and imaginary. Here we are at the point where the ADS comes back into play. If it is about force protection only, the point is that the presumably non-lethal ADS will be used just like any other weapon in the inventory in order to prevent casualties. If that's the point the above criticism fully applies.

[ September 08, 2007, 18:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa, the books are fiction, obviously. I'm not a moron. But the experiences that inspired them were not. That quote was one he did in an essay explaining his feelings about armed conflict, not something he put into the mouth of a character for a "sound byte", as you term it. Given that he saw action, I'm ready to give his words some credence over the opinions of people who have never seen armed conflict (I include myself in that category, as I myself would never want to be in such a violent situation.)

What bothers me is that a lot of people seem to be far too willing to second guess everything police forces do from the comfort of their computer desks. There also seem to be people who believe that the only weapon police should ever use is calming words. I just don't believe that if a guy is coming at you with a knife a policeman's only option should be "STOP!" To me, that sort of thinking is just as ridiculous as the other side of the coin, which is pulllng your service revolver when a citizen jaywalks. There has to be a logical, reasonable medium, and while it may disturb some people, force is going to be part of that medium.

As for the WMD thing, again it is twenty twenty hindsight in action. I certainly wasn't the only one who was fooled by the lies the intelligence agencies told.

 

And, again, you are completely wrong. We knew he was cooking the books before we went into Iraq. We knew there were no WMD. The entire rest of the world knew there were no WMD......except, of course, for Bush's pathetically laughable "coalition of the willing". Well over half the first world was telling us that Iraq had no WMD. This is why the UN did not support our invasion. Nearly half our own country was out protesting the war, stating that Iraq had no WMD, that Iraq was no threat, and that the invasion would lead to an interminable quagmire, thus engendering international hostility and de-stabilizing the Middle East. The facts were out there. 125 house democrats didn't vote against authorizing the war just because they were pussies, you know.

 

And you becoming sick would be a bad thing because...?

 

My guess is that he is sick because of some ray gun that is being developed in an ultra top secret neo-con funded laboratory.

 

Neo-cons don't fund much, much less laboratories. Usually, they get funded. They're pretty good at getting funded.

One only needs to look at Wolfowitz - out of the Worldbank in discgrace, entering some position the American Enterprise Institute only weeks later, you know, entering 'the private sector'. Neo-cons appear to have a knack for soft landings.

 

Ragusa do you really believe what you write or are you just trying to get someone's goat? It appears that anything you don't personally like is due to some 'neo-con' somewhere that made a decision based on either personal gain or simply to piss off liberals. The constant drone of neo-con this and neo-con that gets really old. Please, come up with a new mantra already.

As far as funding research -- I think that depends on the research. Defense related research (such as what this topic is about) gets more funding during years that Republicans are in charge.

 

Actually, it's usually about the same.
While not quite approaching Reagan's spending, Bill Clinton's military spending, for example, was quite a bit higher than Bush Sr's. Frankly, we haven't had enough Democratic chief executives in the last 25 years or so to make any kind of real, valid comparison. We've had 3 different Republican administrations and only one democrat.

 

That's great.

I know it's his pet conspiracy theory and shouldn't be baited, but every now and then I get weak and the craving comes to type ... and well ....