Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Millimeter-Wave Weapon Certified For Use In Iraq

Journal written by jdray (645332) and posted by kdawson on Tue Dec 05, 2006 01:40 PM
from the bang-you're-hot dept.
Science
jdray writes "Wired has a story on the certification of the Active Denial System for use in Iraq. The ADS is a millimeter-wave weapon that uses a reportedly non-lethal energy beam to inflict short-term pain on its targets, encouraging them to leave an area. Experimenters call this the 'Goodbye effect.' I can see using this in a wartime situation, but how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?" From the article: 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... 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'... There has been no independent checking of the military's claims." Wired used Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain documents on the military's testing program.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: US Military Tests Non-Lethal Heat Ray 420 comments
URSpider writes "CNN and the BBC are reporting on a US military test of a new antipersonnel heat ray. The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene. The device was apparently tested on two soldiers and a group of ten reporters, which makes me wonder how thoroughly this thing has been safety tested. The government is also appealing to the scientific community for help in creating another innovative military technology: artificial 'black ice'. They hope to deploy the 'ice' in chase scenarios to slow fleeing vehicles." We discussed the military's certification to use the device last month.
[+] Hearing Voices? Could Be the Lasers 225 comments
An anonymous reader sends us to Wired for a piece about some declassified Pentagon research from 1998 that has been revealed in a freedom-of-information filing. Apparently the Pentagon has investigated lasers that put voices in your head, among other non-lethal technologies such as microwave heating. The report suggests the techniques could be useful for controlling crowds or in negotiations. There is no context for the research or any indication whether it has continued, although the microwave heating bit sounds rather like the Active Denial System we have discussed recently.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Millimeter-Wave Weapon Certified For Use In Iraq 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Suit up guys! (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:42PM (#17116220) Homepage Journal
    Time to don the triple layered Tin foil suit [wikipedia.org] with extra ball protection.
    The army will have to think harder when civilians start running at them with faraday cages around them.

    Additional questions ...

    Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
    How many minutes does it take to cook a human?
    Does this device go "ding" when its done?

      • Re:Suit up guys! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Total_Wimp (564548) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:23PM (#17117000)
        Joking aside, how easy would it be to make protective armor against this kind of attack? You can buy rolls of steel or aluminum window screening at any hardware store for under $50.

        The intended purpose of this device is for crowd control. The implication of people using "armor" would be that the "mob" is actually somewhat organized. You wouldn't be wearing the armor unless you anticipated being in a place where the millimeter-wave weapon would be used. You wouldn't anticipate being in such a situation unless you were planning to cause a disruption or asked to join in one.

        Wearing armor would also imply that the crowd is likely to atack. Try to picture someone putting on armor so they could quietly sit and protest. These are people who'd at least be throwing rocks.

        My guess is that if armor is possible and is used, that the army would put down the millimeter gun and pick back up the machine gun. You couldn't get away with firing an automatic weapon into the crowd during a riot in L.A., but something tells me it wouldn't be a problem in Iraq. Unless you haven't noticed, it's not exactly like we're going out of our way to detail the number of Iraqis killed by Americans in the news. We would probably never even notice. For this reason alone, I hope the energy weapon works as advertised.

        TW

        • Re:Suit up guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by joshtimmons (241649) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:40PM (#17117340) Homepage
          I disagree slightly with your deduction that if I'm wearing protective gear then I mean to attack. If I was planning to be in a peaceful protest and I suspected that this device would be used against me, then why wouldn't I plan to wear armor? Peaceful demonstrations are planned and organized too. I hope that doesn't mean that they'd fall back to using a machinegun on demonstrators!

            • Re:Stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @04:10PM (#17119070) Homepage Journal
              If a protest is lawful and you have the permits,...

              Is it just me or is something horribly wrong with this sentence?

                  • Re:Stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by susano_otter (123650) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @05:53PM (#17121030) Homepage
                    Historically?

                    History is full of permitted protests.

                    But what is your alternative? Obviously, an anything goes, first come first serve approach to competing claims on the public space isn't going to work. There needs to be some kind of oversight, and some kind of arbitration. You can't just co-opt a public space for a protest, without regard to how you may be disrupting the lives of your fellow citizens.

                    And who else is going to provide oversight and arbitration of the use of public spaces, except you and I, as fellow citizens, via our constitutioanlly-defined elected and appointed agents?

                    Did you have some better idea for managing competing claims on public spaces, except through the same democratic system we use to manage all of our competing claims with our fellow citizens?

                    But I get your point. If you're having trouble protesting the protest permit process, there are really only two options available to you: Mahatma Ghandi or Che Guevara.

                    I recommend protesting anyway, publically, non-violently, a la Ghandi. When the world sees your moral superiority and the mistreatment you are receiving at the hands of your government, perhaps your government will be shamed into recognizing your rights. It worked for Ghandi, it could work for you.

                    If it doesn't work for you, though, there's always the last resort: violent revolution. Good luck with that, but better to die fighting for freedom than live peacefully as a slave, right? Besides, you might win anyway.

        • Re:Suit up guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:49PM (#17117536) Homepage
          You wouldn't be wearing the armor unless you anticipated being in a place where the millimeter-wave weapon would be used. You wouldn't anticipate being in such a situation unless you were planning to cause a disruption or asked to join in one.

          Yeah, because no experienced protester expects that the police might employ anti-riot weapons even if the situation doesn't warrant it. It's simply inconceivable.

          *rolls eyes*

            • Re:Suit up guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by radtea (464814) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @03:04PM (#17117790)
              For domestic protests I'll have to retract my statement. You're right, as well as the guy above you. My conclusions are far more likely to be correct in Iraq at the moment.

              In Iraq today, as in India once upon a time, resistance to a foreign occupying power is "domestic protest". Unless by "domestic" you mean "American", in which case that is what you should have said.

              Domestic protestors in Iraq know full well they are likely to be attacked by any number of forces, including militias of groups opposed to them, as well as the American occupying forces. Any reasonable protestor would come prepared to deal with a variety of threats, and if American forces deploy this weapon then it is reasonable that anyone who thinks they might be a target of it will take appropriate counter-measures.

              The only way one could believe that counter-measures are not appropriate for peaceful protestors is if you think that American troops never make mistakes. The last time I looked, although on average amongst the best soldiers on the world, American troops are still human beings, and therefore make mistakes really rather easily.

          • Protest vs. Mob (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot@kadin.xoxy@net> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @03:23PM (#17118192) Homepage Journal
            I think people are confusing "protest" with "mob." A planned protest with people who know what they're getting into, and have protection, is a very different entity from a spontaneous street riot.

            Sometimes people who want to crack down on a protest will term it a 'mob' or 'riot,' but they're different. A riot, and what this machine is designed to disperse, is a situation where you have a whole lot of people just getting together spontaneously for the purposes of causing violence. Since spontaneity implies lack of preparedness, this would be effective there.

            Even if you have something that starts off as a protest and then becomes a mob or riot, say by virtue of people joining up with the protest whose ends are violent rather than peaceful, then the deterrent system is most effective against the violent hangers-on, rather than the core protesters. So again, it's not ineffective.

            "Professional protesters" and the other people likely to bring protective gear are not the real concern, because they're the ones least likely to be causing violence. (And if they are, you can't really call it a 'protest' anymore, it's a battle, and time to bring out the real weapons.) In many ways, a good crowd 'discourager' should have some form of protective gear that's effective against it, because this allows you to drive off violent spontaneous rioters but have minimal effect on core protesters.

      • Re:Suit up guys! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Walt Dismal (534799) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:26PM (#17117072)
        Yes, no lasting effects unless you count the cataracts and blindness in people who accidently stare too long straight at the antenna, trying to figure out what is causing the pain and when it will stop, while it cooks sensitive eye tissues.

        Also, the first time it is used at a US political protest, such as a GOP convention, there's going to be hell to pay.

        Or used on crowds with pregnant women, and tiny children who don't know what is going on. (Of course, in Cheney's view, ethics and minorities, no great loss.)

        Or when the field intensity ends up with strong lobes they never planned on, because of metal in the urban environment accidently causing concentration.

        This thing is, basically, a weapon of mass torture.

          • Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Walt Dismal (534799) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @08:48PM (#17123084)
            I've been following the development of millimeter wave weapons for a long time, and have expertise in RF, worked on satellite radar, and have a biology minor, with my college advisor having been a visual systems researcher. So my interest is neither casual nor uninformed. Rebutting item by item:

            1) if someone is trapped in a crowd and is exposed, they may not have the option of turning away, and are likely to be in pain but will keep their eyes open. If you suddenly start burning and are in panic in a crowd, are you going to close your eyes and keep them closed while trying to escape from an unknown source of RF radiation? Most of the public wouldn't.

            2) Would you be willing to stare into an open running microwave oven for ANY length of time? Do you know how much damage can be done to tissues in even 250 ms of applied energy? Depends on the field intensity of course.

            3) "Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim." This is a lie. Corneal damage of this sort does not heal in 24 hours. Try scratching your eye with a sharp object and seeing how long it takes for even that simple damage to heal, much less cells damaged by being cooked briefly by high-power RF. Go read ophthalmic medical journals. I have. Go research cataracts then come back and rebut me.

            4) I didn't say the damage to pregnant women came from being burned. However, pregnant women being burned by this weapon will have great induced stress. Tell me how easy or difficult it is to trigger a miscarriage. Go ahead.

            5) "Or when the field intensity ends up with strong lobes they never planned on, because of metal in the urban environment accidently causing concentration."

            Yes, I'm sure that they, with their 10 years and $40 million, never thought of that; it's remarkable that you, with a few minutes, $0, and no experience whatsoever with the weapon, could so easily spot such a flaw.

            They DID think of that, and in their tests asked volunteers to remove metal-framed glasses to prevent accidental refraction and focusing of the RF to a higher beam intensity around the eyes. I'm sorry to see you believe everything you're spoonfed by the military's PR guys. Of course, governments never lie, so let's all just take everything they say without questioning it. As I said, my background includes RF and microwaves, and yes, I do spot BS without needing the backing of $40 million to do it.

      • Re:Suit up guys! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Aqua_boy17 (962670) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:42PM (#17117380)
        Blisters aren't a sign of burning or anything ...
        Yeah, but at least it's a dry heat.

  • SciFi Roots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <shadow@wrought.gmail@com> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:43PM (#17116244) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like the Neronic Whip that Isaac Asmiov described in his Foundation series. Now whether or not its a Good Idea(TM), that is a tough call. Likely it depends on whther you're on the trigger end or muzzle end, so to speak.
      • If it's a choice between a loudspeaker saying "you guys need to leave here" and this, well, then I'd rather have the loudspeaker.
        There is a middle ground - you could always have the loudspeaker play this [npr.org]. (If you can't hear this, then you're probably over 30. I'm 36, and I can't hear it. It annoys the @$#! out of those who can hear it, though. I have it bookmarked. :D )

      • Re:SciFi Roots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CKW (409971) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:46PM (#17117490) Journal
        .

        But we've already seen that it does not come down to a choice between lethal and non-lethal force!!! Yes that's what they said when it started out, but since it's got "no long term effects" - who cares!! Use it all you want!!!!

        Tasers are now used *much* more readily and at the drop of a hat than your "alternative to lethal force" would lead one to believe it was going to be used. It's used now SIMPLY TO CAUSE PAIN. Since when is causing pain okay just because the pain stops the moment the device is turned off? Just because there are no physical scars makes you think it's okay to make me feel like I'm being burned alive? WHEN THE FUCK did it become okay to punish someone with gross levels physical pain BEFORE convicting them, just because they weren't immediately complying with your orders as quickly as you'd like!??!?? Just to save you four or five minutes of wrestling with an unarmed person? Yeah sure if you think you're in immediate danger, sure. But that's not what's happening!!!

        NO IT WON'T BE USED instead of bullets. It WILL be used just to get their way whenever they want something done. "Do this OR ELSE". Where have you heard that recently?

        .

        • Not a new phenomenon. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot@kadin.xoxy@net> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @03:05PM (#17117796) Homepage Journal
          At least in my experience, Tasers replaced nightsticks and billy clubs because they're more photogenic and have less of a stigma. Most of the situations you see Tasers being used in, would in the "bad old days" probably have engendered use of the club. Only that's not quite acceptable anymore, so instead they've found a method that looks better from a distance, and leaves fewer marks. (No awkward explanations of how somebody 'fell down the stairs,' etc.)

          I'm not at all convinced that the level of police brutality has increased in recent years, if anything I think it's probably at its lowest level in this country historically. Arguing with people who consider themselves to be in a position of power has never been a safe sport, and depending on where and when you did it (and who you were), you might have been lucky to get out with the equivalent of a Tasering.

          I'm not defending the practice per se, I'm just suggesting that I think you're wrong to assume that the technology actually causes brutality; the brutality has always been there, and always finds an outlet. That the Taser seems to be the choice du jour for causing pain doesn't really make it unique.

      • Re:SciFi Roots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:59PM (#17116502)
        This being a non-lethal weapon is precisely why it's worse than a lethal one, at least in the long term. If the army opens fire on a bunch of protestors and blows away 2 or 3 dozen, there are usually consequences from either their superiors (trial/imprisonment) or the protestors (further resistance).

        The power to simply inflict torture-level pain on people who have no broken any law without oversight or evidence is one of the most horrifying things I can thing of.

          • Re:SciFi Roots (Score:5, Insightful)

            by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:29PM (#17117110)
            When was the last time you hear of a police officer disciplined for gross misuse of tear gas, rubber bullets, or clubs? That (non-rioting bystander) girl killed by a beanbag round in Boston -- they didn't even press charges, much less convict.

  • Small red blisters... (Score:5, Funny)

    by whiskeyriver (909231) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:47PM (#17116286)
    "At most, 'some...may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'"

    They slept with Susie too???! That tramp!

  • The goggles! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Non-CleverNickName (1027234) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:47PM (#17116288)
    They do nothing!!

  • One problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:48PM (#17116308)
    The problem is that the people who were tested were told ahead of time to remove glasses, contact lenses, and any metal that could generate "hot spots". I really doubt they're going to extend the same courtesy to dissidents in a war zone. They're also assuming that the average grunt in the field is going to properly operate the equipment.

    • Re:One problem (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tiger4 (840741) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:55PM (#17117632)
      Actually, I think it would be pretty cool if they DID warn the crowd with a general purpose disclaimer.

      "Ladies and Gentlemen, we are about to irradiate you. Please remove all glasses, contact lenses, wristwatches, jewelry, rings and any other metal object from your body. We are pretty sure this won't harm you permanently, but it definitely hurts, and you notice we don't get in front of the beam. This is you last chance to leave the area. If you do notice any lasting effects, please write to the Advance Weapons Lab, Area Defense Branch, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Stand by for irradiation. OK, hit 'em Joe."

      Just put it on a recording that play the first time you pull the trigger.

  • In every war ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:49PM (#17116322)
    In every war the army mentions non-lethal weapons in the press to give the population the feeling that they try not to kill so many people.

    • Re:In every war ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by darkmeridian (119044) <william.chuang@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:11PM (#17116764) Homepage
      In a situation like Iraq, you do not want to kill lots of civilians -- even those who are angry at the military already -- because that begets more enemies. If there's a huge riot against American forces because the security promised never appeared, shooting into the crowd will cause more fanaticism.

      Shooting a microwave into the crowd hopefully will break up these things without a huge firefight.

  • Lets trust the military! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by balsy2001 (941953) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:52PM (#17116382)
    Because they have never mislead us before.

  • Active Revenge Induction Device (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blueZhift (652272) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:53PM (#17116410) Homepage Journal
    I'm all for nonlethal weapons when the other choice is killing people en masse. But in the current Iraq situation, all I can see in a device that causes pain without killing is a lot of hurt people wanting payback big time. Something like this could be perverted into a horrible torture device. To ever use something like this against a civilian population would be dubious at best. Doesn't the world hate the U.S. enough already?

  • "Get Away" or GITMO? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DJ.Flecktarn (1028326) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:58PM (#17116488)
    While this weapon certainly could be more human for crowd dispersal than some curently available (Tear gas that can cause death in athmatics, rubber-coated steel bullets [you didn't think they were just rubber, did you?] which can kill, being hit with sticks, ect.), there's the follow-up possibility of other places to consider. After the interrogation techniques seen at Abu Ghraib and Guantanama Bay, the ability to make someone feel like they're on fire, say while blindfolded, might be too juicy a plum not to be picking.

  • Might be non-lethal (Score:4, Informative)

    by cptgrudge (177113) <cptgrudgeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:59PM (#17116500) Journal

    But by the article's admission, we don't know the long lasting effects yet. The burning rays are supposed to be absorbed by the top layer of your skin. But what happens if there's nerve damage that becomes apparent in ten years? Or an increased risk of skin cancer later on in life?

    Unless it is absolutely necessary, we probably shouldn't use this weapon yet. The US has the unenviable distinction of being the only country to use large-scale nuclear weapons in war, and that event and it's reasons are debated and discussed to no end. I wouldn't want another weapon used that, although smaller scale, still ends up killing people decades later because they are put at an increased risk for other factors. Especially if the "intent" is non-lethal. But if we can be almost certain that it's truly non-lethal with no long lasting effects, this would be a good tool to use, for both military and riot police.

  • I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage@praecan ... m minus math_god> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:59PM (#17116506) Homepage
    I wonder what the effects are when riot-cop freaks out and starts zapping someone huddled on the ground over and over again with one of these.

    Better than getting worked over with a club, I suppose.

  • Who to trust with this device? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tttonyyy (726776) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:00PM (#17116524) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like a good idea in principle, but someone, sooner or later, is bound to abuse it [youtube.com]. Who will be responsible for determining when it can/can not be used? For a soldier to kill someone with a gun, they have to have a damn good reason to do it. To use something that inflicts pain with no long term effects? Very high danger of abuse.

  • Pulling teeth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chipster (661352) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:03PM (#17116574)
    Wired used Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain documents on the military's testing program.
    Yeah, and they (Wired) didn't make them available to the public, as some decent news sources do. Would have been nice if they made them available in their article - because "everyman" trying to obtain gov. docs via the sunshine laws is like pulling teeth. I've done it.

  • Run 500 metres in 5 seconds? (Score:4, Informative)

    by crabpeople (720852) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:04PM (#17116586) Journal
    From the article:
    "In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds."

    Then later:
    "Effective range is at least 500 meters,"

    Do you know anyone that can run half a kilometre in 5 seconds?

    "The [AC-130] typically engage targets at a range of two miles or more, which implies an ADS far more powerful than System 1 has been developed."

    Light of god ftw..

  • Application as a non-harmful torture device? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Toby The Economist (811138) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:07PM (#17116652)
    Question is, how long before people are tortured with this device?

    In fact, given the current administration's apparent view that coercion which causes non-permanent harm is not torture (e.g. waterboarding), this seems ideal.

    I wish I was kidding :-(

  • Mass Torture and Collective Punishment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JungleBoy (7578) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:43PM (#17117398)
    Intentionally inflicting intense pain on a person to illicite a response is torture. Saying the pain is non-damaging and short term, doesn't change the fact that it's torture. This is a mass torture device.

    In crowd control situations, I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't also be collective punishment. It's like two Geneva Convention violations wrapped in one. Go USA!

  • Anti-radiation weapons... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @04:17PM (#17119232)
    Perfect! Now we have something for Stinger missiles and or controlled guns to home in on. And I don't blame the Iraqis one bit for fighting us tooth and nail. Whether Saddam was right or wrong, we have invaded their country - think how *you* would feel if Chinese troops marched into the US today, toppled the government, and talked about setting up the most democratic government in the world.


    -b.

    • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2006, @01:49PM (#17116336)
      How about if you're in a tightly-packed crowd with no hope of moving and some kindly riot cop decides to focus this beam on you for a minute or two? Bear in mind unlike tear gas and batons there is no tangible evidence this is being used except at the source and receiver. Makes dealing out pain anonymously much easier.

      • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:08PM (#17116678)
        I hate to break this to you, but angry mobs aren't just going to forget what caused them to air their grievances after being dispersed. In fact, denying them the ability to do so usually means the next step is violent civil resistance.

        • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:15PM (#17116828) Homepage Journal
          Angry mobs are often the result of an underlying social problem, but the fact of the matter is that mob mentality is dangerous even when the individuals aren't all that violent. Breaking up angry mobs can save a lot of lives and property because people just don't think straight when they're in one.

      • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Irvu (248207) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:25PM (#17117048)
        The catch is, at what point does one group become a "rampaging Mob" and does preparation for "crowd control" feed into that.

        In recent years there has been an ever increasing milarization of domestic police forces in the U.S. More and more money has gone to swat teams with armoured everything and less and less to programs like Community Policing which actually make people safe. This has produced two intertwining problems:
        1) Police have grown ever more violent with a greater tendency to respond with swat teams, and for politicans to call out the swat teams, and
        2) Protestors and other groups have found themselves more and more marginalized which lends itself to violent responses.

        Take the WTO protests as a test case. In Seattle and Florida the cities and states began by surrounding buildings with chain link, calling out heavily armoursed cops and evn changing the laws in the downtown areas so that protesters were banned "for their own protection." The resulting air of tension led to exteme overreactions on the part of the police. In the case of Seattle legal nonviolent marchers were tear-gassed and in Florida a legally sanctioned non-violent parade was broken up by police firing bean-bag guns which are "non-lethal but painful".

        This in turn has led to some groups seriously talking about and preparing for violence. If they feel that protesting bad policy will get you gassed, shot (it still is being shot whether the armarment kills or not) and jailed for your trouble why not throw some molotovs?

        There was a study some time ago done by a New York-based criminology professor. In it he looked at the effects of militarizing (i.e. via swat weapons and training) police forces. His conclusion was that it was bad, very bad, and he was one of the people who taught swat teams.

        You see military training is about dealing with "the enemy". And training to use weapons like tear gas to "take out dangerous crowds" actually increases the odds that you will resort to it. And increasingly training for these weapons requires a demonization of the enemy. The psychological separation between you the "good guys" and the enemy, protestors, anarchists, etc. "the bad guys" makes it easier to actually resort to force against them, and more likely that said resort will be taken. After all, they are "bad" and you are "good".

        As a result the heavier use of military style training actually increases the level of violence due to this cycle of overreaction.

        You may say that I am oversimplifying things but anyone who has actually gone outside and protested anything, even with no violence and legal permits can attest that things have changed. I have seen people menaced by dogs while obeying the law, seen armoured assault vehicles purchased for local police forces, I've even had undercover cops infiltrate (very poorly) anti-war groups just to keep an eye on what the grandmas were planning. When you scale this up and see film of a 40 year old woman cowering behind her cardboard sign as a line of swat police shoot, non-lethat but painful, guns at her for being where she had a legal right to be, and you arrive to protest outside the whitehouse (with legal permits and no violence) and see lines of cops with assault rifles waiting, and have some rent-a-cop demand to know what you are writing because he sees you as the "enemy" you begin to realize that "non-lethal" techniques still stifle speech and that the idea that you can have non-violent swat teams is a complete insult to the intelligence.

        The cycle of violence isn't just domestic. It occurrs in our society and futher blurs the line to the point where there is little ot no distinction beteen 'the enemy' abroad and 'the enemy' at home. Either way it is someone with a gun pointed at them by someone in a uniform. The fact that that gun is "painful but not lethal" doesn't mean anything. And the more money we spend on arming people whose job it is to protect us, and the more we train them to see themselves as good and "the enemy" as b

    • Re:Safety concerns (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rob the Bold (788862) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:01PM (#17116534)
      Absolutely NO amount of radiation is completely safe. I'm wondering if this will be a new disaster like the use of radioactive munitions by NATO in former Yugoslavia...

      I'm not saying I like the idea of this thing, I don't, but you're confusing nuclear radiation with mm wave RF. Light is radition, too.

    • Re:They should be careful about escalating (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jfengel (409917) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @02:12PM (#17116778) Homepage Journal
      This is why peaceful protests make me nervous. If "just trying to deny the intersections to protesters with sawhorses" nearly touched off a riot, then I'm not convinced that the demonstration was all that peaceful in the first place. People only show up to demonstrations when they're angry about something, and the odds of them achieving their goal immediately to appease them are essentially nonexistent.

      Bush wasn't about to show up and say, "Gosh, you're all right, I'll cancel the invasion". Even if the demonstration convinced him, the crowd wouldn't hear about it, and meanwhile they're pointing out to each other that their voices aren't being heard. Any interaction with law enforcement, no matter how well-intentioned, provokes "Help, help, I'm being repressed. Did you see how he was repressing me?"

      I've always wondered just how effective protests really are. Presumably the people you're protesting to have at least a rough idea of how many people are in favor of their idea and how many are opposed. A demonstration adds emphasis: not only are people opposed to/in favor of abortion/hunger/AIDS/war/trade, but they're willing to take time out of their busy schedules to show it.

      There have been many demonstrations in the history of the world, and some have been followed by change (e.g. the civil rights era), but correlation is not causation. And most demonstrations that I'm aware of (I live in DC, so I see a lot of them) have far bigger effects on the local commuters than they do on the decision makers.

      By all means, I support the right of the people to petition and seek redress, and to gather peaceably in large numbers. Law enforcement absolutely must be taught how to deal with those crowds delicately, keeping the peace without becoming the cause of disturbance. Demonstrations should absolutely continue to happen. But I wonder if it would be a valuable word of advice to the organizers of such things that their efforts might be better expended elsewhere.

      • Re:They should be careful about escalating (Score:5, Insightful)

        by daigu (111684) on Tuesday December 05 2006, @04:24PM (#17119386) Journal

        Here's an idea, actually go to a peace demonstration. I'm a Quaker. I go to peace marches, vigils, rallies, you name it. I've yet to see angry peace protestors (which is one of the primary forms of protest these days). People are also realistic in that they don't believe they will achieve their goal - world peace - today. Your whole argument shows a basic lack of familiarity with demonstrations and what they are intended to accomplish (awareness in the larger population). You should actually go to a protest and talk with people. It will be probably a very interesting experience. I can say it was for me (I had never protested anything prior to the last three years).

        I will also say that the first time I went to a peace demonstration I looked down two city blocks full of police in riot gear on either side of the street. If you don't think that's about intimination and repression as much as about public safety, you've never stood in the middle of that street with the knowledge that they are they because of you. I'd also say it is very empowering to march right through that the police. It at least makes you feel like you have a voice and you are using it. When's the last time you felt that as a citizen? For that reason alone it is worth it.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.