The US Military Heats Up

Guest Wrote: "Will it also work for unwarranted meddling in other county's affairs?"

You would think the US invented war. I would call the Iraq war costly, poorly planned, and even illegal. But Unwarranted? Are you suggesting that Iraq was the picture of peace and tranquility before the US invasion? Don't misunderstand me, I don't think the US should be in Iraq. It's just that you said unwarranted when you had so many truthful criticisms to choose from. Or perhaps you think deposing an evil dictator is an unworthy reason for war? Is that what it has come to? Let tyrants kill, gas, and torture, as long as they don't bother us? I hope not.

Or perhaps you think deposing an evil dictator is an unworthy reason for war?

When you say evil dictator, do you mean our trusted ally, the guy we armed in the Iran-Iraq war?

Let tyrants kill, gas, and torture, as long as they don't bother us?

Yikes, I knew Bush was killing and torturing. I hope he's not using gas too!

You Wrote: "When you say evil dictator, do you mean our trusted ally, the guy we armed in the Iran-Iraq war?"

Oh brother.

You Wrote: "Yikes, I knew Bush was killing and torturing. I hope he's not using gas too!"

What about the 50 years of torture the CIA committed? Or does it only count when we admit to it?

What's funny about all this is politically I probably agree with you. I'm against the Iraq war, for a Nationalized Healthcare System, and completely against the use of torture for any reason ever. I just don't see hyperbole helping the situation.

I'm a liberal, but I remember that Gaius Marius and Robespierre were liberals too. I don't want the cure to be worse than the disease.

Please don't take this comment as insulting, but you said you are always against torture right?

If your son was buried alive and had only 1 hour of oxygen left before he perished and you had the guy that knows where your son is buried, would you not do everything in your power to extract the information about your son including torture? I think human nature would compel you to torture the man to save your son, that's just me.

Again, I don't mean to enrage you with this comment, but give it some thought.

Sure, let me try to counter your argument, and I hope my example doesn't "enrage" you:

Lets say my sister was missing, and I'm sure your son did it. I kidnap him and torture him, but he denies that he has any knowledge of my sister. So I kidnap his mother and torture her in front of him but he still refuses to talk. So tell me, what should I do now? Should I kill them? Afterall, what does it matter if they are maimed or die, we're talking about my sister who I love dearly and I will do anything to get her back. Your son is a liar. What would you have me do?

I'll tell you what I would do. I wouldn't torture him, or his mother. You can always justify immoral acts, but torture is wrong no matter what.

Roger,

I only mentioned the disclaimer because people have taken my comments the wrong way before.

So, you make a very good point, but I think most of us would do anything in our power to find our son including torture. I think you and I would have more of a tendency to agree if we properly define torture which would include being forced to pose naked in pictures according to the media. I would classify torture as any treatment that causes permanent physical damage.

The media would start yelling torture if we didn't give the prisoners 4 hours of prayer time every day. It is now regarded as common knowledge that Abu Garabe (misspelled) was a torture camp when there is no evidence of any such thing, except the media sensationalizing the whole thing. Once torture is properly defined, one can take a better stand. I would water board a terrorist or two to save thousands or millions of Americans. I wouldn't cut fingers off unless I already had evidence to say that the guy knows where a bomb is. There are all these exceptions to when it is ok (in my opinion) to "torture".

I know that you won't agree, but I wanted to put a few cents in on the topic.

Best regards

And how would you know you were torturing the right person? How do you know they had the information you needed?

As for stress positions, don't knock them till you've tried them......for 8 hours straight. If you really feel strongly about your position on torture, find some Vietnam POWs, they tend to meet every so often, and give them a talk on why torture is sometimes necessary. I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing those heroes.

I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind here, but nevertheless cannot simply let your malevolent notions go unchallenged, especially because you are using my country's flag in your avatar. I hope others on the forum will understand that advocating torture is NOT the "American Way." We have a long history of working to ensure due process and fairness, and torture is anathema to that.

That you can suggest that permanent physical harm should be the measure of torture is profoundly naive, completely ignorant of the psychology of torture, and insensitive. As a result of an auto accident, I all but lost an arm -- but I am perfectly fine -- they sewed it back on, there are no emotional scars, and the physical ones add a certain character to an otherwise bland arm. I'd guess most of us have had similar physically painful experiences -- we get over then easily. The pain of childbirth that many woman go through is significant, but they are not permanently, emotionally scarred by it, although many are physically scarred by Cesarean sections.

The psychological effects of torture can be devastating. The physical effects are comparatively incidental. Thus psychological torture, such as forcing an individual to act in ways entirely counter to his strongly-held religious beliefs, to coerce information out of that individual, is, simply put, evil.

Real Americans do not advocate torture. (Nor, of course do real Frenchmen, real Brits, etc., etc., etc. No fully functioning, moral adult in the civilized world advocates torture.)

Hey this sounds like a good thing to me. At least it does not kill first and ask questions later. But today it only heats up the individual. With technology advancing so fast, it may even become lethal in the future. In todays world it is about survival of the fittest. I would love to see a world without conflict, but this would be dreaming. We must be at the top of technology, unless freedom is not what it is cut out to be. I did my Military service, and I sort of think... Freedom is what it is cut out to be.

Hey, maybe this can even stop the bleeding for our bleeding heart liberals.

This is not simply a deterrent for use in crowd control. Why is it undergoing 'user' (aka military) evaluation. Can the CEO of Raytheon not simply test it fully at the next AGM ? It is another weapon capable of causing torture and death , not the benign sentry they would have people believe.

Yes, but can it make toast and tea?

You first have to drink the tea, and only then it toasts you

. . . not the benign sentry they would have people believe.

Feel Free to add this technology to my buddy's list of stuff he can use to put down terrorists and crowds that would seek to do him harm (you know like - Kill him) on duty. In fact order me two. While we argue the politics of it, his butt is in the line of fire and frankly all I want is him to have a bigger tool to destroy, utterly and completely anyone who would seek to do him harm. What a great technology imagine microwaved hot coffee in the field - "Just hold your cups up fellas "

The technology won't give your buddy a tool for destruction, Zap, but it could save him from having to make an agonizing decision - do I shoot the hostile civilian who may or may not be armed, or do I hold my fire and find out (the hard way) that he has a weapon? If you shoot an unarmed civilian, you may be looking at a court martial. If you hold your fire, you may wind up dead. Lousy choices, huh?

. . .The technology won't give your buddy a tool for destruction, Zap

Agreed, I overstated of course- caught up in the moment of fury wrapped around my buds and once myself having to make that very decision while well meaning folks argued about the purpose and reason for me being there. Having served in the Middle East as both a military member and later a civilian contractor (supporting our guys) , the difference between a good civilian and a civilian intending me harm is a tad bit obscure. This would be a much better alternative to shoot them first and deal with a conscience and the fact you may have killed an innocent without intention – one of the hardest things a soldier can do. So again order me two skipper.

the difference between a good civilian and a civilian intending me harm is a tad bit obscure

Something of an understatement, isn't it? Perhaps you can tell, by a telltale look in the eye of a suicide bomber, just before the blast, that there will be a blast -- but then it's too late.

This would be a much better alternative to shoot them first and deal with a conscience and the fact you may have killed an innocent without intention

I agree, it does seem a much better alternative.

(Is this off topic? : Of course, a natural part of war is killing "innocents." When we hear that 650,000 have been killed in Iraq as a result of the war, we can't be surprised... we go in with our eyes open. If we intend to go to war, we intend to kill civilians. Ground soldiers, unfortunately, see this killing first hand, and are held to a different standard than the guys dropping the bombs. No one believes that carpet bombing kills only bad guys. It OK for bombers to kill civilians, but not OK for ground troops to do so. Why? )

I don't think it's off-topic, Ken. A discussion of the technology's application is in order here. The scenario I envision is that of soldiers guarding the perimeter of a base. A pickup truck with some locals is headed toward your location. Are they hostile, or are they lost? Do you shoot now and risk getting court martialed for killing unarmed civilians? Or do you wait until they're closer - and hope that they're bad shots?

Police in the U.S. have to make these types of calls, too.

A discussion of the technology's application is in order here.

I agree with you Moose , but : The article makes it fairly clear that the makers do not know the potential effect of exposure beyond a couple of minutes. This discussion is along the lines of 'where and how it should be used'. I'd say that is a bit secondary . Trialing the effectiveness re crowd control should be secondary to assessing it's physical capabilities. The two issues are separate. The makers say it can cause enough discomfort to disperse a crowd. Fine. But what is the effect on people of prolonged exposure ? They don't seem to know. Rolling this out for military trials seems to be missing a step.

I fully agree that troops should be equipped with every device that can protect them and help in doing the job they are there for. This technology has unknown/undeclared capabilities.

You got me, Kris. I missed that part of the story. Yep, testing is a must. To be blunt, the purpose of this system is to control civilians without killing them. If the military doesn't understand the effects of prolonged exposure, then you can expect some reporter from Al Jazeera to have a field day the minute there's a question about this weapon's use. That would do very little to help us to "win hearts and minds" in what is shaping up to be a very, very long war.

Hi Moose ,

Not sure if that was got you confused (by my not elaborating ) , or got you agreeing about the 'weapons' status ! My main purpose was just to highlight some lack of information within the original refences. Seemingly straight-forward questions had not been resolved. A weapons percieved capability is arguably more important (for better or worse) than it's actual capability.

Kris

I agree with your last statement, Kris - assuming, of course, that the enemy perceives the weapon as a threat. When I first saw a picture of this new weapon, I thought it was just another type of communication system. In that sense, a high-powered light like the one you've suggested (maybe the color of a hot stove burner) would do the trick.

Or do you wait until they're closer - and hope that they're bad shots?

And do you assume they know what "stop" means, or that they can hear you, etc. Very very tough calls, and this sort of thing can certainly help, it seems. Of course, it's reasonable to assume that you could easily change both amplitude and frequency, probably finding a lethal combination... but anything can be misused.

Raytheon seem to be saying it can't be misused. It's also a 'stealth' weapon in the sense that there is no projectile to see. Perhaps they should incorporate a light beam (I'm serious) to increase effectivness (through making people in a crowd see it's use) and make that use recordable. Despite what Raytheon (with their microwave roots) say , I still think it is a jazzed up microwave weapon.

it can't be misused??????

Ooooooooooooooh yes it can!

I bet the average squadie can think up a way to missuse it in 30 seconds flat.

Will it make a tin of beans explode?

Lets zap that dog?

What happens if we aim it at the petrol tank of that abandoned car?

Let's heat up the pavement and watch the barefooted kids jump about?

More tea and toast anyone?

I hardly need to continue, but I'm sure there will be much potential for toilet humour too....lets just boil the latrines!

"Raytheon say....etc"

I had resisted the urge to elaborate , having thought I may be the only sceptic/cynic ! 'Boil the latrines' sounds fun to me , it's more high tech than good old cling-film or cunningly disguised high voltage current (which gets right to the point , in a manner of speaking).

Given that the system is claimed to work because peoples pain-reflex makes them want to move , there are numerous possibilities. I wonder if eyeballs have pain receptors. They might have to boil the fluid covering them to get a response. A crowd situation could be good. Some individuals would feel pain and want to run , whilst others amongst them would not know what was occurring and not want to run. A curious multi-directional stampede could be induced. A conventional hole in the front of the face (with occipital splatter) may not be deemed humane. If mirrors work with the thing , folk could hold them like lighters at a pop concert.

Sooo many ponderables. Good job it's all in the safe hands of the military to evaluate. They have access to Guinea-Pigs.

I recently became familiar with these stories. They seem appropriate here.

CR3

Interesting!

The problem is the scale of modern war.

At Agincourt and many similar battles, even upto maybe the Boer war, the combatants were clearly defined and went to a field of battle. the camp followers went to the rear.

Maybe we should give all our leaders longbows (with nice target piles so as to be non lethal) let them shoot it out in a football stadium! Virtually no casualties and more entertaining than what's on TV these days.

Maybe too the'yd think twice about embarking on wars if they had to fight as they did in medieval times.

I'd fully support sending presidents and senators onto wars. My tongue is not in cheek when I say it seems perfectly reasonable. The people making the decision should gain the glory and suffer the consequences. Pragmatically, it makes far more sense to send old fogies to war rather than those with their entire lives ahead of them.

Send the politicians to lead the troops?! I agree with the idea, but these days, not even the top brass are allowed to do that - look what they're doing to the SAS <sigh>

Bas.... It really proves the dilemma about guys and gals in the front-line being allowed to get on with the damn job. Hell, we ask this people to risk all then some pen pushing *%&$ behind a desk tries to constrain them while he or she's on some adult version of playstation.. Do or don't do, but if you ask somebody to do a job don't start telling them how to do it. The one piece of kit these people need is a politician strapped to the front of a personnel carrier. It blows my mind that we ask troops to risk all, only to have bureaucratic prats do their level best to undermine them. Maybe instead of 'adopt a panda' type adverts we could have ' name a politician for front line service' type somethings. The best body armour is a politician 500 yards in front.

Not having a go at you ER cos you point it out , just venting anger at politicians.

The one piece of kit these people need is a politician strapped to the front of a personnel carrier.

Ain't it the truth?!

Hey, what if that personnel carrier (with the politician of course) were frictionless, loaded with HE and Phosphorus EED's (Engineered Explosive Devices) and placed at the 0km end of a 100km roadway built in the Sahara using a laser level at the 51km mark and specified to be exactly one meter below the laser line (with no divergence!), AND the leaders of Al Qaida, the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgency (both Sunni and Shiite), and any other jihadist organization were called to a "Holy Warrior Summit" meeting located in a structure built at the 50km point, what would be the result if it was given a swift kick in the rear by a squad of Coalition soldiers and marines and steered by remote control until it reached the meeting point, where it would be detonated?

Now, that's a Challenge Question!

Amen!

. . . Hey, what if that personnel carrier (with the politician of course) were frictionless, loaded with HE and Phosphorus EED's

Umm alrighty then. . .

The only question remains is WHEN

rotflol

Is it time for a Michael Winner insurance impersonation?

I didn't think you were aiming at me; I agree with everything you said...just don't want you to blow a gasket with frustration.

I think one of the big problems with the Iraq War is that few (if any) of the politicians involved have ever served. At least during the Falklands Conflict, the senior politicians had firsthand knowledge of combat, which I believe gave them a) a true understanding of what they were asking the troops to do and b) a respect for and confidence in the advice/actions of the senior military bods on how to go about reaching the stated objective. That and not having a plan on what to do after capturing SH...

Nah, winner is pants. I agree with you, though I think the Falklands was kind of the beginning of the end. I like the very Brit way it was referred to as a 'conflict' until we prevailed and then it became OK to call it a 'war.' Despite many things I dislike about TINA, she was admirable for not pis***g about (despite being the only one in cabinet who could win such a competition or supply oysters ). She was the last of those who appreciated people like Airey Neave. Since then we've had grey Majors all the way through bambi to G. Bennett Brown I won't even sharpen the hatchet for him, time will show. The treasury breeds some strange soup.

I know where I'd like to test ADS.

I read your link on the Majors and their spiritualism, with one paragraph reminding me of Hilary Clinton's attempt to "channel the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt" in the White House.

Now HC is a US Senator from New York (where else? Well, maybe California, but she is probably not laid-back enough for them) and now she wants us to elect her President? One arguably sane Clinton was bad enough, electing Hilary would be a big mistake. Certainly, if she gets elected funding for all military programs will be slashed.

IMHO, the best thing the Democrats can do to damage their chances of re-taking the White House in the next election would be to nominate Bilary. Even putting her on the ticket as Veep could hurt them. And if the Republicans nominate, or even have on the ticket, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani, there goes her power base!

Oh, yeah, speaking of Mr. Winner and the Esure adverts... Reminds me of the US ads for another insurance company, Geico, with the catch phrase "So easy, a caveman could do it," which turns out to get a negative response from the, you guessed it, Caveman community, with two modern Neanderthal-looking, but well-dressed, Caveman watching the commercial in disbelief and anger. A later commercial has them meeting in a restaurant with a company spokesman who says "Sorry, we did not even know you guys still existed!" as one of the cavemen orders "roast duck with mango salsa" while the other sulks complaining he'd lost his appetite! This gag continued with a series of other "Caveman" ads for Geico, including a wordless one with a hip Caveman on an airport moving "sidewalk" passing a Geico poster with the "So easy" tagline and featuring a caveman in classic Flintstone attire, with our hairy hip dude just shaking his head in disbelief. In another one, a nattily-dressed caveman is discussing the problem with his Psychiatrist, having an "existential meltdown!". Still another portrays a Caveman at a hip, urban party, sulking on the balcony after being ostracized by the other Cavemen for using Geico. Many people find these ads irritating, but I think they are hysterical. I imagine the Winner ads are the same way.

I know, perhaps Raytheon can hire Winner and the "Caveman" creators to do a commercial to sell the system to the military. I can see it now, the Generals having just watched a demonstration of the system, voice an objection about its complexity, when Winner, dressed as a Raytheon salesman, stands up and says "Calm down, it is really so easy, a Caveman could it!" Whereupon a highly decorated Caveman officer stands up and angrily and sardonically requests, "Would you repeat that SIR? I am not sure this CAVEMAN understood you!"

Maybe Bronson could upgrade from that sock full of coins. It would be kind of cool to see a version with him driving around in a sort of Ice Cream van that doubles as an 'I-Scream' van. He could cruise around being nice, then occasionally pop the dish up and ice a few bad guys.

"Maybe Bronson could upgrade from that sock full of coins."

What sock full of coins? From your link I guess you are referring to Charles Bronson's character in the Death Wish movie series.

I do not remember him using a sock full of coins as a weapon. I do remember him receiving a revolver as a gift and using it in the first film. I believe a handgun was always his weapon of choice, although in DWIII he is shown using a machine gun and a rocket launcher as well.

More likely, the military heat ray is something that might be commandeered by Bruce Willis in the next Die Hard sequel, Commander James Bond (whoever plays him next!), or by the Governator himself, Arnold Ham-n-egger, if he ever leaves politics and returns to film work.

Winner was behind the Death Wish series, which is why I used it. In the first one Bronson's initial act of revenge is with a sock of coins . You do have a point about Willis being a better candidate though - he's getting a little too rotund to race around on legs maybe. That's quite a chilling thought about what Arnold might do when he leaves politics. I keep thinking about Sly Stones gag about him becoming president in his futuristic film ( can't remember which - the one with Sandra Bullock, where everybody is told to be nice by surveillance monitors. She could convince me )

"You do have a point about Willis being a better candidate though - he's getting a little too rotund to race around on legs maybe. "

As I recall this weapon is mounted on a wheeled vehicle, a Humvee I believe, so all Willis has to do is drive and shoot, at least that's the way Hollywood would portray it!

"That's quite a chilling thought about what Arnold might do when he leaves politics."

I think the next stop for Arnold is the US Senate, or possibly a cabinet position (Secretary of Defense?). I believe, despite the "Kissinger Law" that allowed Henry K. to serve as Secretary of State, a position normally in line to succeed to the Presidency (after VP and Speaker of the House of Representatives), US law still forbids any naturalized (foreign born) citizen from serving as President. Of course, laws CAN be changed, especially if your in-laws are the KENNEDYS! The only question is, no matter how much they may like him personally, would they do that for a REPUBLICAN?

I keep thinking about Sly Stones gag about him becoming president in his futuristic film"

Hold on. Sly Stone is a musician ("Sly and the Family Stone"), you must mean Sylvester "Sly" Stallone. right?

( can't remember which - the one with Sandra Bullock, where everybody is told to be nice by surveillance monitors.

"Demolition Man" - 1993

LeninaHuxley: I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwartzenegger Library, and the time that you took that car...
JohnSpartan: Hold it. The Schwartzenegger Library?
LeninaHuxley: Yes. The Schwartzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...
JohnSpartan: Stop! He was President?
LeninaHuxley: Yes! Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states...
JohnSpartan: I don't wanna know. President.

"She could convince me )"

Oh, yeah....she is a long, tall, drink of icy Lemonade on a hot, dusty, day........

I heard someplace that Arnold was working toward getting law changed. It would be almost surreal..

Now you jogged my memory, I like the idea of Sly. Love your description of a drink.

Beware the Belt Tax

I do not know what the "Belt Tax" is, so it would be difficult to "beware" it!

Does this have anything to do with Waist Management? <grin>

........It's an even longer story than the Windows Tax .

Let me guess...if the Windows Tax, or Glass Tax was a tax on the wealthy who could afford very expensive glass windows in their homes, I am guessing the the Belt Tax measured ones prosperity by what Belt size they wore, the fatter, the richer, right?

By that I should be the richest man in my office! <grin> I guess that would fall under Waist Management!

LOL .I hadn't thought that there were so many interpretations of my current quote. By some quirk of nature I manage to scoff pretty much anything without piling on the pounds. I suspect that most of our Politicians would never allow a 'bet-tax' in the sense that it could be applied in proportion to girth. The numerous bars and eateries within the relatively small Palace of Westminster (Lords & Commons) may hint as to why. There are some very odd taxes about all over the world. I quickly found this American based link. How about a Hat Tax ! I'm not sure that the Danegeld qualifies as a tax, but resistance lives on. The 'Belt Tax' has numerous interpretations

The 'Belt Tax' has numerous interpretations

Then, tell us yours!

I like to tease. Go back to my first mention here. Look carefully again, and follow.....

You will find at least one possibility if you mine into it.

"Go back to my first mention here."

Which # post?

This has got to be my most drawn out joke recently ! Look at #147. The "." just before the smiley has it's own link. Follow that, and the page within contains a " Belter' link. When you finally get there, you will see an explanation although I have now forgotten why it was funny ! Therefor making you click through to it is now the last bit of fun I can extract from my current quote. You do however get top marks for possibly being the only person to notice or ask. I did ponder the possibility of explaining to you alone (for all your efforts), or indeed providing an explanation (which would certainly have been quicker) here, but doing things this way is mildly amusing and there is a dearth of threads elsewhere currently that attract my attention so far today.. My mangled grammar and sentence construction is also funny, but not nearly as funny as the fact that I will probably change the quote again soon anyway. My entire comment here will thus become a baffling anomaly to future readers of this thread.

. . . My entire comment here will thus become a baffling anomaly . . .

Yep

He he. You inspired me Zap.

Kris,

You really are an enigma. I would have never noticed that the period had its own link!

OK, I get the Larry Niven reference. If you had made it a Heinlein reference we would never have had a problem! Can you grok that?

Heinlein philosphy is pure Libertarianism. Taxes, any taxes, are bad. If you want protection, you pay for it by subscription, sort of like the way rural fire departments protect the homes of those who pay to support the firefighters. There are no powerful governments, only powerful corporations. Mind your own business and stay out of mine!

Henlein might not have coined the phrase, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" but he did popularize it with the acronym TANSTAAFL!

Now there is a reference I can get behind! <grin>

. No problems at all, and I have some great new words for my lexicon. Just hope I don't get confused!

Today is a new quote, but further strange ones are sure to emerge.<grins>

. . . (Is this off topic? : Of course, a natural part of war is killing "innocents."

I was speaking from the first person experience and how it would help to have this in my tool box should I note a truck on the way with unclear intentions. Many here may have in their life placed a bullet in a innocent and non-innocent alike as part of a greater price for war however its all good until you do it in a moment of fire as the safety of you and yours comes into question and find out you have made a deadly error. Combat kills people- this tool looks as if it would change the pressure to react on my buds or when it was me when we are on post, anything that gives you a second to breath in that instance is cool enough.

On a technology note I find it a awesome use of projected energy in active use – it is after all a concept entertained for years. Perhaps a logical step could lead you to force fields protecting areas using this technology . . . I am excited to see where it will lead. Often military apps project into good civil applications and I can't help but see this as having an impact. Where it will lead is what makes this industry so cool

Livestock fencing ?

Livestock fencing ?

Turn it up a little and you could send the meat out pre-cooked!

But more seriously, I have nothing but admiration for the people who must make such decisions. The "deal" I think most people make when they enlist is that they will be serving their country. I hate to see that deal violated by political leaders who will send troops into harms way without due diligence.

In the Vietnam era, when I finished college and I became eligible for the draft, I decided to go, if my number came up. I was vehemently opposed to the war, and by the time I'd decided I'd go, the vast majority of Americans new it was a lost cause, and could not be "won" (and virtually no one knew what "winning" would mean, and few even really knew why we were there, with the "domino theory" being generally regarded as very weak even then.) But my friends were there so I felt that I should al least join them and perhaps help fewer of them be killed. As it happened, the call-up stopped one short of my draft number.

Subsequently I've met many of our "enemies", communist Chinese, Russians, Vietnamese, Iranians, North Koreans, all sort from the old communist block countries -- most in this country or other "free" parts of the world. Can't say that I'd want to kill any of them, and I would trust my life to several of them.

. . .Can't say that I'd want to kill any of them, and I would trust my life to several of them.

What a wonderful sentiment. I certainly "love dem peoples too boss". Nevertheless I never met a dead enemy in the field that I didn't get along with fine. So some folks hug'em and some folks shot'em and we stand with the freedoms we have 'cause' some did. Both ways.

Now that said, all the love and peacefulness aside, when I stood for my country it was because what I believed not what the government decided. Your generation took a good swift kick in the pants. Ours decided we would kick back if required. Size eleven to be exact. Now my son's generation will stand where they see fit, I would hope I taught them after all the insanity of the past 6 decades that some things are worth fighting for including people in Kuwait and the many folks laying dead in mass graves in Iraq and to not always take what people say about what's happening in a place at face value especially when they are from a generation who got hung out to dry by their own at home. Present company excepted. I would hope he would see in me and you that to take the hard road is sometimes the best choice and that may mean sacrifice of many great young men and women of our nation to "do the right thing" and trust me having spent five years in theater ( Middle East) we are with absolute assured certainty doing the right thing. Now part of what I served for and you intended to serve for was to ensure our right to declare our positions on this as we see fit. I respect your position and right to state it and I served to guarantee it. Well sir there is my last on the topic and I figure that's most likely the best position for the purpose of this discussion in the realm of politics.

Has anyone else dug up any further specs on this gizmo ?

Nevertheless I never met a dead enemy in the field that I didn't get along with fine.

Can't say I agree with you. When I've come face to face with grizzly death, I was unable to get along fine. But, as you say, one strength of this country (and other free countries around the world) is that we can peacefully disagree. Myself, I've been unable to shrug off the whole "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thine enemies" things as being meaningless, so I can't say that I'm comfortable with dead enemies.

There is a profound irony in your statement "some things are worth fighting for including people in Kuwait and the many folks laying dead in mass graves in Iraq." As a country, we are certainly not fighting for the people of Iraq -- those, after all, are the people we are killing. The campaign pledge of the current administration was to refrain from nation building, and to only act militarily where we have strategic interests. We are fighting for strategic control of the Mideast, which is the only reason we supported Kuwait in the Bush sr admin. If we were fighting for some lefty, Christian, pie-in-the-sky moral reasons, we would have been fighting against Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. etc. The world is full of atrocities (and atrocious dictators) about which we do absolutely nothing. For a tiny fraction of our military budget, we could feed every starving child in the world. As a country, we demonstrate that we don't care about that stuff.

As Americans, all of us share the responsibility when we bomb an Iraqi family into particles. We are all pulling the trigger together. We all share the responsibility for generating new terrorists in Iraq: with 650 thousand dead, there are now millions of relatives who feel compelled, against their otherwise peaceful instincts, to avenge the deaths of their loved ones.

We armed and trained Osama. We armed and trained Saddam and his troops. These things come back to bite us. Perhaps we need to think in broader terms than simply the immediate strategic interest.

Having said, that, I want to say that I admire your willingness to serve, and though we may not agree on the effects of war, I believe your intentions are good. And we agree that this technology could have very beneficial uses in reducing deaths.

. . . Myself, I've been unable to shrug off the whole "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thine enemies" things as being meaningless, so I can't say that I'm comfortable with dead enemies.

I understand your position - I am accustomed to it very well, both as a minister of Jesus Christ, an engineer and a war fighter. I have encountered it many times. I would suggest a good read of Romans 13 to perhaps aid you to see my position better regarding warfare.

Again I don't offer any specific sense of correctness or purity of wisdom. I'm not pretending to be the fountain of understanding. Heck I'm just a dumb yank. I just was sharing my primary personal observations and experience from my time living in the region as a war fighter and then as a minister and engineer. I have walked the streets of Iraq been to the edge of saddams mass graves, seen the bones of the marsh Arabs left to be picked clean, heard stories of the Kurdish fighters we left alone to die the first time we came to Iraq in war. My wife gave birth to my first son after ten years of marriage in a bombed out Kuwaiti hospital. My friends in Kuwait took exceptional care of us when I traveled deep into Iraq to assist our guys and their Iraqi counterparts. I have spent numerous hours in mosques sharing Jesus Christ and hearing what the people truly say and feel about us (U.S. and our very apparent allies - you guys know who you are ;-) ) . Families set free, fed, educated, really, actually non-positional helped by we "the great oppressors" So perhaps my view is a bit different than some.

I would use that "other free countries around the world" bit sparingly, I'm not sure how many their are in truth. I would agree some are very close but I assure you from first hand experience none are as free as our home. Our Brothers and sisters in Great Britain and Australia is are some of the closest. (NOTE: Veiled poke at our Brit and Aussie folks here, sorry couldn't resist I'm wearing my flame retardant skivvies)

So with this little diatribe , I will conclude my inputs to this conversation between you and myself. I won't bother to continue to respond as we share such differing views. So peace bro and lets talk shop. I know too many smilies but I couldnt resist. BIGDUMBGRIN " So Shoot me. . . "

Well said, Zap. I share your feelings, if not your experience. And thanks to you and your buddies for all that you have done and they continue to do.

My only complaint is your Avatar. After what I have read, it does not seem to truly represent you, being too dark, malicious, and evil looking. Perhaps you chose it to symbolically ward off enemies and evil spirits, as tribal warriors do. However, I hope we are all friends, or at least friendly acquaintances here, and such a mask is unnecessary.

BTW, I am a bit older and served between wars (late 1970's) as a USAF C-9A Air Evac Tech (E-4) in my younger days. Many of my patients (who I conversed with during long boring legs between stops) were Viet Nam vets (the ones who re-upped after the conflict or were old enough for retirement, and who were NOT disillusioned by what we tried to do there.)

. . . My only complaint is your Avatar.

Everyone is a critic.

I appreciate the advice on the avatar. To be frank it was expedient. I'm looking for a new one. I appreciate your service and more importantly my son does as well. we keep knocking this ole country around and she gets better and better. Thank God perfection is not required.

My photo most likely will replace it as soon as I have some spare time, which is difficult with wearing all the hats I currently have on. I'm enjoying my lunch at the moment and soon will have to play engineer again.

So with this little diatribe , I will conclude my inputs

Certainly didn't seem any more a diatribe than my own.

Quote from Kris's link to Raytheon article:

the larger Vigilant Eagle System, a high-powered microwave antennae the size of an advertising hoarding designed to fry the electronics of incoming shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles up to 60 miles away,

Okaaay, so the command centre doesn't get hit, but somebody within a 60 mile radius does...and in a war situation are they going to wait to use the device when it's over an empty area? Of course they are! Yes, right.

You know, it would have been nice to get more information about the technology, rather than recycled flame wars.

Moose has thankfully ended that. If you read all the links in the tread it's all very curious. The company disclaim any link with microwaves , but there case for doing so is not (as I read it ) that clear. However the technology works , I'm amazed that they are unleashing it when they have not bothered with any in-house testing. They appear to know that exposure for a couple of minutes is OK , but have not established effect for longer periods (even though the principle suggests dire consequences).

. . . I'm amazed that they are unleashing it when they have not bothered with any in-house testing.

I would almost bet the farm that "In house testing" has occurred. I wouldn't expect a company to release a technology without the boys in legal vetting the liability factor out. So unless DARPA or other group pushed the technology out they have to have some in house data. Someone here stated the military have "test subjects" and i would suggest that's the truth so perhaps "advanced field tests" are underway as we type this. Without any further data it does feel like the great urban legends of old. I'm trying to find time to dig up some stuff on it. Let me know if you find anything else and Ill do the same.

Hi Zap ,

I'll certainly post up any sound data I come across. It's the very fact that it seems absent that makes me wary. Just to be clear , I am all for this kind of device as long as it's capabilities are known. People on the front line deserve all the support they can get - not just overt weaponry , but anti-intrusion measures. Even if this thing can char-grill people I have no problem with that , as long as that is made clear ( a mine field does the same thing , as does a guard dog).

Reading the Riot Act was in force here until recently. In short , it meant (to civilians) disperse or we open fire. Adding some form of waring (such as light , which I suggested) would be an equivalent. Green light and you're being warned to back off , Red light and you are considered a threat that is going to get hit.

Anyhow , I'll see if I can find any further information.

Kris

Here is a link. Apologies for not having checked through it thoroughly yet.

https://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1887256,00.html

I have an old document (re: domestic microwave ovens, no original source to quote) that states that no permanent damage to people is caused for energy <100mW/cm².

The most likely effect of overexposure is stated to be cataracts (i.e. the eyes glaze before the head boils, I suppose).

For point of reference the permissible leakage on a domestic microwave is 5 mW per cm² (measured at the door's edges).

As said I'll have to read the link more myself, but it may add a bit.

Excerpt From the Raytheon link Kris put up - http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_017939.pdf

. . . SilentGuardian has been sealed for dust and supports operations in conditions up to 125 degrees Fahrenheit ambient.

. . . Less than 2-second re-targeting capability

Interesting spec considering US Mil Spec is higher for most applications and it would be a deterrent against the units use in the open field in the middle eastern summer. Perhaps external cooling could be used as I suppose this spec indicates no need for cooling under this temperature.

I dig the auto track target feature. Along with the ambiguous as in all military apps range data and would be excited to see the >2 sec re-targeting capability

Here is another great technology coming soon to a war near you. . .

Boeing was awarded a U.S. Army contract valued at approximately $7 million to begin developing a truck-mounted laser weapon system that can destroy rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds. Under the High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator Phase I contract, Boeing will develop and complete a preliminary design of a rugged beam control system on a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck. "We consider this program an important win for Boeing because it supports a cornerstone of the Army's high-energy laser program," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager, Boeing Missile Defense Systems.

Yee ha ! can I fire the laser daddy ? Remember "Laser"

Have we had LRAD here yet ? I was watching Woody on TV last night. Maybe somebody can organize a sort of ADS/LRAD/LASER dance-off type thing.

I would imagine that if they are saying that this isn't microwave technology it isn't.Think about it; microwaves are famous for causing permanent damage to the eyes and reproductive organs.Purposely maiming civilians would definitely go over like a fart in church with the rest of the world.

I agree. By the description of limited skin penetration, it is NOT the same frequency we associate with the "microwave oven", which is of course designed to penetrate flesh, usually animal flesh of course, to the core.

However, that being said, it is still electromagnetic radiation of the sub-light (below infrared) variety and precautions do need to be taken because damage could result under certain conditions, regardless of what the manufacturer might say. For example, if there are variable power settings, while the insides might stay cool, the outer flesh might get fried! Also, targeting systems might be off, causing "friendlies" to receive the full dose instead of the intended target, not only causing panic amongst the "good guys" but also alerting the enemy to the effects (and possible counter-effects) of the system.

Even we amateur radio operators must observe RF safety precautions while operating our transmitters and antennas in the VHF and UHF and higher frequency bands, which are less dangerous than the ones described here.

In yet another of the thousands of inconsistencies in language: Microwave, one might think, would have to do with with micrometer sized waves. Actually the small end of the limit for microwaves is one millimeter (1000 micrometers). Millimeter waves (on which this thing operates) go from 1mm down. So MILLIimeter waves are smaller than MICROwaves. Counterintuitive, yes?

"Counterintuitive, yes?"

Counterintuitive, NO! Why would Microwaves have to have anything to do with micrometer sized waves? You forget that the prefix "micro-" has more than a numeric definition. "Micro-" means anything having to do with very small size or distance. For example microscope, microbiology, microeconomics, microcosm, micromanagement, etc. Even a "micrometer" instrument can measure in .0001 inch increments, not microinch (.000 001 inch). Yes, I know that a metric "micrometer" can measure in "micrometer" (.001 mm) increments. Serendipity. The micrometer was invented before the metric system!

When Radio was in its infancy radio waves were classified as either longwave. mediumwave, or shortwave (hence "shortwave" radio broadcast bands). Later, we recognized these "shortwave" bands as HF, for High Frequency. Soon we found Very High and Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) to be very useful, and now even Low Frequency (LF) and Extremely Low Frequency (ELF), but by then technology leapfrogged over, as we found even shorter wavelengths, microwaves, as they came to be generically called, to be useful. So you see, it really has nothing to do with the numerical "micro-" prefix meaning 10^-6 times anything.

You forget that the prefix "micro-" has more than a numeric definition.

I may be forgetful, but not that forgetful. I think we all know, as you ploddingly state, that micro means small.

as we found even shorter wavelengths, microwaves, as they came to be generically called, to be useful.

In that generic sense, millimeter waves are microwaves. But in practice, they are a separate category -- as Raytheon would be only too happy to point out, because they do not want to be seen as cooking people -- they just want to make them a little toasty on the outside.

"they just want to make them a little toasty on the outside"

I'll have mine with butter and orange marmalade, please!

It will help identify terrorists, as they will be the ones wearing the aluminuim foil suits!

I wonder what the range is...200 yards?

Maybe bring back the longbow...more visible a a deterrent...and pretty scary?

Del,

Not sure if aluminum foil suits would protect the wearer. Have you seen what happens to aluminum foil when you put it into a microwave oven?

As far as range is concerned, that would depend on the power level used. Also, This is not likely to be a pinpoint weapon, like a laser, but more of an area weapon, sort of like a shotgun. That means that targets at the very center of the "blast" will feel the effects the most, but peripheral targets, especially if they are closer, will feel some effects as well. It should also follow the inverse square law, i.e. its effect will diminish in inverse proportion to the square of the distance.

It should also follow the inverse square law, i.e. its effect will diminish in inverse proportion to the square of the distance.

I think this is not the case for this device. The inverse square law applies for omnidirectional waves, not for focused beams. If the inverse square law were applied, then this thing would be extremely hazardous anywhere close: If it makes skin painfully hot at 400 meters, then it would be 100 times as strong at 40 meters, making it pretty toasty lethal, I'd think.

The focussed nature of the beam (there's a graphic in the link) suggests a point of maximum intensity. I wonder , at which distance in the beam the tests were done. That is the 1000 tests over 600 people. I wonder if that means 200 didn't want to try the increased hit , or 400 pegged-it. I'm joking of course , but the data is a tad scant.

Who said it was not extremely hazardous close by when the target is far away? Perhaps power level is controlled depending on distance to target. Obviously, you must have a clear shot at the target, i.e. it cannot pass harmlessly through individuals in the way of the beam.

Secondarily, inverse square law can apply to more than omnidirectional waves. A wave (or energy beam) can be directional without necessarily being focused. A parabolic dish antenna (somewhat similar to what is shown in the photos) is highly directional, yet non-focused, unless you specify "infinity" as the focal point.

I know the article used the term "focused", but consider please that a journalist may easily confuse "focused" with "concentrated" or "directed". It may be that the individual reflectors in that array are repositioned to produce a varying focal point, or it may be that those reflectors are fixed, or adjusted manually to fine tune the "beam" into parallel lines, for more effective concentration. Personally, I don't see the practicality of requiring a "focused" beam in such a tactical situation, when a mere concentration of energy will more than do the job.

And consider that even a highly collimated, and theoretically coherent, energy beam such as a laser diverges slightly over long distances and will, in fact, diminish in energy density in proportion (not necessarily direct proportion) to the inverse of the square of the distance.

Check out that link Kris put up from the manufacturer it had some good dope on capabilities "Advertised". It answered some of the questions I had about directionality and mod of application. Albeit somewhat void of any real data regarding "How to"

diminish in energy density in proportion (not necessarily direct proportion) to the inverse of the square of the distance.

Where do you get this stuff?? You are saying in a complicated and round about way that the energy will diminish in some way that you can't define. Beams (of generally collimated nature) do not diminish according to the inverse square law, which is the very strength of approaches like this one, radar, the new projected sound techniques, etc. By your logic, there is little difference between headlights with and without reflectors.

This may clarify a bit.

(love the way that guy is waving)

Yep, one picture is worth a thousand words. I admit I was wrong, surprised, but wrong. The beam does indeed appear to be focused, as described.

Still I would not want to be standing between the target and the transmitter either, as you could also get a fairly good dose of less concentrated energy.

Someone mentioned possible misuse of the equipment. Sure, anything is possible. But disciplined troops are likely to respect its potential to keep them alive and not want to jeopardize that capability by abusing the responsibility given them. Save that stuff for the "War Stories" and "Urban Legends" and let the troops do what they need to do!

But disciplined troops are likely to respect its potential to keep them alive and not want to jeopardize that capability by abusing the responsibility given them.

...the troops aren't disciplined.

...the troops aren't disciplined.

Says you!

Sure there may be a few rotten apples, but those are quickly and quietly rooted out and eliminated. Yes, there are always some exceptions, and those of course make the Headlines and the TV News when they screw up.

But if you are going to generalize like that, and insult our (US-led coalition) fighting men and women, including British soldiers and Marines, who lay their lives on the line every day, by calling them undisiplined, then you might as well come out of the closet and declare your loyalty to Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Baathist Insurgents in Iraq, and Jihadist terrorists everywhere in the world.

...friendly fire....

Friendly fire is a horrible fact of our war fighting. It is most often a lack of training or a failure of our technology and not discipline. That is how I can get my hands around it - to make my technology the best it can be to preserve those who have chosen to serve our nations to the absolute possibility of harm, have the very best technology I can develop. Further, to then seek other applications in the civil arena to make myself and my company a handy sum of money. The point.

I replied to STL privately as I didn't want to get drawn into a slanging match.

Your posts seem more considered.

Friendly fire is a horrible fact of our war fighting. It is most often a lack of training or a failure of our technology and not discipline.

This is debatable, but it would be a fruitless debate hinging to a great extent on the definition of discipline.

E.G. Is, not adhering to engagement protocols bad discipline?

"I replied to STL privately as I didn't want to get drawn into a slanging match."

And I did NOT respond to you privately for the very same reason!

"E.G. Is, not adhering to engagement protocols bad discipline?"

It depends entirely on the reason for not adhering to engagement protocols. Because I do not know all the facts in the A-10 friendly fire incident you cited, I refuse to make a judgement such as you made, that the pilot "got off lightly". Perhaps you would not be so emotionally charged if it had been a British pilot and the troops fired on were US Marines?

The point is, as I made already, human beings do make mistakes, sometimes tragic ones. Is it because of poor discipline? Certainly possible. However, many other factors can be primary or contributing causes. Physical condition, i.e. illness or forced lack of sleep due to operational requirements may be one. Mental alertness, sometimes tied to physical problems or emotional stress may be another. As Zap mentioned, poor training may be another, which is certainly not a discipline problem. A willful disregard for orders and protocols would certainly be a discipline problem. Did this happen in this case? Alcohol impairment enters into a gray area, since pilots are certainly well-trained to the dangers of it, but timing also becomes a factor, and it may be more of an error in judgement than a lack of discipline.

And I re-iterate, making blanket statements about lack of discipline of our troops with no explanation or justification is tantamount to support for the other side IMHO. I think you just had an axe to grind and wanted someone to rise to the bait, so when I did, you decided to "reply privately". Well, I refuse to be drawn in to your private little war. If you want open and honest debate, fine. But sending me your diatribes privately is beyond the pail, so don't bother sending anymore, as I will delete them without reading and your "efforts" will be for nought.

You have either miss read, or miss interpreted what I said.

When I say .

'It's a shame the pilot wasn't more disciplined'

It means more disciplined in following protocols....

Nothing do do with any punishment....

The ambiguity of the term 'discipline' has doubtless caused this...

Ok...

In the interests of peace on this thread I'll happilly change my comment

'The troops aren't disciplined'.

to 'Some troops are not disciplined'

So it is no longer a blanket statement.

You say in your post #56 that there are some 'rotten apples' .

So hopefully we are now in some sort of loose agreement.

Regards

Del

Exactly my point. And thank you for revising your statement.

Any weapons system may be misused, even so-called "non-lethal" ones, e.g. rubber bullets that still maim and kill, tear-gas that might cause suffocation or death due to random physiological reaction, etc. However, the overwhelming majority of troops who might handle such a system are highly-trained, well-disciplined, and unlikely to misuse the technology. In the US military, the penalties for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice are drilled into all troops and military justice is usually swift, if not always just. Military justice tends to be a tad more security-minded than civilian justice and has other concerns beyond mere protection of an individual's rights. Considering that, at least currently, we have an all volunteer military, and individuals join up knowing that they are subject to military justice, then they don't have much to squawk about if they cross the line, and they know it. That is one of the reasons, along with pride, character, esprit de corps, etc. that our troops DO maintain a high level of discipline within a framework that allows individual action and decision-making, that you do NOT find in other military organizations in other parts of the world.

That is one of the reasons, along with pride, character, esprit de corps, etc. that our troops DO maintain a high level of discipline within a framework that allows individual action and decision-making, that you do NOT find in other military organizations in other parts of the world.

How many other military organizations have you worked within? What study by an international body will back you up on this, the notion that the military organizations of other countries are lacking? It seems to be the opinion of Zap that the troops from other countries he's worked with are pretty top notch.

Ken,

I did not say that discipline was lacking in all other military organizations, although certainly there are a few. I am sure Zap has worked with many fine, highly disciplined troops. What I said was that our troops are highly disciplined "within a framework that allows individual action and decision-making" or initiative, and that it is that combination (discipline and initiative), that you do not find in other parts of the world. Please note, I did not say ALL other parts of the world. Perhaps, like Del, I should change it to "some parts of the world" for clarity. Unlike Del's original declaration however, mine was not a blanket statement. I am sure, and I certainly hope so, that our Allies' troops rival ours in terms of discipline and initiative.

Gee whiz, it's tough to be a Cheerleader with this crowd!

Is this what you are whinging on about?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm

I think this is the transcript. This reads to me as if the guys in the A-10 realize a tragic mistake has occured. In other words not a deliberate breach of discipline. I'm just going to leave this for others , as I don't know about the rules of engagement generally or at that specific time. Shit happens , that's war , and I'd hate to pass judgement based on my limited knowledge + what facts are in the public domain. All the individuals directly affected have probably been through enough hell. As much as everybody cares , I don't think it's within the intent of this forums creators to discuss military disipline too much. Just having my 2-cents (again) . Others can discuss and I don't object to them doing so . The forum will evolve how it's members want.