U.S. Military Warms To Heat-Ray Gun
President Saddam Hussein had been gone from Iraq for just a few weeks, and U.S. forces in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, already were 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 nonlethal weapon developed over the past decade.
Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested the device. It uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.
It is a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it because of the possibility that the weapon 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 that depict 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 nonlethal 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 2004 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.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 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 nonlethal weapon developed over the past decade.
Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested the device. It uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.
It is a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it because of the possibility that the weapon 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 that depict 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 nonlethal 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 2004 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.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular on CBSNews.com
- U.K. police announce new leads in missing girl case
- S. Korea: N. Korea launches short-range missiles
- Photos of the Week 21 Photos
- Plane catches fire landing in Moscow
- Plane catches fire on Moscow runway Play Video
- Drone technology myths, facts and future feats
- Dramatic video appears to show 747 crash in Afghanistan
- Russia: CIA spy arrested in Moscow
The Canadian police were caught in flagrant delecti acting as agent provacateurs at the recent New World Order, NAU, Security confab... in Seattle they used the same methods--dressed up like anarchist with masks, threw rocks at the uniformed police from the shelter of a peaceful crowd and then withdrew before the order was given to riot police to attack that crowd-- some of the ''anarchists'' were later observed going into the police department offices. This was also done in Genoa, Italy.
You may remember the photo of the soldier shooting a wounded and unarmed Iraqi, following a claim that he was pretending to be dead, with a statement to the effect "well, now he''s dead". The cameraman didn''t feel the need to kill the guy. The soldier suffered no punishments so far as I know.
Just because a weapon disables rather than kills doesn''t mean that killing force will not also be used. The record says that killing force will also be used. I don''t see any reason the believe otherwise.
So saving lives is really not a consideration. The consideration is whether it will be effective in supporting a reasonable mission and I don''t think it will be.
Your milage may vary. :)
What will actually happen if the weapon is deployed is that it will be used as a terror weapon to discourage public crowds and perhaps combat roles in conjunction with regular lethal weapons.
The terror use against crowds is likely to encourage violent counter action. The combat advantage seems to be slight or maybe even negative because of the limitations of the thing.
I think it is a bad weapon.
The primary problem the military faces in crowd control is the difficulty of merging military and law enforcement missions and mindsets.
I''m not sure it can be done. Police don''t write off collateral damage.
Posted by Cpt_Bombardo at 09:44 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
Bullets or neither. Either way there will be no misunderstandings.
Of course any weapon which causes a feeling of burning up it will result in injuries from disorientation. In addition I am the feeling of burning is accompanied by enduring physical damage. Second degree burns are reported for at least two people of the x people exposed. I wonder who they were.
Those exposed to it will likely treat those who use it as deadly enemies.
I don%u2019t think it will solve any battlefield problems.
The military could solve some crowd management issues by practicing restraint rather than the kind of reckless behavior that causes even our allies to run for cover.
The prospect, which Mr. Lardner mentions, of it being used for torture is certainly disturbing. Considering the record of dishonor that the US military has recently displayed at even the highest levels it makes sense to be extra careful about deploying such weapons.
The nanny govt is a bully.
So who is the blame..
This looks like an excellent target for an RPG, as would anyone that would use one of these torture machines on anyone else.