It appears that some of our clever friends and neighbors at the local military/industrial complex have been busy designing millimeter-wave radio frequency weapons. Last year the DoD announced the development of a new form of weapon billed as non-lethal to fill the “gap between shoot and shout”. The device consists of a powerful rf source and what must be a fairly narrow beamwidth antenna for illuminating unruly people. The website includes video clips of test subjects and their descriptions of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this radiation weapon.
I refer to it as a radiation weapon because that is precisely what it is. Millimeter wave radiation is directed at a person or a crowd and in short order the recipients in the beam feel their skin temperature rise to discomfort. Whether it truly raises skin temperature or the sensation is an artifact of surface electrical currents in the skin is unclear. The fact is that it can cause instantaneous discomfort and anxiety about burning to a crisp. Obviously, the purpose is to discourage aggressive behaviour in individuals or of crowds and do so in a non-lethal manner.
So, really, what is wrong with this? In a sense it is like a shock collar on a dog. An occasional burst of juice causes the unruly dog to suspend the offensive behaviour. The dog learns the lesson and is not physically harmed by it.
I’ll admit to being quite uncomfortable with this “technology”. The potential for abuse and exploitation is staggering. If a short burst of rf energy will cause people to scatter or desist their behaviours, what will a long exposure do? And, just what happens to someone on prolonged exposure?
What is the difference between negative reinforcement and torture? Is it the difference between a 5 second exposure and 60 seconds? And, when will a tin-pot dictator acquire this capability now that we have proudly trotted ours out? Whereas ours will have controls for non-lethal operation, would a terror group or arms merchant bother to have safety protocols to guard against overexposure? Maybe a stripped down version absent interlocks will be the weapon of choice among African dictatorships.
How long will it take for civilian units to come on stream? What US city will be the first to acquire one of these things for crowd control and when? LA? DC? NYC?? 2015? 2020? Pretty soon every SWAT commander will be clamoring for one “just in case”. Whose march on the Capital Mall in DC will trigger the first use of such a device on civilians?
Can the energy be reflected back to the source or in some other direction? Is a metal trash can lid or aluminized mylar blanket an effective countermeasure? Maybe we’ll see rock throwing 12 year olds in Gaza with a stone in one hand and a trash can lid in the other after its inevitable introduction in the middle east.
Microwave/millimeter technology is ubiquitous. No nuclear materials. No ammunition. Just a powerful rf source and an antenna. No doubt arms merchants are already lining up buyers for this weapon of mass agony.
What a lamentable development for mankind. Our ability and willingness to commit violence from a distance is one of our greatest downfalls.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
I doubt bullets would be better.
Mitch
Yeah, I know. Dispersing rioters is one thing. But this device can easily be misused for more punishing applications. How easy it would be for an angry or mean spirited operator to train such a device on people who are cornered or otherwise unable to run and inflict a lengthy burst of pain. The temptation to induce agony from a distance is a very powerful thing. Eventually it will be used in anger.
Its Far-IR wavelength… technically part of the Microwave although not the same as we use in the lab or in communication systems…
I was interested in this due to my microwave-assisted chemistry obsession!
Incidentally, The articles of war (such that govern protected symbols like the White flag of truce, Red Cross and Red Cresent) cover this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war
I suspect that the generators attached to the devices are physically limited in power so that the devices cannot be used to kill.
The articles of war actually govern the use of weapons to kill outright and should not cause un-necessary suffering or prolonged suffering…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
Hence why chemical weapons are banned…
You should compare this use (a rather specific effect) to the current use of CS and other crowd control gases and other implements.
At the end of the day you have to weigh up the differences… and potential for mis-use.
Think of it like this… there are far simplier ways of killing someone than using this technology.
Ultimately, the whole issue is larger than you indicate here.
A blanket decision on this would probably be ineffective – since I believe this would be far more benign rather than CS and plastic bullets currently employed.
You have to remember the “nature of the mob” also – and potential for death for those charged with regualting public order anf protecting the public from unlawful elements.
Mark makes a lot of good points here. In the context of its apparent purpose, its intended application appears to have merit. This device, in the hands of a benevolent group, may well provide a more humane form of crowd control.
But, I lament our collective enthusiasm for weapons development in general. It comes from the darker side of our nature. I just read that 90-some Iraqi citizens were killed today by bombs. Somebody has to stand against the insanity of our morbid fascination with weaponry. I suppose I am one of those people.
I think you need to compare it to putting ordinary soldiers armed with riot shields etc in-front of a rioting OR near-rioting crowd as has happened in Iraq…
I refer to UK troops in Basra whom have been fire bombed… similar to in Northern Ireland when the troubles where at their height.
At all times they’re open to snipers also….
If the soldiers can keep the mob further back… and the two sides are not close together their is actually less likelihood for death and destruction.
The soldiers can simply sit back behind their “microwave shield” with the mobs more aggressive elements being pushed back as necessary.
Then the mob can get bored, tired and disperse naturally.
i.e. it’s about balancing safety of the (soldiers / police) charged with public order and the public themselves.
Obviously this isn’t meant to then allow the soldiers to pick off people with fire – which I doubt they would if they’re disciplined…
(admit its very difficult and not clear cut in the Iraq case where insurgents are amongst the public with RPGs and other heavy weapons – whereas marches in the US are more-likely to be armed with sticks and clubs “improvised weapons”…)
Nor should they wade into the crowd afterwards… with batons….
Its about having the ability to push mobs back if required…
I don’t know if you’ve seen a mob upclose… it’s not a nice thing to see… or be on the end of!
This is not the same as a getting rid of a right to public protest. If you look in the UK the police have a duty to prevent damage to persons or property… which unfortunately some people within them or others hangers-on join protests for protests…
Obviously this just gives another tool to keep both sides safe.
On the part of lamenting weapons development… I’m the same. However, I prefer to have access to them when we (or the military) need them… then not having them and allowing someone to take over, simply because they have better weapons.
I remember FDR’s statement about creating “the arsenal of democracy”…
Unfortunately … not every human agrees to the viewpoint of living peacefully.
There are far to many sociopaths with over reaching ambition in the world and far too many people wishing to follow them…
I also neglected to say – that there is a very different situation in the US with the 2nd amendment thing (?).. to here.
I don’t want to get into the whole “right to bear arms” or potential for oppression of the citizens by their own government??? – even with “congressional oversight”….
Some in your country claim that already?
Too complex to discuss here.
I’m just lucky to live under the protection of our “non-political” sovereign… Queen Elizabeth II…
Our system works very well in this regard, thankfully! Despite parliament looking like a joke at times… That’s just politics…
We do have a strong gun culture in the USA. People will mechanically cite the “right to bear arms …”, but always forget the preamble “In order to maintain a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms …”.
For as much pious talk about our constitutional democracy with its bicameral legislature and the three branches, the fact is that it hasn’t been closely emulated that much. That is, most governments around the world seem to have a parliamentary structure.
There has been an odd attitude in the USA about govenment and big power. Since the Reagan days it is common for conservatives to ramble on about the evils of big government. The conservative free market people have been proponents of transforming government structure into something that more resembles business. For some reason, big business seems to be preferable to big government. In a free market, individual “impowerment” is limited to ones ability to restrict or favor business as a consumer. In a market, an individual is practically powerless. Even one who is wealthy. At least under governement there is theoretically some respect for the rights of citizens.
Agreed.
People are not franchises. A large amount of the problems of celebrity (or the curse that is celebrity) stem from turning people, or them turning themselves into commodities.
Ref: a young lady whom recently shaved all her hair off.
At the end of the day the congress over there is your parliament.
The idea of separation of power has reasserted itself in the US it would appear with the Democrats controlling congress – congressional oversight in your case, or having two houses (here) ensures one group should not in theory get too much power…
It’s about giving enough power to the governments (exec and other branches) to actually govern successfully… Whilst not too much so that power isn’t abused.
Most of the politics inbetween are arguements over balancing the two above.
These are valid comments but from the outside. Frome the inside (go there, do that) I’d rather motivate rioting persons to leave with this type of device (it’s not really a weapon, it kills no one and destroys nothing)than shoot them to protect myself, friends and the installation I must defend, than open fire with real weapons and cause death. Too many bystanders and innocents are killed that way. Send them home alive. And we come home alive too. The ADS devices are not able to transmit the freq or deliver the power to kill. Given the situations at hand in Afghaniraq it’s a good solution to a very difficult issue. Oh yeah, concerning CS. It is harmful. Can take days to get over and can kill those that have too heavy an exposure or who have lung problems from the start. The mob reaction to CS and pepper sprays can cause everyone to panic and run causing more deaths and injuries. ADS is a good idea. Two steps in the right direction and it stops. Those reading evil applications into it are usualy not those that have to decide, ADS or Shoot? I vote for ADS. As for use in the homeland (UK/USA/here ever) the same applies. Our governments already have lethal force tools at hand. ADS and tasers give them an option that doesn’t kill or leave you stupid for life (like having your head split open with a riot baton). Face it, it hurts less than taxes . . .
Please excuse grammer and spelling, this little box is not for proper drafting . . .
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful note. I understand the rationale behind this weapon and I appreciate the disciplined and sober manner with which it may be operated by our fine military. What I am less confident with is the higher level decision makers and how they decide when the device is eventually turned on American Citizens in matters of civil disobedience. I would hope that mature individuals might conclude that cracking skulls for an immediate securing of the area is not the only possible outcome. Not all disobedience is due to criminal intent. Most demonstrations seem turn violent when the authorities attempt to intervene.
There has to be room in a free and pluralistic society for civil disobedience or large scale demonstration in the case of egregious inequities. The state or big business needs to feel pushback every once in a great while. And devices like this, clever and “safe” as they may be, offer the state or big business all too easy of a means to control crowds that make it uncomfortable.
In the case of criminal or military threat, the system has merits as you say. But I am thinking way past this. This millimeter wave technology will eventually be used for conquest, and maybe against US combatants and civilians. I am sad to learn of its discovery and its enthusiastic implementation.
My lone civil libertarian outsiders voice in this matter will have no real effect. Human enthusiasm for weaponry knows no bound.