Talk:Active Denial System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Changed this page a whole lot. Let me know what you think. --Twinxor 04:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Goodbye effect"

Footnote #1 gives no explanation of the "goodbye effect" (what is this?) that it accompanies. 86.142.240.102 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torture Device?

"Nonetheless, activist groups protest that the ADS would be a very effective torture device..." Oh, come on. A gun is much more effective. Do they really not want the military to use a weapon because there's a possibility it could be used for torture? That seems a little silly to me. Xinoph 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a weapon. Weapons kill people. A gun is not effective for torture because if you shoot someone enough times with a gun, they die. This is different, as not only is it non-lethal but in reality the only thing it could possibly be used for *is* torture. Torture is, by definition, causing excrutiating pain. That is what this device does. Your argument is flawed. That is all. - Netdroid9
You are quite incorrect, I'm afraid. This is a weapon. All dictionaries I've checked, and Wikipedia's own article on weapons have words to the effect that the tool need not necessarily be fatal. A gun can also be used as a torture device. You can cause nonfatal injuries with a gun - either cause the bullet to graze the victim, or fire elsewhere but ensure that medical support is available to repair the damage, if necessary, before firing again. Both this weapon and a gun can be used for torture. Therefore, your argument is both purely expressed and flawed. Angus Lepper 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Shooting someone to hurt them tends to leave signs, whereas this is designed to leave no trace at all. A device that causes unbearable pain but leaves no lasting damage would be a perfect untraceable torture device. Fysidiko 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This torture thing does not make sense. Why build a multi-million dollar device when you can torture people with a Zippo lighter? GregorB 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal?

Wouldn't this be illegal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture act? Specifically Article 1 (And Article 2, which seems to contradict the 'lawfully sanctioned' part of Article 1). - Netdroid9

Torture is illegal, however devices that could be used to torture are not, at least per Article 1 and Article 2. I would unconditionally condemn any use of ADS as a torture device. Its use, as designed, is not for torture, therefore it would not be illegal under these UN Articles. However, that is just my opinion based on reading the Articles though I'm no legal expert. - Taka2007 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The main controversy that I have heard has been the conditions of field tests, i.e. subjects were asked to remove metal objects, and take off eye glasses before the tests were conducted. Given the likely situation in which such a system would be employed the controversy as I have heard it is that the military will not advise rioters to remove metal from their bodies. Has anyone seen a source for this?L Hamm 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing has since been conducted (2005/2006) on volunteers with glasses and other metal objects. No reports of local burning, though I wouldn't rule it out in isolated circumstances. Solution would be to remove the metal object. You don't need to be notified to remove something that might be burning you; that is common sense. -Taka2007 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears that one case of severe burns was reported when the device was set to "the wrong power level" earlier in the article. If the device can be set to a level that will cause permanent damage then is it actually a controversy - the fact that it can be set to do that exists. L Hamm 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Automobiles were not designed to be lethal, yet they kill people every day. Are we going to ban automobiles because they can potenitally be lethal? The alternative to systems like ADS is lethal means. Let's keep things in perspective. -Taka2007 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It has a setting to kill people. Hence, it is not a non-lethal device, as it has inbuilt functionality which can be used to kill people. Your argument is redundant as you base it on the assumption that this device is not non-lethal, when in actual fact it is. The fact that an automobiles is irrelevent to the thread of conversation. - Netdroid9
The system is not designed to kill people. Doing so would be circumventing the design. There are far easier ways to kill someone. If I wanted to kill someone, a gun is far more effective. If I want people (e.g. civilians) to stay back from something without harming them, I'd opt for ADS. Tear gas works too, but it has longer term effects, and is not as effective as ADS. - Taka2007 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because the R&D version has power controls that can be set to harmful levels doesn't mean the deployment version will. -Toptomcat 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The deployable version HAS the same power restrictions. Yes, it is conceivable it could be used for torture, however, there are far cheaper ways of torturing people that also leave no marks. The politics surrounding the ADS are blown way out of proportion.
I've seen several of the test videos of this system in action. There is a timer that automatically disables the microwave energy. Repeated test shots have been taken on the same individuals. There have only been isolated cases of minor burns on some test volunteers. To kill someone, you'd have to immobilze them, and then repeatedly shoot them for an extended period of time. I'm not sure how long, as it has never been tested to do so. It would be speculation based on the 1/64 inch penetration it does. If the cell damage from repeated shots could cause a lethal effect, then yes it could be lethal. Yes it could be used to torture people, and I would unconditionally condemn that. - Taka2007 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Videos show troops ordered to act like rioters, then ordered to run away -- which proves nothing either way. Some of you could web-search "homemade microwave weapons" and then think how acceptable it is to have some creep secretly aiming microwaves at sunbathers, or a political zealot using microwaves to cause repeat injuries in zoo animals. Doctors won't diagnose forms of injury the feds announce impossible. A baseball bat is either lethal or non-lethal depending on how you use it, but it's not invisible. Well trained and supervised law enforcement or military personnel should use overt weapons. Sneak weapons encourage crime (or lying claims of damage, potentially huge propaganda, if no one can prove who did what to whom, and no one knows if attacks have stopped yet). Claiming microwave weapons are harmless would haunt us every single time it prevented prosecution of premeditated crimes here at home. There is no disloyalty in pleading that the term "non-lethal" be officially scrapped before it confuses juries. The main article needs a section on strategies to detect microwave weapons. 172.152.134.246 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metal

The Wired article stated that the microwaves could not penetrate a thin barrier of metal. This is likely why in some tests, subjects were asked to remove glasses and metal from their person. Specifically they mention tin foil, but there are likely things more see-through than tin foil, or stronger, or more flexible that can do the same thing, no? Obviously the US Army can build full suits against an ADS otherwise they couldn't use it nearly as effectively. But my question is, how difficult would it be for anyone to build an ADS proof getup? Do the waves round corners, like light waves do, or will a shield in front of unprotected body parts help? The example in the Wired article is that if one were to cover ones entire body in tin foil, it wouldn't work if there were any small gaps. Tin foil rips, but would any readily available metallic lined fabrics (or plastics) resist the microwaves? 128.101.70.97 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add "Microwave Weapons" Redirect?

The term "Microwave Weapons" referring specifically to ADS is becoming popularized in the latest media on the subject. ADS would only be one of many possible fits for that term, so perhaps just installing a disambiguation page with links to ADS and masers and "nonlethal force" and such would be the route to take to catch queries on this term. I don't think it merits a full article of its own. (71.233.165.69 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, a disambig page sounds reasonable for that. Twinxor t 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 130 degrees F?

I doubt that this would be very effective in real combat, or even against a determined mob. I've taken baths at a temperature of 130 degrees Farenheit (which is a crazy thing to do, by the way -- don't try it) and it's not really that painful. It's uncomfortable: yes. It's a burning sensation: yes. It feels like being on fire: maybe. But if I were fighting for my country or ideology, it wouldn't be nearly painful enough to stop me. Perhaps my experience is not typical. Or perhaps the temperature reached when this weapon is used is actually higher. Just my two cents.... --N Shar 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this comparison has to do with the method of heating. In the bath, only the outer layer is exposed. This layer is also exposed to a cooler layer underneath. Your pumping blood actually works as a coolant when exposed to hot water. However, in this case every water molecule within the active range (I guess 3 mm or so since that's the wavelength) is going to be heated up to 55 C. Its far quicker and far more effective in terms of heat transfer. -Hellkyte

[edit] How can you melt an entire human being?

In the current write up, the phrase "melt an entire human being" is used in the context of the possibility of a hot spot forming on a target of this weapon. Am I the only person who thinks this sounds both wrong and silly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.16.133.184 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

different degrees of heat are more or less painful depending on the method of delivery. So, while 130 degrees of heat may not feel that bad in a bath. It would be pretty painful in a bath of oil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.52.69 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Microwave tank

Isnt this invention exactly the same as featured on the game 'command and conquer generals zero hour'? Shouldnt this be mentioned under a trivia section?

[edit] Tin-foil hat, anyone?

I won't put this in the article, because it's just something I thought up, and hence original research. However, I don't think it's likely that I'm the first one to think of this, and if there's a better source, then it should go into the article.

It is well known that electromagnetic radiation is reflected by a conducting surface, such as a sheet of metal. (The thickness required is related to the skin depth, which at 95 GHz is microscopically small for any conductor.) So this million-dollar weapon could be defeated by $0.50 worth of aluminum foil and cardboard fashioned to form a set of corner reflectors that send the microwave ray back onto the person operating the ADS. Somebody with a little time and patience could even fashion himself an entire suit of corner reflectors that could be hidden under normal clothing...

--PeR 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Yeah I was confused by this as well. I work with microwaves pretty often, and this radiation is not that different from that found in a microwave oven (hell the effects are damn near the same, just less extreme). In a microwave all you need is a conductive mesh with openings smallers than the wavelength of the radiation. In this case that would be ~3mm or so. You could easily put a mesh like that on.

I just don't understand how that wouldn't block it. What am I (we) missing?

--Hellkyte

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/t/Talk%7EActive_Denial_System_f551.html"