There is a group that is composed of selected, targeted individuals of these weapons that is lobbying Senate and Congressional representatives in Washington, DC and holding rallies.

There will be an article in the Washington Post Magazine late September or October, 2006, by Sharon Weinberger exposing these experimental weapons and the situation of the targeted individuals.

Did Stevely just say the DOD needs to find a reason to use the pain ray on Americans before 2007 when it arrives in Iraq?

I think he did...

Regards, C

(Though it is entirely possible he did not know... the right hand not knowing what the left is up to is a rather normal situation inside the DoD)

DefenseTech reported back in May that the ray was already slated for a test deployment in Iraq but that they decided it needed some more work so it would cook people even faster.

According to Bloomberg News, "Raytheon's new weapon, which is intended to repel hostile forces by creating a sensation of intense heat on skin, doesn't act quickly enough to be effective, said U.S. Marine Corps Col. Wade Hall, who directs the program that would test the device." [Emphasis Mine - C]

The device is scheduled to be installed on three Stryker transports headed to Iraq next year as part of a test of a range of new technologies [including sonic blasters and laser dazzlers]. If the problem isn't fixed, the Pentagon will have to decide in the next few months whether to include it...

DefenseTech also noted that the planning for an Iraq deployment for live tests was talked about as early as December of 2005. It seems that the 18th Military Police Brigade had requested ADS "to help 'suppress' insurgent attacks and quell prison uprisings."

I can't believe that the Air Force secretary was unaware of all this.

Regards, Cernig
(What can I say, I'm one of those odd beasts, the Lefty Defense Wonk.)

Sounds like the CNN headline had it right--they *are* testing it.

Cernig/Steven: I don't know much about the weapon, other than having seen some spot reports during R&D. I take no position on whether it's humane. If not, then I wouldn't want it used home or away.

Steven: Possibly so on intentions/policy. It depends on the alternatives which, I confess, are outside my expertise. My presumption is that the experts have weighed the evidence and concluded there are riot situations when the microwave technology simply provides so much additional protection to police officers/soldiers and innocents compared to other alternatives that it's worth the risk. That presumption could be faulty.

This does remind me somewhat of the hue and cry raised after Gulf War I when it was discovered that Engineers bulldozed in some bunkers and trenches occupied by Iraqi troops, thereby burying them alive. This was denounced as cruel and inhuman, as if the other ways of dealing with those troops, bullets and high explosive, would be any more humane. Silly.

JJ, I don't quite follow your logic here ....

Good intentions are getting in the way of good policy. Saving a few from the pain of a crowd control device could end up killing others. Where's the logic?

Regardless, Wynne’s point is that, if we’re not willing to use it in domestic situations, we shouldn’t use it overseas, either, for crowd control purposes.

Which I didn't actually take issue with, if you re-read my post. As you say, once you accept excrutiating pain as an acceptable crowd-control device then Wynne's points flow flawlessly.

The same would be true of using this device as a torture method which isn't technically covered by the Geneva Conventions since used sparingly the pain would be real but no actual physical damage would be done. Bush administration officals already thought of that one too...way back when the first tests were being done.

However, the part from my post you used takes issue simply with the first premise. That it is unacceptable to use excrutiating pain as a crowd-control method - against Americans or otherwise. Especially when, as the New Scientist article I linked makes clear, said weapon will also still fry eyeballs, even after testing, and give 3rd degree burns if the subject has any metal against the skin or is unable to move away from the beam's path for any reason.

It is a sadistic and inhuman weapon which is also unsafe by its very nature. That a senior military official is advocating its use against civilians is breathtaking, to me.

Combining that with the snarky/humorous claim that the Bush administration enjoys all the pain - divisive, economic or otherwise - it inflicts on Americans was maybe too much for some readers speed, I admit. As you once observed to me about a post of yours that I misunderstood, not all such humor translates well from the mind to the page to the reader's mind.

Regards, Cernig

Minor injuries can and will occur (bruises, stings, etc.) to individuals who are struck by payloads of Non-Lethal munitions. In fact, even if properly employed severe injury or death are still a possibility. Non-Lethal weapons shall not be required to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries.

That's not surprising. If it's powerful enough to stun a large man hopped up on anger or drugs, then it might kill someone who is very small or suffering from a medical condition. Again, this has to be weighed against available alternatives.