|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Pentagon Nixes Ray Gun Weapon in Iraq|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
|
||
|
|
Member |
Put our troops in harms way but don't use the latest technology to protect them. Sounds about like the Pentagon "politically fearful pansies".
|
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale  |
Saw this on "Future Weapons" a few months ago. Problem with this thing is that it is a line of sight weapon. Anything getting between the "weapon" and an aggressor would render it ineffective. Nice try, but back to the drawing board. Have a good day!~!
  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member Old Fart #00  |
Haul it out and light 'em up!
|
|||
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
Are not most assault weapons "line of sight"? |
|||
|
|
Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JM5555:
you mean we knock down our enemies while they kill us????? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I have no problem with making them drop their weapons and run tactics. By the way, guns are line of sight weapons too.
|
|||
|
New Member |
I guess I will have to shelf my light sabre design as well the penagon is not buying, lol
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I think the idea of the weapon was to knock down our enemies BEFORE the get a chance to kill us  the idea made too much sense and was a quick and effective solution, naturally the military rejected it |
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale |
Absolutely true, Sir! However, as with most assault weapons, the projectiles can normally penetrate those shields that can defeat this new super weapon. Anything of substance, such as a simple shield made out of plywood will stop this thing. Even a .22 can penetrate the plywood. NOt sure of paper or cardboard, but even rudamenty shielding defeats the super weapon. Sooooooooooo, perhaps those "rubber" bullets my be better. Have a good day!~! |
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you mean now. |
|||
|
New Member |
Still they have have to have cover themselves up. They can't show any skin right? So they would also have heat stroke trouble like our guys in MOPP 4. Gee whould that just give the enemy something to think about?
|
|||
|
Member |
Am I to beleive that the AP is calling for the use of this weapon? If we were to arm our troops in Iraq with this weapon, the AP would be the first to deem it a weapon of terror, if not worse.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
Why not give it a shot? Have one for each company. Take it to events you know will have a huge civilian crowd and utilize it. May even be good crowd control. Not the answer for every situation, but it may work in some cases. Now... is it worth the money when the F-22 is having fiscal issues?
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
I read the blog on the navys jamming ray and the anti personal ray and I understand that the system i a line of sight weapon yet that is not a reason to consider it useless. here arte the reasons, first in stay put situations the system would defend the area one defends. Ie. police training facilities. Who needs to be close anyway. Police stations, one access? who needs to come in the back door. Second response situations where the area has to be controlled and too suppressed of secondary devices. So the inclusion of the navys electronic jamming system in conjuction from afar or close.
I have one other question and that is while things are line of sight so is the sight on your weapon. How much time do you need to get out of the way?? Last and most important, Can th navys jamming system identify the existence of a ied circut?????? Can it pinpoint a location. While it cant defuse it it can giv a location and a probability of risk. Car ieds the same. If its on the power line then its part of the circut. Id it locate it go get it. If a problem drop something on it. Line of sight may be a problem as is and that the way it is. But usless no. One more thing. Anything on a power line isolated or not must bend to the rule of voltage is the same along the line. Any light has a nutral. Is the nutral a entry to the circut behing the wall the door the object. Whatever it is it must have a power circut. That common to all circuts around the world. So its line of sight. What avenue are you looking at????? |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
If this is a microwave energy based weapon as the article leads you to believe, the effects might not just be skin deep. There isn't enough experience with this thing to accurately say what the long term effects are.
That alone is reason enough not to send it to Iraq. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
The Basic principles make sense. What I don't understand is why we can't just develop a weapon that shoots "rubber bullets" and real bullets. Oh, we already have! Stick to what works, this weapon is not "needed".
|
|||
|
|
Member |
The trouble is, is that the same high ranking officers that want the weapon would more than likely be shouting to the operator to not use it. To use extreme caution. Deeming the weapon useless anyway. Where are the non-coms with their views on the weapon in Iraq. That's what I'd be interested in. I already have my opinion on the use of it in Iraq. Also, again with the AP stating the number of civilian casualties in Iraq as though they were all created by the U.S. military. I wish militarytimes would find another source.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Twice, I had to pull loved ones out of mobs that had started peacefully enough; but then became violent. They weren't demonstrations against war or global warming. They were music "festivals". In both cases,low-lifes which I will understatedly call "troublemakers", deliberately sowed excitement then fear and panic. Kids were getting crushed. So was I, as I waded into the masses to break up the phalanxes and give people enough room to catch their breaths and to escape.
Based on this firsthand experience, I can imagine a development in which the front and middle sections of a demonstration against U.S. occupying forces could not get away and could not avoid the laser beam. At the very least, their pain would be prolonged and excruciating. But more than likely, serious injuries would be common. There could be some horrible deaths suffered by many who were overexposed and/or crushed in the ensuing mayhem. I am glad that the Department of Defense did not use this weapon in Iraq, nor anywhere else, against civilians. The real mistake has been to put our troops in situations where they must act like riot police instead of military men. I had some training in the use of soldiers as riot police twice: once with the 8th SFG in Panama, and another time with the 1st SFG in Okinawa. We were issued gas masks because it was expected that tear gas would be used. And we were supposed to use our M-16s pretty much as if we had bayonets attached. Fortunately, nothing ever came of either threat of riots against the "occupying power". |
|||
|
|
New Member |
The system works. I had the chance to be an aggressor for the 820th SF here at Moody AFB when they trained for an upcoming deployment. They were training to use the ADS(same one seen in future weapons). And it is not as much as a pin-point targeting system like a rifle. It was able to cover our large crowd of approx 50. It affected us all even those way in the back. It only took a split second for them to fire when we posed as a threat. It hurts until you run around a corner. Some hit the ground from the pain. I just ran like a little girl. It was like getting too close to a camp fire.
My thoughts were to send this now!! |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Pentagon Nixes Ray Gun Weapon in Iraq
