Our non leathal ray-gun is actually a massive death ray in disguise huh?

[SUBMAN1]

I always wondered what would happen if you just crank up the power. This makes complete sense. The only reason this thing isn't fielded is that it's a political correctness nightmare. Field the damn thing already!

Apparently you can kill whole battalions instantly. I guess that makes sense if it can take down cows instantly.

-S

Background here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...und/v-mads.htm

Gaubatz on it:

The Ray Gun By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, April 03, 2008
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first Federal Agent (civilian) to enter Iraq in 2003. Currently the Director of the Mapping Shari'a project and owner of Wahhabi Counter-terrorism publications providing first-hand intelligence for law enforcement and CT professionals.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


Gaubatz: Thank you and again it is an honor.


FP: So tell us about the 'Active Denial' Program – the Ray Gun. What is it and what’s the issue? The Pentagon informed 60 Minutes (CBS) that the Ray Gun could not be used in Iraq . But your experience and evidence suggests that that is not true. What’s the story here?


Gaubatz: Before I discuss the Ray Gun issue I want to inform your readers that 60 Minutes (CBS) Producer Mary Walsh telephoned me last week to discuss my allegations pertaining to the false and very inaccurate report conducted by 60 Minutes. She asked for documentation to prove my knowledge of the system and why their report is false. I provided the documentation. She wrote back and wanted to know why the Pentagon had lied to her. I essentially informed Ms. Walsh that she should ask them since it has hurt the credibility of her and the 60 Minutes staff. Readers can view the documents on my site at www.kidsandterrorism.com.


FP: Ok. So tell us about the Ray Gun and what 60 Minutes did.


Gaubatz: It may be better to provide the 60 Minutes version of what it is, and its capability, and why the Pentagon informed Ms. Walsh the ‘Ray Gun’ could not be used in Iraq .


The following is from the CBS report. I have taken three of their first set of paragraphs and put the factual information under each of their statements. The readers will begin to see from my responses that the Ray Gun is exactly opposite from what 60 Minutes reported. Meaning- -The Ray Gun is a very lethal weapon and was designed to kill, not as a non-lethal weapon as described by 60 Minutes. The Ray Gun was designed at Kirtland AFB, NM, and had been tested there for many years prior to 2003. The weapon was operational in 2003 and should have been deployed to Iraq during the first month of the war. American lives could have been saved then. Now five years later the Pentagon is clearly attempting to cover up another error by using 60 Minutes as their voice piece to say the weapon is non-lethal and this is why it was not deployed. This major lapse in miscalculation is not a Republican nor Democratic problem, but a combination of both parties making mistakes. Below begins the CBS Report and my response:


(CBS) 1: What if we told you the Pentagon has a ray gun? And what if we told you it can stop a person in his tracks without killing or even injuring him? Well, it’s true. You can’t see it, you can't hear it, but as CBS News correspondent David Martin experienced first hand, you can feel it.

Gaubatz: The Pentagon has had an operational “Ray Gun” since early in 2003. The Ray Gun was designed to be a lethal weapon. It can kill, injury the person very badly, or just slightly depending on the setting of the mechanisms. if they want to show the ‘Ray gun’ to news media and some politicians who advocate non-lethal weapons, and are usually the same politicians who have advocated getting our troops out of Iraq months before they were even sent there, they bring in a journalist and ‘feed’ him/her the non-lethal story. Otherwise know as liberals who know less about the Ray Gun than they do basic fundamentals of war.
(CBS) 2: Pentagon officials call it a major breakthrough which could change the rules of war and save huge numbers of lives in Iraq. But it's still not there. That because in the middle of a war, the military just can't bring itself to trust a weapon that doesn't kill.

Gaubatz: The Pentagon officials have intentionally lied. Again the breakthrough was made in 2002/2003, at Kirtland AFB, NM. The Pentagon admits it could save huge numbers of lives in Iraq if only it were operational and a lethal weapon. The Pentagon official says this weapon can’t kill. This mystical Pentagon official purposely did not reveal his name, because he knows there are people like me who know the truth. The American public were simply lied to. The Ray Gun was designed at the AFRL/DE facility, Kirtland AFB, NM, was/is operational, and can kill.


From 2000 until I deployed to Saudi and subsequently Iraq in Jan 2003, I was the Special Agent in Charge for the protection of this technology. I was very surprised when I read the 60 Minutes article and then saw their report. This system required a Top Secret/SCI plus Security Clearance, just to get within a hundred yards of the building and adjacent field it was being tested and evaluated in. It bothered me the Government had spent millions and millions of dollars on this technology, and then released it. What wasn’t a surprise was the fact the Pentagons officials lied about the real intentions and capabilities of this weapon. AFRL/DE (Directed Energy) does not spend millions of dollars and have the worlds leading scientists develop a weapon that can only ‘hurt’ an enemy of war. The brightest scientist assigned to Kirtland AFB design weapons that are lethal (otherwise known as a weapon that can actually kill).


(CBS) 3: Col. Kirk Hymes, head of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, are in charge of the ray gun which is being tested at Moody Air Force Base in southern Georgia.

The targets at the base are people, military volunteers creating a scenario soldiers might encounter in Iraq, like angry protestors advancing on American troops, who have to choose between backing down or opening fire. Off in the distance, half a mile away, the operator of the ray gun has the crowd in his sights.

Unlike the soldiers on the ground, he has no qualms about firing away because his weapon won't injure anyone.

Gaubatz: Col Hymes was not in charge of the Ray Gun in 2003, nor several years prior to this. Director Bruce Simpson from Kirtland AFB, AFRL/DE was in charge of all DE technology, which included the Ray Gun. Col Kirk Hymes is a yes man. If higher Pentagon officials tell him to inform 60 Minutes the Ray Gun is a non-lethal weapon and was only recently operational, he is the man who will salute and say ‘Yes Sir’. After myself serving 20 plus years on active duty I can sometimes agree with Col Hymes.; unless it is an unlawful order that can put American troops in harms way and will lead many of them to unnecessary deaths. Then Col Hymes has a responsibility to put the security and best interest of the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan first. To do otherwise means 4000 current troops’ deaths will double and then triple.


I believe the loved ones of the fallen soldiers would tell Col. Hymes to either tell the truth or retire from service.

FP: Ok, so let’s crystallize this: the Ray Gun has been reported by 60 Minutes and Pentagon officials as a non-lethal weapon. You're saying this is completely false?


Gaubatz: The Ray Gun was designed as a lethal weapon. During my conversation with Ms. Mary Walsh, she advised she was told by Pentagon officials the Ray Gun had been tested on animals. I was very surprised to hear this because Pentagon officials have just confirmed animals are used for testing of weapons such as the Ray Gun at Kirtland AFB. I coordinated the security when the truck loads of animals were being brought in during the middle of the night. Dead animals can’t speak, but if a goat or 500 pound cow can be killed almost instantly with the Ray Gun, then I believe most readers can safely assume a 175 pound man or woman could also die instantly from the intense heat.


The weapon could have been used in early 2003. Before I left for Iraq I had numerous meetings with AFRL/DE engineers and scientists. I knew the capabilities of the weapons. The scientists and their Directors asked me to test and evaluate the DE weapons at Kirtland AFB. I did this immediately after 11 Sep 2001. For several months, the weapons were operational and ready for use in Iraq .


FP: You were the Special Agent assigned from 2000-2003 to oversee the protection of this technology. Expand for us on your personal experience in -- and knowledge on -- this matter.


Gaubatz:I worked directly with the engineers, scientists, Security technology personnel, and the Director of AFRL/DE. During this time I received numerous awards from AFRL/DE pertaining to my knowledge of the DE weapons. It is well documented I protected this technology from getting into the hands of the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians who were daily ‘pinging’ our classified computer systems attempting to steal the technology.


FP: Then the Ray Gun could still save many American soldiers’ lives?


Gaubatz: This is my major concern. When I returned from Iraq in late 2003, I was requested to brief the AFRL/DE Director (Bruce Simpson). I informed Director Simpson the “Ray Gun” and “Boss Surveillance System” should immediately be deployed to Iraq . I provided the following examples for its operational use:


1st example: When a young soldier is at his guard post and he/she suspected a vehicle coming toward his gate is hostile and is not following commands, the soldier’s next step is to attempt to neutralize the suspected suicide bomber. The soldier aims his M-16 or 9mm at the vehicle and begins firing rounds. Sometimes this is enough, but more often than not the suicide bomber crashes into the gate and kills many innocent people. If a decision has been made to shoot at a vehicle suspected of carrying bombs, would it not protect our young soldier more if he could fire a laser shot from the Ray Gun at the suspect vehicle and its occupants? They would be stopped immediately and the only ones who would die would be the murderers attempting to kill one of our troops.


2nd example: When our soldiers are engaged in a firefight which often last hours and days, and results in many deaths from both sides, it would benefit our soldiers if we could use the Ray Gun. The Ray Gun can send a signal at least a football field in width from a long distance from the target and take out (kill) hundreds of enemies within a few seconds. Few if any American troops would need to die.


Many of the suicide attacks and firefights are in towns, cities, and residential, business areas. If the honest Iraqis knew we had a weapon that would kill everyone within a city block if an attack on American troops was made, the honest Iraqis would begin forcing the terrorists and their supporters out.


FP: So the Ray Gun is a PC problem right?


Gaubatz: Yes, the Ray Gun is a major political correctness problem. A weapon that can instantly kill entire battalions is not a weapon our politicians believe the American people could accept. If the Pentagon officials were to speak with a mother, father, wife, or other loved ones who died a very painful death by one of the terrorisst, they may disagree with the politicians. They may look the politician in the face and say, “every day my children ask where their father is and is he coming back, unfortunately I have to cry and tell them he will not be coming back.” This simply means PC comes first, and then the lives of our brave troops suffer. Possibly I have been wrong for my 48 years of life, with 23 plus being in Federal Service, but as an old Master Sergeant and then a civilian Federal Agent, I felt it was my responsibility to protect the people serving under me, even at the risk of my own life.


FP: Are there documents to legitimize your position?


Gaubatz: Yes, the Director of AFRL/DE personally wrote me a letter after I returned from Iraq. He thanked me for evaluating the DE weapons and providing the front line insight into the capabilities of the weapons use in Iraq. The AFRL/DE Director was Bruce Simspon (General Equivalent). He was a good man and leader. He wanted to use these weapons in Iraq, but people senior to even him prevented this valuable weapon from being deployed. In addition I received other U.S. Govt. awards pertaining to this issue. Several documents were provided to Ms. Mary Walsh.


FP: Why did 60 Minutes provide this information to the country without double checking it? They are putting our soldiers’ lives in greater danger, no?



Gaubatz: I want to believe Ms. Mary Walsh had good intentions and believed the information she was being provided was accurate. Ms. Walsh knows the 60 Minutes story is now false and Pentagon officials lied to her. The big question is rather: will 60 Minutes admit they made a huge mistake which continues to put our soldier’s lives in danger everyday. Each day that goes by and another soldier dies should weigh heavily on every member of 60 Minutes. Each mother who is handed a letter from a Pentagon official advising their son or daughter was killed in Iraq, should write a letter to Mary Walsh and ask her how she can continue not to reveal the truth.

I can sleep easy at night because I have always brought out the truth in regards to issues in Iraq. Can Mary Walsh, David Martin (60 Minutes), and the Pentagon officials?


FP: Dave Gaubatz, thank you for joining us.


Gaubatz: Thank you very much and as we are slowly finding out over the years, the truth will reveal itself eventually.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Article...A-277DAD7E766B

[joegrundman]

I didn't know about this. What is it? how big is it? how does it work? Where can i get one?

As for dealing with the content...well..political considerations are important and also.

a) in the invasion of iraq, the ratio of american/british deaths to iraqi deaths was extremely favourable with the weapons that are currently deployed

b) his instance of zapping a car full of suicide bombers is valid but it depends i guess on how cheap and quick to deploy they are

c) his instance of zapping an entire city block pour encouragez les autres, is somewhat....extreme. Thankfully this guy, with his notable lack of humanity, is not a field commander. But really you have had this capabilty with other weapons for a long time and wiping out city blocks for this sort of thing is avoided for reasons other than not having the weapons.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

I didn't know about this. What is it? how big is it? how does it work? Where can i get one?

As for dealing with the content...well..political considerations are important and also.

a) in the invasion of iraq, the ratio of american/british deaths to iraqi deaths was extremely favourable with the weapons that are currently deployed

yes, but some still see 4,000:400,000 ratio to be not good enough, and quite frankly, less dead on our side, the better.

b) his instance of zapping a car full of suicide bombers is valid but it depends i guess on how cheap and quick to deploy they are

Easy to deploy - mounts on a Humvee

c) his instance of zapping an entire city block pour encouragez les autres, is somewhat....extreme. Thankfully this guy, with his notable lack of humanity, is not a field commander. But really you have had this capabilty with other weapons for a long time and wiping out city blocks for this sort of thing is avoided for reasons other than not having the weapons.

Go back to WWII - civi's are not exempt from being targets. In reality, they are a teir 5 target, and an important one - break the will of the people, and you eventually win the war. Examples are firebombing germany's civi poulation, and using the atomic bombs in Japan.

-S

[joegrundman]

Thanks for the reply.. but how does it work. Do you have pictures? the future is now! Robots and deathrays and we first-worlders can enjoy our future wars from the comfort of our internet portals.

To respond to your comments - let's not forget there have been two distinct stages to this conflict

First, the actual invasion where we were more-or-less formally at-war with Iraq saw nowhere near 4000 american casualties. The vast majority of american casualties have been in the counter-insurgency phase.

Secondly, even in that phase, we were at pains to explain how we were not arriving as enemies of the iraqi people, but as liberators, and we were therefore keen to avoid the use of anything other than precision weapons. Besides, there were no insurgents holed up in the civilian population at teh time.

Thirdly, in the kind of instance the author was describing, it is clearly in the counter-insurgency phase, in which we are most certainly not at war with the general poplauce, and in fact claim to be fighting for them.

Fourthly, even in the extreme conditions of ww2, there are valid questions over the degree to which civilians were targetted.

Lastly, using some military jargon doesn't make it so. Who knows, perhaps in the dark recesses of the CIA, Conservative American Forum Denizens are a tier n category

[Dowly]

This' the same deal when some "ex-scientist" comes forth and tells he was researching an UFO at Groomlake.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Dowly

This' the same deal when some "ex-scientist" comes forth and tells he was researching an UFO at Groomlake.

Hardly. Gaubatz is well known.

And if you have a milimeter wave system, what exactly is preventing you from upping the power? Nothing. It generates little heat even. THis is how you get excellent radar coverage on an AH-64 Longbow for example.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

...Lastly, using some military jargon doesn't make it so. Who knows, perhaps in the dark recesses of the CIA, Conservative American Forum Denizens are a tier n category

Somewhere I have the US military's tier structure. I will find it. Civi's are last on the list (tier 5), but an important target nontheless.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Go back to WWII - civi's are not exempt from being targets. In reality, they are a teir 5 target, and an important one - break the will of the people, and you eventually win the war. Examples are firebombing germany's civi poulation, and using the atomic bombs in Japan.

-S

I agree 1,000% with you. I'm not suggesting we firebomb civi populations like we did in WWII. But the civillian population of the enemy is strangely insulated from "GWOT", at least officially. God forbid we actually decide to WIN a war every now and then, though. But...topic for another thread I suppose.

PD

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

That's surprisingly naive from such a specialist, isn't it ?
That weapon makes me think about "Greek fire" :hmm:

Greek Fire indeed. If we put one there it would only be a matter of time before someone figured out a way to steal one, and then where are we? New weapons are fun, but anything you can use on someone else can be used on you as well.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...If we put one there it would only be a matter of time before someone figured out a way to steal one....

I'd highly doubt that.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Agreed Steve, I hope that this stuff will get lost like the Greek Fire circa 1400 something I think. There's a story about a frenchman who rediscovered the formula by mistake circa 1700, he submitted it to Louis XV who ditched it and paid the man not to reveal the formula to anyone else, because the effects were so terrible that he thought it was inhuman to use it

Millimeter wave based radar and beam rays are not something that are secret. So as the saying goes, if the US didn't build it, someone else will.

-S

[Ishmael]

It's called the Active Denial System. I'm sure we'll see it deployed at the conventions this summer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Somewhere I have the US military's tier structure. I will find it. Civi's are last on the list (tier 5), but an important target nontheless.

-S

yes, you miss the point. nevermind

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I agree 1,000% with you. I'm not suggesting we firebomb civi populations like we did in WWII. But the civillian population of the enemy is strangely insulated from "GWOT", at least officially. God forbid we actually decide to WIN a war every now and then, though. But...topic for another thread I suppose.

PD

OK periscope depth, i'll bite. The us isn't winning because it's not fighting properly in your opinion.

let's see what your solution is to ending the GWOT with a victory and having the whole world love america like you do through the means of bringing the war to the civil population. (like they haven't already realised it's going on - you know how many iraqis have sought asylum in europe since you "liberated" the place?)

Raze a few city blocks in baghdad?

Perhaps you could try random torture and execution? Say, if there's a
suicide bomb that kills an american soldier, you could publicly torture (or the american name for it) 50 residents in the area before shooting them.

perhaps if an insurgent is caught, you could nail his entire family to trees?

[Takao]

Sounds like a lot of self-serving bull to me.

Guess Gaubatz has never heard of a HERF gun before. Cheap and effective, good for stopping cars made after the mid-1980's, not as effective on earlier cars made mostly of steel and lacking on-board computers. Or, maybe, it's because most of the US military casualties have come from IED's, bullets, & rockets. Not from Suicide bombers which is what Gaubatz would have us believe.

To quote Gaubatz:
"Each mother who is handed a letter from a Pentagon official advising their son or daughter was killed in Iraq, should write a letter to Mary Walsh and ask her how she can continue not to reveal the truth."

Why yes Mr./Mrs. America, your son/daughter would still be alive today if only Uncle Sam had used Dave Gaubatz's handy-dandy sooper-dooper peachy-keen nifty little "Ray Gun". It stops everything including the kitchen sink!
Now, this guy is one good snake oil salesman.

His "Death Ray" sounds like it would be good against enemy troops caught out in the open. However, Baghdad being a city and all, has a lot of these things called "buildings", that I'm guessing would either absorb or reflect most of the energy headed it's way. This coupled with the fact that you might kill the few enemy Iraqis shooting at you, you'd also kill many more who are friendly or neutral torwards the US.

THIS. IS. A. BAD. IDEA.

This guy reminds me of an ex-girlfriend of mine. She had more book smarts than many people I've met, but very little in the way of common sense.

You can sum up the Gaubatz interview in one sentence:
"Nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark."