[Infowarrior] - NLW: Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

[Richard Forno]

Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

By David Hambling| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Dec, 05, 2006
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,72134-0.html

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole
right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been
dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you
stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else
is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for
use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

According to documents obtained for Wired News under federal sunshine laws,
the Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after
lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength
than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength)
compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used
properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim
that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top
layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt
and highly motivated escape behavior." In human tests, most subjects reached
their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure
more than 5 seconds.

"It will repel you," one test subject said. "If hit by the beam, you will
move out of it -- reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to
experience it again."

But while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the
documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, "some volunteers who
tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters,"
the Air Force experiments concluded.

The reports describe an elaborate series of investigations involving human
subjects.

The volunteers were military personnel: active, reserve or retired, who
volunteered for the tests. They were unpaid, but the subjects would "benefit
from direct knowledge that an effective nonlethal weapon system could soon
be in the inventory," said one report. The tests ranged from simple exposure
in the laboratory to elaborate war games involving hundreds of participants.

The military simulated crowd control situations, rescuing helicopter crews
in a Black Hawk Down setting and urban assaults. More unusual tests involved
alcohol, attack dogs and maze-like obstacle courses.

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one
instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents
claim.

The ADS was developed in complete secrecy for 10 years at a cost of $40
million. Its existence was revealed in 2001 by news reports, but most
details of ADS human testing remain classified. There has been no
independent checking of the military's claims.

The ADS technology is ready to deploy, and the Army requested ADS-armed
Strykers for Iraq last year. But the military is well aware that any adverse
publicity could finish the program, and it does not want to risk distressed
victims wailing about evil new weapons on CNN.

This may mean yet more rounds of testing for the ADS.

New bombs can be rushed into service in a matter of weeks, but the process
is more complex for nonlethal weapons. It may be years before the debates
are resolved and the first directed-energy nonlethal weapon is used in
action.

The development of a truly safe and highly effective nonlethal crowd-control
system could raise enormous ethical questions about the state's use of
coercive force. If a method such as ADS leads to no lasting injury or harm,
authorities may find easier justifications for employing them.

Historically, one of the big problems with nonlethal weapons is that they
can be misused. Rubber bullets are generally safe when fired at the torso,
but head impacts can be dangerous, particularly at close range. Tasers can
become dangerous if they are used on subjects who have previously been
doused with flammable pepper spray. In the heat of the moment, soldiers or
police can forget their safety training.

Steve Wright of Praxis, the Center for the Study of Information and
Technology in Peace, Conflict Resolution and Human Rights, notes that there
are occasions when this has happened in the past. He cites British soldiers,
who increased the weight of baton rounds in Northern Ireland.

"Soldiers flouted the rules of engagement, doctoring the bullets by
inserting batteries (to increase the weight) and firing at closer ranges
than allowed," says Wright.

There may also be technical issues. Wright cites a recent report on CS gas
sprays which turned out to be more dangerous in the field than expected.

"No one had bothered to check how the sprays actually performed in practice,
and they yielded much more irritant than was calculated in the weapon
specification. This underlines the need for independent checking of any
manufacturers' specifications. Here secrecy is the enemy of safety."

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims
this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively
blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the
sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage
heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.

"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury
because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea,"
the report says.

The risk of cancer is also often mentioned in connection with the ADS
system, despite the shallow penetration of radiation into the skin.

But the Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has
not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were
exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force
radiation standard. The Air Force claims the exposure was justified by
demonstrating the safety of the ADS system.

The beam penetrates clothing, but not stone or metal. Blocking it is harder
than you might think. Wearing a tinfoil shirt is not enough -- you would
have to be wrapped like a turkey to be completely protected. The
experimenters found that even a small exposed area was enough to produce the
Goodbye effect, so any gaps would negate protection. Holding up a sheet of
metal won't work either, unless it covers your whole body and you can keep
the tips of your fingers out of sight.

Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact
with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.

System 1, the operational prototype, is mounted on a Hummer and produces a
beam with a 2-meter diameter. Effective range is at least 500 meters, which
is further than rubber bullets, tear gas or water cannons. The ammunition
supply is effectively unlimited.

The military's tests went beyond safety, exploring how well the ADS works in
practice. In one war game, an assault team staged a mock raid on a building.
The ADS was used to remove civilians from the battlefield, separating what
the military calls "tourists from terrorists."

It was also used in a Black Hawk Down scenario, and maritime tests, which
saw the ADS deployed against small boats.

It might also be used on the battlefield. One war game deployed the ADS in
support of an assault, suppressing incoming fire and obstructing a
counterattack.

"ADS has the same compelling nonlethal effect on all targets, regardless of
size, age and gender," says Capt. Jay Delarosa, spokesman for the Joint
Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, which decides where and how the ADS might be
deployed.

"It can be used to deny an area to individuals or groups, to control access,
to prevent an individual or individuals from carrying out an undesirable
activity, and to delay or disrupt adversary activity."

The precise results of the military's war games are classified, but Capt.
Delarosa insists that the ADS has proven "both safe and effective in all
these roles."

The ADS comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. As well as System 1, a
smaller version has been fitted to a Stryker armored vehicle -- along with
other lethal and nonlethal weapons -- for urban security operations. Sandia
National Labs is looking at a small tripod-mounted version for defending
nuclear installations, and there is even a portable ADS. And there are
bigger versions too.

"Key technologies to enable this capability from an airborne platform --
such as a C-130 -- are being developed at several Air Force Research
Laboratory technology directorates," says Diana Loree, program manager for
the Airborne ADS.

The airborne ADS would supplement the formidable firepower of Special Forces
AC-130 gunships, which currently includes a 105-mm howitzer and 25-mm
Gatling guns. The flying gunboats typically engage targets at a range of two
miles or more, which implies an ADS far more powerful than System 1 has been
developed. But details of the exact power levels, range and diameter of the
beam are classified.