Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Nixes Ray Gun Weapon in Iraq
My Way News ^ | August 29, 2007 | Richard Lardner

Posted on 08/30/2007 12:00:23 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Saddam Hussein had been gone just a few weeks, and U.S. forces in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, were already being called unwelcome invaders. One of the first big anti-American protests of the war escalated into shootouts that left 18 Iraqis dead and 78 wounded.

It would be a familiar scene in Iraq's next few years: Crowds gather, insurgents mingle with civilians. Troops open fire, and innocents die.

All the while, according to internal military correspondence obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. commanders were telling Washington that many civilian casualties could be avoided by using a new non-lethal weapon developed over the past decade.

Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested - and were denied - the device, which uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.

It's a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it out of concern that the weapon itself might be seen as a torture device.

Perched on a Humvee or a flatbed truck, the Active Denial System gives people hit by the invisible beam the sense that their skin is on fire. They move out of the way quickly and without injury.

On April 30, 2003, two days after the first Fallujah incident, Gene McCall, then the top scientist at Air Force Space Command in Colorado, typed out a two-sentence e-mail to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," McCall told Myers, according to the e-mail obtained by AP. The system should become "an immediate priority," McCall said.

Myers referred McCall's message to his staff, according to the e-mail chain.

McCall, who retired from government in November 2003, remains convinced the system would have saved lives in Iraq.

"How this has been handled is kind of a national scandal," McCall said by telephone from his home in Florida.

A few months after McCall's message, in August 2003, Richard Natonski, a Marine Corps brigadier general who had just returned from Iraq, filed an "urgent" request with officials in Washington for the energy-beam device.

The device would minimize what Natonski described as the "CNN Effect" - the instantaneous relay of images depicting U.S. troops as aggressors.

A year later, Natonski, by then promoted to major general, again asked for the system, saying a compact and mobile version was "urgently needed," particularly in urban settings.

Natonski, now a three-star general, is the Marine Corps' deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations. He did not respond to an interview request.

In October 2004, the commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force "enthusiastically" endorsed Natonski's request. Lt. Gen. James Amos said it was "critical" for Marines in Iraq to have the system.

Senior officers in Iraq have continued to make the case. One December 2006 request noted that as U.S. forces are drawn down, the non-lethal weapon "will provide excellent means for economy of force."

The main reason the tool has been missing in action is public perception. With memories of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal still fresh, the Pentagon is reluctant to give troops a space-age device that could be misconstrued as a torture machine.

"We want to just make sure that all the conditions are right, so when it is able to be deployed the system performs as predicted - that there isn't any negative fallout," said Col. Kirk Hymes, head of the Defense Department's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

Reviews by military lawyers concluded it is a lawful weapon under current rules governing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a Nov. 15 document prepared by Marine Corps officials in western Iraq.

Private organizations remain concerned, however, because documentation that supports the testing and legal reviews is classified. There's no way to independently verify the Pentagon's claims, said Stephen Goose of Human Rights Watch in Washington.

"We think that any time you have an emerging technology that's based on novel physical principles, that this deserves the highest level of scrutiny," Goose said. "And we really haven't had that."

Another issue for the weapon is cost.

The Pentagon has spent $62 million developing and testing the system over the past decade, a scant amount compared to other high-profile, multibillion-dollar military programs.

Still, officials say the technology is too expensive, although they won't say what it costs to build. They cite engineering challenges as another obstacle, although one U.S. defense contractor says it has a model ready for production.

For now, there's no firm schedule for when the system might be made and delivered to troops.

Commanders in Iraq say the go-slow approach has had devastating consequences.

There's no way to calculate how many civilian deaths could have been avoided had the energy beam been available in Iraq. The bulk of the civilian casualties are due to sectarian warfare.

According to AP statistics, more than 27,400 Iraqi civilians have been killed and more than 31,000 wounded in war-related violence just since the new government took office in April 2005.

The Active Denial System is a directed-energy device, although it is not a laser or a microwave. It uses a large, dish-shaped antenna and a long, V-shaped arm to send an invisible beam of waves to a target as far away as 500 yards.

With the unit mounted on the back of a vehicle, U.S. troops can operate a safe distance from rocks, Molotov cocktails and small-arms fire.

The beam penetrates the skin slightly, just enough to cause intense pain. The beam goes through clothing as well as windows, but can be blocked by thicker materials, such as metal or concrete.

The system was developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory in New Mexico. During more than 12 years of testing, only two injuries requiring medical attention have been reported; both were second-degree burns, according to the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate Web site.

Prototype units have been assembled by the military, the most promising being a larger model that sits on the back of a flatbed truck. This single unit, known as System 2, could be sent to Iraq as early as next year, according to Hymes of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

Hymes' office, which nurtures promising technologies that can be used by the military branches, plans to spend $9 million over the next two years on the effort.

Money for additional systems isn't likely to be available until 2010, when an Air Force command in Massachusetts is expected to take control of the program, he said.

Recognizing the potential market, defense contractor Raytheon has invested its own money to build a version that the company calls "Silent Guardian." Although Hymes said the Raytheon product "is not ready yet," company representatives say it is.

Mike Booen, Raytheon's vice president for directed energy programs, said the company has produced one system that's immediately available.

"We have the capacity to build additional systems as needed," he said.

Raytheon has not sold any Silent Guardians to U.S. or foreign customers, and Booen would not discuss the product's price.

American commanders in Iraq already have asked to buy Raytheon's device.

A Dec. 1, 2006, urgent request signed by Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Robert Neller sought eight Silent Guardians.

Neller, then the deputy commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, called the lack of such a non-lethal weapon a "chronic deficiency" that "will continue to harm" efforts to resolve showdowns with as little firepower as possible.

Other requests from officers in Iraq asked for the system as part of a broader weapons package on wheels, one that could shoot bullets as well as the non-lethal beam.

Such a versatile system would let troops deal with "increasingly complex operational environments where combatants are routinely intermixed with noncombatants," Army Brig. Gen. James Huggins said in an April 2005 memo to Pentagon officials.

Huggins, then chief of staff of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and now deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, wanted 14 vehicles for missions ranging from raids to convoy escorts.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq from its base in Tampa, Fla., backed the request, saying it was "critical to build upon our success in the counterinsurgency battle," according to its memo to the Pentagon.

The vehicles were not delivered, however. Robert Buhrkuhl, a senior Pentagon acquisition official, said during congressional testimony in January that combining the various fixtures on a single vehicle presented major technical challenges.

In an interview, Franz Gayl, who was Neller's science adviser until the unit returned in February, blamed an entrenched, "risk-averse" military acquisition system for moving too slowly.

Gayl calls the system a "disruptive innovation" - an unconventional piece of equipment that breaks new ground and therefore is viewed skeptically by the offices that buy combat gear.

If the energy-beam weapon had been fielded when U.S. forces invaded Iraq, "many innocent Iraqi lives would have been spared," Gayl said.

--------

On the Net:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/silent_guardian/


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cnneffect; iraq; nonlethalweapons; wot
Who are we so scared of? The world already thinks we are a "rogue nation" run by a "moronic cowboy" and all that rot. We should just do the right thing and not worry what others think of it.
1 posted on 08/30/2007 12:00:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Seems to me that if you explained it was either this or dead bodies, even the most puddin headed worry wart would see the value of this crowd control weapon.


2 posted on 08/30/2007 12:04:41 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The Ray-Gun sounds great. However, I think an even more effective weapon would be a device that shoots panties around the enemy’s heads...


3 posted on 08/30/2007 12:16:56 AM PDT by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Who are we so scared of? The world already thinks we are a “rogue nation” run by a “moronic cowboy” and all that rot. We should just do the right thing and not worry what others think of it.”

I call that the Palestinian Effect.


4 posted on 08/30/2007 12:19:27 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (When O'Reilly comes out from under his desk, tell him to give me a call. Hunter/Thompson in 08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Who are we so scared of?

I don't know about "we", but the Pentagon and the White House are scared of bad press. Very scared.

Any weapon can be "misconstrued" as a torture device. Heck, any weapon could be used as a torture device. So why the hand-wringing? Just put the thing into service and win the war.

5 posted on 08/30/2007 12:21:15 AM PDT by TChris (Has anyone under Mitt Romney's leadership ever been worse off because he is Mormon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paisan

You beast...


6 posted on 08/30/2007 12:23:19 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bring Back Napalm


7 posted on 08/30/2007 12:37:06 AM PDT by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How about a device that can grind up 50 dozen pigs and spray them over a 10 block area? That should do the job.


8 posted on 08/30/2007 12:48:33 AM PDT by NurdlyPeon (Thompson / Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If the energy-beam weapon had been fielded when U.S. forces invaded Iraq, "many innocent Iraqi lives would have been spared," Gayl said.

Innocent?

9 posted on 08/30/2007 1:20:22 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

I hate to post this, but haven’t the Iraqis begun to turn on the enemy because they use them as shields? I was under the impression they were growing weary of the barbarism. I could certainly understand the hesitancy to use this. However, It sounds totally awesome!


10 posted on 08/30/2007 2:25:22 AM PDT by momincombatboots (World changing power in the blood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Actually, they were going to deploy the system in Iraq; however, they couldn’t find enough frickin’ sharks.


11 posted on 08/30/2007 2:29:37 AM PDT by Redcloak (The 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting goods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“It’s a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it out of concern that the weapon itself might be seen as a torture device.”

It’s unfortunate so many have died as this device could have saved those lives.

Allied with the Terrorists, the Democrats and the MSM would distort the power, and the effects of this device for advantage in their War On Commonsense. The Pentagon is absolutely correct in their appraisal.


12 posted on 08/30/2007 4:44:57 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I thought Bush was giving the Officers in the combat zone what the asked for, when they asked.

Looks like the PC crowd is making the decisions.


13 posted on 08/30/2007 4:48:06 AM PDT by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"...even the most puddin headed worry wart would see the value of this crowd control weapon."

Of course they're against it. By reducing civilian deaths in Iraq ADS would deprive the 'pudding heads' their entitlement to criticize the troops and influence foreign policy.

14 posted on 08/30/2007 5:12:57 AM PDT by Justa (Politically Correct is morally wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon
Such as the Oinkanator spray gun.

I know, I need more coffee.
:-)

15 posted on 08/30/2007 5:29:18 AM PDT by mcshot ("Bad Wood! Bad wood needs to be replaced with good wood" Arachnophobia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I don't want them to get a "sense" that they are on fire....

I want them to actually "catch" on fire....that would be great.

Unfortunately a couple of moldy muzzie women would throw hot water on their kids and claim that the "ray gun" burned them.

too predictable. but funny.

16 posted on 08/30/2007 6:28:47 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne
I thought Bush was giving the Officers in the combat zone what the asked for, when they asked.

Looks like the PC crowd is making the decisions.

NewsBusters did a bit of digging into this story. Bottom line -- For all the talk, this system doesn't exist other than at the prototype stage. It has not been field-tested and is not yet deployable.

FR link

17 posted on 08/30/2007 7:01:15 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Justa

Oh they’d still do that. If there weren’t a single civilian casualty, there would be a charge of imperialism or some such.


18 posted on 08/30/2007 8:21:02 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Yep. Everyone can stop wringing their hands now.

THIS WEAPON DOES NOT EVEN EXIST YET.

Just more MSM assaulting our military.


19 posted on 08/30/2007 8:23:20 AM PDT by Tex Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bob
I wonder if the laser can cause blindness if beamed directly into the eyes of a target.
20 posted on 08/30/2007 8:26:08 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
I wonder if the laser can cause blindness if beamed directly into the eyes of a target.

I may have missed it but I didn't see anything in the article indicating that it was definitely a laser-based system. 'Energy beams' aren't necessarily lasers.

21 posted on 08/30/2007 9:05:07 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Okay, my mistake.


22 posted on 08/30/2007 9:23:24 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
the Active Denial System gives people hit by the invisible beam the sense that their skin is on fire. They move out of the way quickly and without injury.

I'm having happy thoughts of that little Iranian Ima Whackjob running around like Michael Jackson with his hair on fire.

23 posted on 08/30/2007 9:30:25 AM PDT by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We need to try this one out at home on the anti-globalist and MoveOn demonstrators. If it doesn’t kill any of them, then deploy it to the combat zone.


24 posted on 08/30/2007 11:11:48 AM PDT by RightWingConspirator (Redefeat Communism by defeating Hitlary in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob
...this system doesn't exist other than at the prototype stage.

I bet we've paid a deuce and a half full of money for it so far though!

25 posted on 08/30/2007 2:33:55 PM PDT by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: airborne
...this system doesn't exist other than at the prototype stage.

I bet we've paid a deuce and a half full of money for it so far though!

While that is probably true, a prototype system could still be a very long way from being deployable.

26 posted on 08/30/2007 3:16:15 PM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If you read the article closely, you will see that the “ray gun” doesn’t even exist as a weapons system. There are some lab test examples and Raytheon has built something on their own.

This story is just an excuse for the AP to bash American soldiers.


27 posted on 08/30/2007 3:37:55 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson