60 Minutes has a report on their website here , complete with video (which I encourage people to watch). This report is about a weapon in development that is one of the most incredible things I've ever seen. It is literally a "ray gun" that emits a high energy (100,000 watts) beam that can "zap" people from a half mile away. The beam doesn't cause any physical damage to the person, but it hurts like hell until they get away from it. Then, they're fine. It's perfect for dispersing an angry mob without causing any harm.

This weapon is still in development, but they have a working model and in the video demonstrate it on the reporter. What's holding up production on this thing is resistance from some in the Pentagon to a non-lethal weapon and it only has 13 MILLION of funding this year.

So, I encourage people to watch the video at the link I provided and answer the following questions for debate:

1. Is this a useful weapon for our armed forces? For our own police departments for riot control?

2. Should the funding level be increased to get this thing operational and sent to Iraq and Afghanistan?


Aquilla

I love this thing.
Can I have one for home use---dang kids.

Seems like a no brainer to me. Often crowd issues result in tragedy as people get swept up and stop thinking rationally. Being able to repulse a situation with what amounts to a laser powered B slap should automatically IMO get the green light for this project. Only the most deranged will continue on and try to advance. These would be easy to drop with the sponge shooting shotguns.

Only 13 million?
Even better. Seems to me to be ready to go at a cheap price. Fully fund it and get it going.



Got my vote.

1. Is this a useful weapon for our armed forces? For our own police departments for riot control?

I’m not certain how useful it will be in a tactical situation. There hasn’t been a rash of angry demonstrations in Iraq in quite some time, Iraqi’s learned soon after the invasion that demonstrations weren’t effective in attaining US cooperation, and in many cases simply got civilians killed.
Not to mention the fact that if we are being required to disperse angry mobs of citizens in a country that we occupy, that sort takes away from the argument that we’re there to support them in the first place.

I notice the sentence in the article “as long as it’s being used properly.”

I also notice the following: Sue Payton believes this gun would save "huge" numbers of lives in Iraq.

"Do you ever look at what’s happening in Iraq and say, 'We’ve gotta get this thing there faster,'?" Martin asks.

If angry mobs haven’t been a recent problem in Iraq, why on earth would there be such a rush to get an Active Denial System over there pronto? Pardon me if this crinkles my tinfoil, but not only do I not see the tactical value of this weapon AT PRESENT, but I see it being used as a crutch against protests here at home by overzealous Police Departments. The conspiracy theorist in me could be led to believe that they wish to try this system out on the guinea pigs [I mean Iraqi’s] first.

I can maybe see some value with this system in controlling a prison riot. I am not thrilled at the prospect of Police Departments having it.

2. Should the funding level be increased to get this thing operational and sent to Iraq and Afghanistan?

No. I would much rather see more money going into a better assault rifle, Identification Friend or Foe systems and internal unit communications gear that actually works.

But all that isn’t as sexy as a ‘Buck Rogers’ weapon.

It appears to be usefull but I cannot for the life of me understand why they are not using it. This thing could disperse crowds but then again so can other tactics. Apparently it's not ready for prime time but I'm still unclear why. Thirteen million dollars might seem like chump change to the Pentagon but it sounds like a lot of peoples blood, sweat and tears to me. I say they either find a way to make it useful or stop wasting the tax payers money on useless toys and gadgets.