June 1, 2008
The Pentagon's Ray Gun
David Martin Reports On A Non-Lethal Weapon Straight Out Of Buck Rogers
-
Play CBS Video Video The Pentagon's Ray Gun Straight out of Buck Rogers and perfect for crowd control, this non-lethal weapon could help eliminate the deaths incurred while trying to control crowds, especially in Iraq. But it's not in Iraq yet, reports David Martin.
-
(CBS)
-
Interactive Military 101 Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
Payton's close encounter with the ray gun was two years ago. She was a big-shot from the Pentagon, so they dialed down the power of the beam.
But Payton wanted a full blast and she got it. She screamed and ran away when the beam hit her.
Asked what she thought of the system, Payton tells Martin, "I loved it. I started giggling."
"Giggle is not the usual response to pain," Martin remarks.
"Well, I giggled after I got zapped. You giggle because you realize you’re okay, and you realize that it had the effect that we want it to have," she explains.
The impulse to run the other way is so strong that anyone who keeps coming has to be considered a threat.
"It could be used to read someone's mind, in effect, because you immediately know what someone's intention is. If they continue to come at you, then you're fairly sure they're not a tourist. They're probably a terrorist or an adversary who wants to do you harm," Payton explains.
So far, the ray gun has been tested only against make-believe adversaries, protestors whose rage is about as real as the placards they're carrying. You have to wonder if a more determined enemy could beat the beam.
"I've got several layers on, but the beam is still coming through my clothes so I’m going to try some shields here. This is a piece of plywood. See how far this gets me. Ouch," Martin said, gearing up for another hit by the gun.
"It leaves too much of your body exposed. They got me down in my feet. So I’m going to try this mattress here. It will cover up more of my body," he said after getting zapped.
"It hurts, but I can keep going. Oh, that's enough. So that did protect me, but that’s a half mile to get where I'm trying to go and you kind of give yourself away if you walk around with a mattress," he remarked.
No one gave any thought to using the ray gun when the U.S. first invaded Iraq, but as the invasion turned to occupation, American troops started going eyeball to eyeball with Iraqis and couldn't tell who the enemy was and who was just angry.
Twenty civilians were killed in April 2003 when soldiers from the 82nd Airborne fired on threatening crowds in Fallujah. That prompted an e-mail to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from a senior military scientist who knew what the ray gun could do. "I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," the e-mail read.
Produced by Mary Walsh
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right


- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 210 CommentsRadiation''s effects long-term effects are subtle but deadly. Only rigorous, long-term clinical studies done by objective researchers over years can verify that the weapon ray is harmless to humans. Anecdotal assertions by the Pentagon prove nothing.
Years from now, your reckless reporter and other Pentagon volunteers may experience high rates of various cancers. Their children may suffer high rates of birth defects.
A retrospective clinical study done by trained medical researchers may prove then that ray weapon was not, in fact, harmless. But by then, it will be too late.
At that point, CBS 60 minutes will have another good story: How reckless the Pentagon had been back in 2008, and how a few volunteers and a CBS reporter had allowed themselves to be duped, tragically.
It will be a good story unless, because of a groundswell of public support due to your drum-beating story on Sunday, the Pentagon deploys the ray weapon worldwide prematurely before proper health studies are done. Then, the story will be very different. It will be a tragedy of untold proportions both medically and politically.
Ian, London.
2. Rules of engagement?? That sounds pretty hostile, CBS.
3. If we can''t discuss someone with "comparisons to Hitler" what do we do if we really think someone does look like Hitler? What did they do in Germany? Censorship and book burning....
4. How ''bout the choice of "hostile victims" for the ray gun? Now THAT image really sends a message, huh?
5. What happened to real investigative journalism? We could sure use some of that right now; my guess is that CBS''s own reporters would like to do some of that...how bout a story about what really happened with Rove and Siegelman for example, or their connections to organized crime/military in the South. Help, CBS...
This weapon is a precurser to murder not a preventative.
I''''m reasonably sure that Raytheon or somebody else has made the torture version and it is in use by the CIA and others right now.
Posted by CBS_Oliver
.. .. ..
Only from the mind of CBS_Oliver
I do not want anything from Iraq except to understand why we are there in the first place and why we are there now.
After that is understood, I want those repsonsible to held accountable.
The fact that its taken so long to approve this thing is proof that too many political hacks don''t want success in Iraq. I''d say to do one better and invent a gadget which remotely detonates these suicide bombers before they get close enough to hurt anyone.
The impulse to run the other way is so strong that anyone who keeps coming has to be considered a threat.
"It could be used to read someone''s mind, in effect, because you immediately know what someone''s intention is. If they continue to come at you, then you''re fairly sure they''re not a tourist. They''re probably a terrorist or an adversary who wants to do you harm," Payton explains.
I AGREE 100% - SHOOT AT THEM FIRST, DETERMINE THEIR THREAT LATER.
Declare lethal war on anyone tring to set up or operate such a device in OUR country. You have the right and DUTY as an American to speak your mind and to defend yourself and other from Death or grave bodily injury and this IS capable of injuring and killing on a mass scale.!
The constitution states this better not ever be used by the military on cilvilians the US (except maybe on a military base).
PS. If you see this vehicle driving or parked, crash into it. Don''t shoot at the antenna as it''s made to take damage. Only the generator providing power to the device, it''s computer or the operator or the officer autorizing its use would be a weak point. Aim well.
It makes most sense to fight armed enemies with lethal weapons and unarmed protesters with respectful leadership or, if violence develops, with methods like water cannons.
Weapons aimed at disabling large numbers of people will rightly be seen as vile.
David Martin and CBS should get some decent values and some backbone and stop pushing this thing for the military and Raytheon.
Even the idea of it makes enemies.
We have a problem! We spend more money on our military than the rest of the world COMBINED. Our priorities are no longer defensive or reasonable. Wake up America! Now you know why the government has to borrow money from the Chinese to fund the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was right!
This weapon is a precurser to murder not a preventative.
I''m reasonably sure that Raytheon or somebody else has made the torture version and it is in use by the CIA and others right now.
Being a Marine, I would rather not face an enemy (whose intentions are deadly) with a inside-out microwave oven that gives him a warm feeling. Besides, that phased-array dish on top looks like one Hell of a target.
Therein lies the problem, in the hands of a sadistic soldier, or later, a policeman, it won''t be used properly.
A few seconds of severe discomfort from this ray gun?
OR
A lingering death over several months of severe agony from conventional weapons after jagged shards of metal, moving at high velocity, have torn away considerable portions of your flesh and internal organs?
In fact, why is the kind of death I''ve just described considered as permissible in modern warfare while a quick death in a few minutes from Sarin is banned and so is an uncomfortable, but relatively quick death in a few days from an anthrax infection?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 210 Comments