Military Shows Off New Ray Gun

Non lethal when it is turned down Set your phasers to stun lol!

Better than RPRBs, at any rate. Rocket-propelled rubber bullets.

-e

Or good old buck shot.

Not enough range - especially if you load it up with salt.

I think the military is taking the wrong approach. Maybe instead of using millimeter waves, they might try gas canisters chock-full of potent aphrodisiacs and human pheromones.

Death by True Love.

-e

Another use for the ray gun is heating up the rations. Alot better than sticking them next to exhaust manifold. Instant dinner out along the fence line on a cold night, stuck in a fox hole.

Don't forget Le Chocolat.

We used to sometimes heat our C-Rats by burning small amounts of plastic explosive. In the Combat Engineers we always had some available .....

There was an interesting report on TV a few weeks ago, that claimed that the US military researchers had developed a weapon that dropped a substance in range of the enemy that caused the enemy combatants to seriously fancy each other. Imagine the potential of that...

I believe the chemical in question is "Essence of Jack (Daniels)"

Well, this reminds me of TESLA, and his invention of the dethray in 1930,s

hammadi writes: "Well, this reminds me of TESLA, and his invention of the deathray in 1930s."

-----

Bet you've been reading one of those books with the Tiki-Head logo on the spine. I don't wish to rain on your parade, but...

-e

This was on a thread posted last year I think. Fantastic idea, I fully in support of non lethal methods to deter rioters and other "nice" folks from showing excessive dissent.

Now, where can I order a couple of these "souped" up, super charged, nitrous oxide boosted micro wave ovens from? Seems like a couple of my lads on site have an aversion to obeying managerial instructions and are in dire need of re-education and pacification!!

Using the old soldiers maxims of "Kill or be Killed, Shoot first, ask questions later, Fire a warning shot into the head" just will not work anymore, tends to make the police a tad nervous when employees of a company just drop dead on a regular basis from "natural" causes, most notably (hot) lead poisoning.

Before anyone starts throwing their toys out of the cot again, I am just being facetious!

Hi mongoose. There, you have said it! "Nice law abiding folk showing excessive dessent"? If a government does not listen to the majority of its citizens, they will have to learn to do so, to use a weapon like this against them is contrary to their human rights! Let's face it, the avarage law abiding citizen does not want to riot or use excessive force against their governments. "Dissent", what does it mean, the dictionary states it loud and clear: a verb, to think differently, disagree, especially against the orthodox opinion! With that in mind, i would say that about 80% of the western citizens are all dissidents! Way back in the late 1960s i prophesised that our governments would quell all dissidents becuase they would not listen to us ordinary law abiding citizens and that big brother would take over. Now it has come true!

In light of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld considers those who disagree with the current regime are essentially supporters of fascism, to wit: "Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said that the administration's critics are trying to appease "a new type of fascism." Bush and Rumsfeld are right on the message: the Associated Press reports that "Islamic fascism" is indeed the Republican buzzword for the fall campaign.

In fact, that term often has been the administration's baton for clubbing the opposition whenever an election approaches or another outrage surfaces about Iraq. Calling out fascists also has been an easy substitute for evidence that the "war on terror" has achieved anything except create more hatred of the United States."

It seems the black pot is unaware that it is also the kettle. I wouldn't be the least surprised if the current regime has long considered the use of such a device against its own constituency.

-e

mongoose writes: "Seems like a couple of my lads on site have an aversion to obeying managerial instructions and are in dire need of re-education and pacification!!"

-----

Wassup, Mongoose? Have you tried flogging them? Great exercise and you don't even need a treadmill.

-e

I hope they make one big enought to drive it

I think this is a wonderful idea. Don't be the one with sensitive dental work and stand around this damn thing. I think they should look into a crop duster loaded with fire ants. I know a person that works at "a" weapons lab. One of the coffee pot level discussions concerns using high expansion rate explosives to keep the enemy up and damn near deaf for a week before you begin a Soldier sweep of the area. This ray gun would be a welcome addition to that procedure. I would consider an EMP attack of the area of concern in order to turn off any electricity dependant weapons.

"Don't be the one with sensitive dental work and stand around this damn thing."

-----

This is good. "BZZZZT Captain, please turn that damn thing BZZZT off. My braces are BZZZT arcing again."

-e

"I would consider an EMP attack of the area of concern in order to turn off any electricity dependant weapons."

----------

Like one of these, perhaps?

-e

As a passive countermeasure one could embed fabric or cover the outside of a vehicle with microwave retroreflectors. Here is a form of patch (or microstrip) antenna, which could be adapted for embedment in fabric. Another, simple-to-make countermeasure would be the use of small aluminum-foil corner reflectors to cover a surface. In both cases, the incident beam is directed back to the source.

-e

It would have to be an insulated multi-faced material able to withstand 3000F for at least one hour. How do I know these things?? So simple. It has to absorb the heat energy, but still keep a low IR signature.

Guest writes: "It would have to be an insulated multi-faced material able to withstand 3000F for at least one hour. How do I know these things?? So simple. It has to absorb the heat energy, but still keep a low IR signature."

--------

In the context of the article, the "enemy" is already known, has been seen, and is irradiated by the beam to get them to drop their weapons.

Insofar as the fabric version is concerned, its mode could be switched to function either as a retroreflector or as an absorber. Or it could reduce its radar cross-section by retransmitting the original signal out-of-phase with the incident beam - although the fact that the geometry of the device is constantly changing (it is a fabric, after all) makes this latter approach somewhat impractical. A much simpler approach could be used: simply remove the garment and put it out of radar sight until such time as you've been seen and don't want to feel like a baked potato.

At any rate, the conditions you describe are not specific to the context of my post. But I'm glad you know these things anyway, as I'm sure they have application elsewhere.

-e

They way you keep a low IR signature would be to either have a material that has a high rate of dissipation of heat, or have to walk around with 500lbs. of HVAC equipment on your back, see where I am coming from, son?

Quit bothering people and go away.

It's okay, TLGEngrCo. Toting an ego that size, he ain't goin' anywhere soon.

-e

Questions:

1. Are these "weapons" available for general public?

2. What law/regulations apply to their usage?

#1. No.

#2. Depends on which side of the Beltway you're on.

Interesting article. Interesting replies. Here is my take:

This weapon depends to some extent on secrecy and stealth. If the enemy is aware of its existance and use, since it is non-lethal, he can either ignore it or take simple counter measures. These counter measures could include simply wrapping oneself in household aluminum foil, then donning outergarments so the shiny stuff would not be noticed. It might be the first case where wearing aluminum foil might NOT be considered crazy!

Unfortunately, by publicizing this weapons technology, I believe it is doomed. It is a lot of money being spent on what might eventually be a very ineffective weapon. It seem so me to be the military equivalent of giving someone a "hotfoot". More likely it may be better for crowd control than being a "non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons." or for sending away potential enemy scouts, since terrorist organization very likely have some sort of intelligence operation of their own. Better yet would be a weapon of varying intensity that actually could kill or injure. In that way the enemy would never know if they were being warmed or turned "extra crispy"!

Regarding the development of EMP weopans using similar technology. This may have a lot of merit since terrorist organizations today are increasingly dependent on electronics to accomplysh their aims with a minimum of manpower or loss of life. Good examples are the car bombs which use cell phones for detonation. A good EMP blast would likely destroy the phones ability to receive the detonating phone call. The same would be true for any Radio Frequency detonators, including Bluetooth devices or handheld 2-way radios. Also, you would disrupt the terrorists communications, both long-range and short-range. Just as the military and police find radios and telephones invaluable in command and control, so do the terrorists. Case in point, the satellite phones that were discovered in the caves in Afghanistan where Al Quaida members, including some of the top leadership, had taken refuge. Who knows, perhaps an early EMP burst could have knocked out the equipment used to warn Osama Bin Laden that the US forces were coming or what direction they were coming from, perhaps forcing him to walk right into his pursuers arms!

"Regarding the development of EMP weopans using similar technology. This may have a lot of merit since terrorist organizations today are increasingly dependent on electronics to accomplysh their aims with a minimum of manpower or loss of life."

I would like to see it as long as our stuff is shielded and usable.

Likely that tactical EMP weapons would have or could be designed to have a limited range. Outside the "kill zone", electronics would be unaffected. Anyway, most avionics and many ground operated electronic equipment are supposedly EMP-hardened, I believe. Commercial-grade equipment bought for military use would possibly be vulnerable, most small objects could be placed in EMP-shielded containers when the order was given to "drop the little one". Every trooper could be issued a metallized bag to keep electronics in, such as watches, tactical radios, digital camers, GPS receivers, PC's and PDA's, etc. that would shield these devices from EMP radiation.

"Likely that tactical EMP weapons would have or could be designed to have a limited range."

An above ground blast gives you coverage over a certain area by fuse altitude setpoint and capacity. Here is one that we do have. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion5.shtml

STL Engineer writes: "Good examples are the car bombs which use cell phones for detonation. A good EMP blast would likely destroy the phones ability to receive the detonating phone call."

-------

What I find surprising is that our forces aren't equipped (insofar as I know) with a device that mimics a cell-tower transmission to pre-detonate bombs activated in this way. Instead, we figure out how to bake someone, even though a very similar device could function as an RF "minesweeper." Glad to see the folks in Washington are on their toes.

-e

Pre-detonating car bombs, though obviously better than allowing them to be exploded at their targets, might not best serve the purpose of rooting out the terrorist cells. Such a device (to mimic cell-towers) might not be practical either. It would have to be by its nature short range, to target just the suspicious vehicle and yet sweep through every possible combination of telephone numbers in a relatively short period of time, without calling up everyone in the country who might be within range! We might find ourselves alerting the terrorists that we were attempting to disarm or pre-detonate their device and they might simply switch it off or detonate by other means. Terrorists may be crazy, but not necessarily stupid!

On the other hand, targeted EMP weapons aimed at suspect vehicles might not be understood by the terrorists as anything more than a natural glitch ("&%*$% yankee infidel imperialist technology, not worth the C4 to blow it up!")

STL Engineer writes: "Such a device (to mimic cell-towers) might not be practical either. It would have to be by its nature short range, to target just the suspicious vehicle and yet sweep through every possible combination of telephone numbers in a relatively short period of time, without calling up everyone in the country who might be within range! We might find ourselves alerting the terrorists that we were attempting to disarm or pre-detonate their device and they might simply switch it off or detonate by other means. Terrorists may be crazy, but not necessarily stupid!"

--------

Long time no see, STL! How're ya doing?

You're absolutely right, of course. But I should mention that there are frequent conditions under which pre-detonating roadside cell-phone bombs would be warranted. When the enemy can already see us coming; where stealth is impractical or simply not necessary.

Along with number-specific transmissions, cell towers also transmit "broadcast"-type messages which are not number-specific. My cell phone communicates with the local tower quite frequently. How do I know? One year my kids bought me one of those blinky cell antennas which contain three or four LEDs and a chip. The antenna blinked periodically even when I wasn't on a call, and it blinks only when the phone is transmitting. Which raises the question: why don't such broadcast messages trigger a cell-phone bomb when the phone replies to such messages? Anyone here qualified to comment?

And finally, you're right, the device would have to have limited range (just enough power) so as not to inadvertantly detonate roadside bombs near which other friendly forces and innocent civilians may be travelling. And it must have a very tight beam. Given the design of the millimeter-wave weapon discussed in the article, the reflector part of the antenna functions as an aperture which is quite large compared to the wavelength. Cell phones are not millimeter-wave devices, but still, the beam can be made quite tight using synthetic-aperture techniques.

Thanks for your post!

-e

"What I find surprising is that our forces aren't equipped (insofar as I know) with a device that mimics a cell-tower transmission to pre-detonate bombs activated in this way."

Already thought of.