US to use ray weapons in Iraq


Richard Moore

Original source URL:,72134-0.html

Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

By David Hambling| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Dec, 05, 2006

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole 
right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped 
in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble 
backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running 
too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use
in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

According to documents obtained for Wired News under federal sunshine laws, the 
Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy 
tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than 
x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 
2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used 
properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim 
that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer 
of the skin, heating it rapidly.

The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt and 
highly motivated escape behavior." In human tests, most subjects reached their 
pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than
5 seconds.

"It will repel you," one test subject said. "If hit by the beam, you will move 
out of it -- reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to 
experience it again."

But while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the 
documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, "some volunteers who 
tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters," the 
Air Force experiments concluded.

The reports describe an elaborate series of investigations involving human 

The volunteers were military personnel: active, reserve or retired, who 
volunteered for the tests. They were unpaid, but the subjects would "benefit 
from direct knowledge that an effective nonlethal weapon system could soon be in
the inventory," said one report. The tests ranged from simple exposure in the 
laboratory to elaborate war games involving hundreds of participants.

The military simulated crowd control situations, rescuing helicopter crews in a 
Black Hawk Down setting and urban assaults. More unusual tests involved alcohol,
attack dogs and maze-like obstacle courses.

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one 
instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.

The ADS was developed in complete secrecy for 10 years at a cost of $40 million.
Its existence was revealed in 2001 by news reports, but most details of ADS 
human testing remain classified. There has been no independent checking of the 
military's claims.

The ADS technology is ready to deploy, and the Army requested ADS-armed Strykers
for Iraq last year. But the military is well aware that any adverse publicity 
could finish the program, and it does not want to risk distressed victims 
wailing about evil new weapons on CNN.

This may mean yet more rounds of testing for the ADS.

New bombs can be rushed into service in a matter of weeks, but the process is 
more complex for nonlethal weapons. It may be years before the debates are 
resolved and the first directed-energy nonlethal weapon is used in action.

The development of a truly safe and highly effective nonlethal crowd-control 
system could raise enormous ethical questions about the state's use of coercive 
force. If a method such as ADS leads to no lasting injury or harm, authorities 
may find easier justifications for employing them.

Historically, one of the big problems with nonlethal weapons is that they can be
misused. Rubber bullets are generally safe when fired at the torso, but head 
impacts can be dangerous, particularly at close range. Tasers can become 
dangerous if they are used on subjects who have previously been doused with 
flammable pepper spray. In the heat of the moment, soldiers or police can forget
their safety training.

Steve Wright of Praxis, the Center for the Study of Information and Technology 
in Peace, Conflict Resolution and Human Rights, notes that there are occasions 
when this has happened in the past. He cites British soldiers, who increased the
weight of baton rounds in Northern Ireland.

"Soldiers flouted the rules of engagement, doctoring the bullets by inserting 
batteries (to increase the weight) and firing at closer ranges than allowed," 
says Wright.

There may also be technical issues. Wright cites a recent report on CS gas 
sprays which turned out to be more dangerous in the field than expected.

"No one had bothered to check how the sprays actually performed in practice, and
they yielded much more irritant than was calculated in the weapon specification.
This underlines the need for independent checking of any manufacturers' 
specifications. Here secrecy is the enemy of safety."

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this 
has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or 
turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive 
cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 
24 hours, the reports claim.

"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury 
because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the 
report says.

The risk of cancer is also often mentioned in connection with the ADS system, 
despite the shallow penetration of radiation into the skin.

But the Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not 
been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to
20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard. The
Air Force claims the exposure was justified by demonstrating the safety of the 
ADS system.

The beam penetrates clothing, but not stone or metal. Blocking it is harder than
you might think. Wearing a tinfoil shirt is not enough -- you would have to be 
wrapped like a turkey to be completely protected. The experimenters found that 
even a small exposed area was enough to produce the Goodbye effect, so any gaps 
would negate protection. Holding up a sheet of metal won't work either, unless 
it covers your whole body and you can keep the tips of your fingers out of 

Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact with
damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.

System 1, the operational prototype, is mounted on a Hummer and produces a beam 
with a 2-meter diameter. Effective range is at least 500 meters, which is 
further than rubber bullets, tear gas or water cannons. The ammunition supply is
effectively unlimited.

The military's tests went beyond safety, exploring how well the ADS works in 
practice. In one war game, an assault team staged a mock raid on a building. The
ADS was used to remove civilians from the battlefield, separating what the 
military calls "tourists from terrorists."

It was also used in a Black Hawk Down scenario, and maritime tests, which saw 
the ADS deployed against small boats.

It might also be used on the battlefield. One war game deployed the ADS in 
support of an assault, suppressing incoming fire and obstructing a 

"ADS has the same compelling nonlethal effect on all targets, regardless of 
size, age and gender," says Capt. Jay Delarosa, spokesman for the Joint 
Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, which decides where and how the ADS might be 

"It can be used to deny an area to individuals or groups, to control access, to 
prevent an individual or individuals from carrying out an undesirable activity, 
and to delay or disrupt adversary activity."

The precise results of the military's war games are classified, but Capt. 
Delarosa insists that the ADS has proven "both safe and effective in all these 

The ADS comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. As well as System 1, a smaller 
version has been fitted to a Stryker armored vehicle -- along with other lethal 
and nonlethal weapons -- for urban security operations. Sandia National Labs is 
looking at a small tripod-mounted version for defending nuclear installations, 
and there is even a portable ADS. And there are bigger versions too.

"Key technologies to enable this capability from an airborne platform -- such as
a C-130 -- are being developed at several Air Force Research Laboratory 
technology directorates," says Diana Loree, program manager for the Airborne 

The airborne ADS would supplement the formidable firepower of Special Forces 
AC-130 gunships, which currently includes a 105-mm howitzer and 25-mm Gatling 
guns. The flying gunboats typically engage targets at a range of two miles or 
more, which implies an ADS far more powerful than System 1 has been developed. 
But details of the exact power levels, range and diameter of the beam are 

Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
  cyberjournal forum  
  Achieving real democracy
  for readers of ETM  
  Community Empowerment
  Blogger made easy