Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

[Amelia]

Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

By David Hambling

Wired News

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 subjects.

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 sight.

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 counterattack.

"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 deployed.

"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 roles."

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 ADS.

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 classified.

[bevin]

Complete secrecy, 10 years, and $40M - and it can be defeated with a roll of aluminium foil or a wet towel

That is what I consider money well spent

/Bevin

[Amelia]

Hummmmmm how many soldiers are equipt with foil and wet towels out in the field?

[Bravus]

The bit that scares me is use against civilians rather than in warfare. Right to assembly, anyone?

[Amelia]

New Weapon, Human Tests

By David Hambling

Wired News

Dec, 05, 2006

This story arrived in a large box. It was FedExed over by Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a group that uses the Freedom of Information Act to delve into the darker corners of military research.

Hammond had requested all testing protocols for nonlethal weapons that involved humans, and they all related to the Air Force's Active Denial System. (A cover letter from the Air Force explained that the ACCM laser dazzler had been omitted because it did not count as a weapon.) Hammond's specialty is chemical and biological weapons, and as he already had plenty to deal with he passed the several hundred pages of documents over to me.

There were 14 documents -- eight are available for download below -- and as you progress through them you can see how the Air Force's testing evolved from simple experiments on a few square inches of skin into fully fledged war games. Also, the cautious approach of early tests is gradually relaxed as experimenters gain confidence in the system's supposed safety.

Booze and ADS Don't Mix

The experiments get more bizarre as they progress. One of the experiments involved giving the subjects carefully measured doses of vodka to see if it helped them withstand the pain. See: Protocol F-WR-2002-0024-H: Effects of Ethanol on Millimeter-Wave-Induced Pain (1.4MB PDF).

ADS and Dogs

One test exposed military dog teams to the ADS' effects, apparently based on the idea that if the device is used for tasks like perimeter security, then there is a real risk of 'friendly fire' on dogs as well as humans. See: Protocol FWR-2004-0029-H: Effects of Active Denial System Exposures on the Performance of Military Working Dog Teams (2.7MB PDF).

Urban Testing

The testing gets serious with an assessment of ADS in an urban environment, in which a whole range of scenarios are described. These typically involve a security force dealing with a red force of aggressors and a number of noncombatant bystanders. There's a traffic control point set up, route clearance and search and rescue, all of which give some idea of what the ADS is expected to achieve. See: Protocol FWR-2005-0037-H, Military Utility Assessment of the Active Denial System (ADS) in an Urban Environment (5.4MB PDF).

Sunblock Won't Block ADS

Sometimes it's the incidental detail which makes fascinating reading -- like the line in FWR-2006-001-H Military Utility Assessment of the ADS in a Maritime Environment which tells volunteers to wear sunblock. It won't have any effect on the ADS, but it should stop the volunteers from blaming their sunburn on the beam's effects the next day. It also mentions that the software used for modeling the pattern of the ADS beam was originally used for checking mobile phone coverage. More importantly, it tells us the safety factor for the ADS: A dangerous dose is approximately four times what anyone can stand. (Which is fine so long as you can get out of the beam: The test protocols specifies that the beam has to be turned off if anyone ends up in the water, as combined beam reflections off the water and the hull could otherwise be dangerous). See: Protocol FWR-2006-0001-H, Military Utility Assessment of the Active Denial System (ADS) in a Maritime Environment (8.5MB PDF).

Dodge the Beam -- Win a Blender!

The most surprising setup is the one described in F-BR-2006-0018-H Effects of exposure to 400-W 95-GHz Millimetre Wave Energy on Non-Stationary Humans - it's practically a future reality game show, in which the contestants have 3 minutes to cross a 'maze-like' course and get through a combination-locked gate to escape while multiple ADS beams are used to drive them back. See: Protocol F-BR-2006-0018-H (#NHRC.2005.0016): Effects of Exposure to 400-W, 95-GHz Millimeter Wave Energy on Non-Stationary Humans (7.9MB PDF)

The ADS testing is certainly thorough. But is it enough? Here are eight of the documents obtained by Wired News that describe human testing of the ADS. Decide for yourself.

Human Experiments of a Nonlethal Weapon: The Documents

Protocol F-BR-2005-0057-H: Thermal Effects of Exposure to 400 W, 95 GHz, Millimeter Wave Energy (17.8MB PDF)

Protocol F-BR-2006-0018-H (#NHRC.2005.0016): Effects of Exposure to 400-W, 95-GHz Millimeter Wave Energy on Non-Stationary Humans (7.9MB PDF)

Protocol F-WR-2002-0024-H: Effects of Ethanol on Millimeter-Wave-Induced Pain (1.4MB PDF)

Protocol FWR-2002-0046-H: Perceptual and Thermal Effects of Millimeter Waves (2.2MB PDF)

Protocol FWR-2003-03-31 -H, Limited Military Utility Assessment of the Active Denial System (4.2MB PDF)

Protocol FWR-2004-0029-H: Effects of Active Denial System Exposures on the Performance of Military Working Dog Teams (2.7MB PDF)

Protocol FWR-2005-0037-H, Military Utility Assessment of the Active Denial System (ADS) in an Urban Environment (5.4MB PDF)

Protocol FWR-2006-0001-H, Military Utility Assessment of the Active Denial System (ADS) in a Maritime Environment (8.5MB PDF)

[annie]

I didn't see the wet clothing being a deterrent it would in fact intensify the effect and the metal has to encase all of the body and the fingertips must be kept protected.

I can think of some situations where this may have saved some lives, Peacekeepers in Rwanda, LA Riots, not to mention Iraq.

If anyone thinks that there will ever be any weapon created that will not suffer misuse by a world full of sinners then your not being realistic.

annie

[bevin]

CONTACT with the wet cloth intensifys the effect - because the water heats up as it absorbs the beam.

Have you seen pictures of organized demonstrations - with the demonstrators coming equipped to deal with crowd control?

I can see a crowd now forming deliberately bringing umbrellas covered with foil, or wet towels on racks.

The big problem with this whole approach is it comes from and enhances the "govt v people" mentality. It also causes people to push the boundaries.

Personally I favor the restrained use of lethal force. You make explicit where the boundary is, and people who cross it get shot.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I can see a crowd now forming deliberately bringing umbrellas covered with foil, or wet towels on racks.

In which case they would use tear gas. These weapons can and will be used by oppressive dictators. That is the sad part but at least they are nonlethel.

In democracies like the US where police conduct is reviewed by internal affairs and government bodies above them, such abuses are kept to a minimum and when they occur, those guilty are often held accountable. These types of weapons are able to be used by police forces to protect the people from violant gangs and crowds that would do the public harm.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Right to assembly, anyone?

I don't think this to be used at the local Lion's Club meeting or church folks joyfully singing hymns. There is no right to riot. Does anyone remember the LA riots? Shops were broken into, robbed and burned. Innocent drivers were pulled out of their cars and beaten by rioters.

[bevin]

Quote:

These types of weapons are able to be used by police forces to protect the people from violant gangs and crowds that would do the public harm.

Quote:

Does anyone remember the LA riots? Shops were brocken into, robbed and burned. Innocent drivers were pulled out of their cars and beaten by rioters

This is what soldiers with guns are for.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

True, the right is to peaceful assembly. But peaceful protests against government policy in the US have increasingly been targeted or moved to 'Free Speech Zones' where they can't be seen. Peaceful gatherings that are intended to protest the law or inequitable trade arrangements or whatever are increasingly treated as enemy actions, and I find it all too easy to imagine weapons like these being used to disperse them.

[Dr. Shane]

Yet these "peaceful protests" that are being moved to 'Free Speech Zones' are being moved from government property to other areas of government property. The right to assembly is not a right to obstruct traffic or interupt private commerce. If a group has thier own property or rents property, like churches and political parties often do, they are free to peacefully assemble in such areas.

Where I live, if I want to have a peaceful birthday party in the public park, I have to make a reservation and it is subject to being denied.

[there buster]

Quote:

I find it all too easy to imagine weapons like these being used to disperse them.

Indeed you do. It is interesting, to say the least, to think that in the time of trouble, for example, we would be in more danger from the government than from the mob.

Given the nature of democracy, it is far more likely that when persecution arises, the government will be cowed by the crowds demanding the death of those the see as the problem.

Jesus himself fell victim to a mob mentality; the authorities had little reason, and virtually no inclination to execute him. They bowed to the peaceably assembled citizens of Jerusalem.

Quote:

have increasingly been targeted or moved to 'Free Speech Zones' where they can't be seen.

I guess I missed the part of the Constitution--or common sense--where "peaceable assembly" becomes the right to get press coverage. They can freely assemble, and freely speak, but

"peaceable assembly" does not include the right to disrupt the lives of others. But then, the hard left has been telling us to "understand" riots for more than forty years.

I'll be far more interested in the left's dedication to such things as "free speech" and "peaceable assembly" when they stop shouting down those they disagree with, and stop using the term "hate speech" to silence those who refuse their party line.

[Bravus]

So where does Martin Luther King's and Gandhi's 'civil disobedience' fit?

[bevin]

As the last election clearly showed - even in the USA governments can get out of touch with the desires of the populace.

There are two extremes - allowing irrational shouting voices in the streets to set policy, and allowing irrational isolated politicians to set it.

The big danger's are when the military sides too much with one or the other - but especially when they side too much with the politicians.

I certainly believe that the populace should be allowed to have loud and vocal debates - the attempts by the Bush administration to throttle this have been wisely rejected by the populace - but riots and similar destructive acts should be quelled by force.

But when 50,000 people decide to shut down a city, the government needs to understand why and address the issue, not to just use some kind force to suppress them.

As one of my work buddies is fond of saying = elections are a cheap alternative to civil war, and a vast majority of the populace needs to feel that the current government is better than anarchy/civil war.

In the USA today, we have that desirable state. Despite the stupidities of the Bush Admin, we got rid of them peaceably, ont by force.

Unfortunately in Iraq today, the majority does not feel so committed to a peaceful process - because they fear it will make their lives even worse than a civil war.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know much about Gandhi so I cannot field that question. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on religious ground knowing the punishment he would get and willing to take it. This is what Adventists will do in the final days. We will disobey civil law and willingly take the consequences for doing so.

Civil disobediance isn't breaking the law and trying to get away with it. It is breaking the law and taking the consequences for doing so.

Here is a recent example of civil disobediance:

Nuns Sentenced to Prison for Colorado Nuclear Protest

Quote:

Three Roman Catholic nuns who defaced a Colorado nuclear missile silo with their own blood as part of a peace protest last year were sentenced on Friday to prison terms ranging from 30 to 41 months by a judge who called them "dangerously irresponsible."

Here we see religious people that broke the law and accepted the consequences. It is a textbook example of civil disobediance.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

As the last election clearly showed - even in the USA governments can get out of touch with the desires of the populace.

The last US election??? In the last US election a lot of Democrats won a lot of close elections. The margins were pretty slim. Given the do-nothing Republicans that had been in power, it was surprising the Democrat canidates didn't win by larger margins. The election showed the country is still narrowly devided. I don't see an "out of touch" message there.

Quote:

But when 50,000 people decide to shut down a city, the government needs to understand why and address the issue

Ahh yes, we need to understand when the Chicago Bulls win a championship there will be riots in the streets. Anyone remember the three dead in 1993?

If the 50,000 people have a complaint, they can take it up at the ballot box - not rioting in the streets. Or they can participate in civil disobediance and all accept the consequences willingly.

[there buster]

Thank you, Shane.

I'm no longer surprised that the left doesn't understand civil disobedience; they've been calling looting and riots "civil disobedience" so long they've nearly obscured its origins, which happen to be in an essay by Henry David Thoreau.

Note the attempt to confuse "peaceable assembly"-- which is a constitutionally guaranteed right in the U.S.--with intentionally breaking the law.

You are correct, civil disobedience accepts the punishment, rather than seeking to escape it, in order to demonstrate what is perceived as a bad law.

Today, "peaceable assembly" is conceived of as the attempt by mobs to shut down speakers or conferences they don't like, and then complain that they are arrested when they actually break the law.

It's hilarious, like Hollywood actors continually mouthing off their political opinions--no matter how mindless--and then complain that their "free speech" is violated when some director doesn't want his latest movie associated with their stupidity.

It isn't free speech that they seek, because they've got that. No action is taken by government to silence them. What they want is "consequence free" speech. Well, words have consequences, and other people aren't going to be forced to buy your albums or buy tickets to your movies if they decide not to.

It's funny. Celebrities talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, about how free speech is threatened, while their every vacuous word is not only spoken, but picked up the the sycophantic media and broadcast around the world. Apparently they can't see the irony in their comoplaints.

But then, irony is impossible to see if one confuses such things as civil disobedience and free assembly, and equate both to the attempt to disrupt the lives of others, while suffering no inconvenience personally. Because irony requires distinctions.

[Bravus]

Not sure who you're talking about Ed, but it's not me. I'm not trying to shut down anyone's right to speak, including yours, and nor was I confused about the concept of civil disobedience: I understand it exactly as Shane described it. I simply expressed the view that 'accepting the consequences' of peaceful civil disobedience should mean a lawful arrest and a day in court, not being microwaved into agony.

The problem is probably about assumptions about the nature of government: your assumption seems to be that government is always or almost always benign, and uses force against those who are rioting. What about situations when governments are despotic, and use force against those who are peacefully demonstrating for change? Even if we assume the US government would not abuse this technology, we know it may well be sold to other, less benign governments.

I guess I was sounding an alarm about possible abuses of the technology. But I'd go even further: it seems to me to be an abusive technology on its face. It is essentially an 'instant torture' device. There may be instances in which the harms arising from not using it exceed those from using it. But in a week when the police multiply shot an unarmed bridegroom... equipping any force with such a weapon worries me.

[Dr. Shane]

I guess I have mixed feelings. Currently the police use tear gas. I have been gassed with tear gas a few times and I wouldn't classify it as instant torture but it can be pretty bad. I was in the military and trained what not to do like rub it into my skin or touch my eyes. I am not sure how this new tool compares to tear gas or the taser guns.

Quote:

in a week when the police multiply shot an unarmed bridegroom... equipping any force with such a weapon worries me.

I guess I don't catch the reasoning on this statement. Had the police used this weapon the bridegroom would still be alive. Wouldn't that be a better result?

[Bravus]

Hehe - you may be right (though from the article it looks more truck-mounted than side-arm).

My point was more that although in general I trust the police, in practice there are abuses... this was just a topical example of an abuse, but there are other cases of people being beaten or killed by officers. I take your earlier point that those cases are generally investigated and those responsible punished. But those are in cases where they weren't ordered to act: there are also instances where the police are (as they probably should be) indemnified because they were acting under orders... but those who gave the orders aren't brought to justice.

This weapon is meant to make someone move along... but say they're stuck (or held) and can't move? They will get severe burns.

Look, it may be a legitimate part of the law-enforcement arsenal... it just worries me.

[there buster]

Quote:

that government is always or almost always benign, and uses force against those who are rioting.

On the contrary. It is socialists and the left that view government as the fount of benefits. I'm in the school of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton: government is at best a necessary evil.

Despotic governments don't hesitate to use deadly force on their own people.

Democracies are reluctant to use any force on their own people, even when it is necessary, as when, say, 50,000 people demand on shutting down a city of 1,000,000 or more.

In the U.S., rioters are commonly portrayed as victims by the press, and government is generally afraid to act forcefully to ensure the safety of law-abiding citizens.

[bevin]

Quote:

In the U.S., rioters are commonly portrayed as victims by the press, and government is generally afraid to act forcefully to ensure the safety of law-abiding citizens.

We tend to sacrifice property rather than injuring people in the USA - typically we place a much higher $$$ value on people than many other countries.

It comes from a general decision in the West to have fewer kids and to treat those that we have really well.

Unfortunately we in the USA don't spend a lot of money on trying to eliminate some of the vast inequities in our society, and tend to think that those Western countries that do spend the money are being foolish.

The nett result of this is a disenfranchised and frustrated poor group who will riot because they have little to loose, and who don't have a good understanding of or access to the political process.

In the past, such groups would migrate - but today there is nowhere to migrate to. We have lost a huge safety valve - and not replaced it with anything.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

we place a much higher $$$ value on people than many other countries. . . [but] we in the USA don't spend a lot of money on trying to eliminate some of the vast inequities in our society

right, very logical

and tend to think that those Western countries that do spend the money are being foolish.

The nett result of this is a disenfranchised and frustrated poor group who will riot because they have little to loose, and who don't have a good understanding of or access to the political process.

Uh-huh. That's why the French don't have riots, the Dutch and the Danes don't have civil disturbances. They Do spend the money, and that gets them--- oh! wait! They get riots too.

Maybe they get more efficient riots--after all, they're government subsidized.

All makes perfect sense except when compared to actual events.

[bevin]

Introduction to Logic 101

A => B does NOT mean ~A => ~B

/Bevin