| MARTIN: And one of the ray gun’s biggest advantages. It can stay out of harm’s way yet still control a crowd.
The one system we don’t see out here is the Active Denial System. Could you use that?
HEEL: Could we use it? Absolutely.
MARTIN: Sid Heel wants to use it to control prison riots. The Navy could use it to fend of Iranians with their go-fast boats harassing American warships in the Strait of Hormuz. The State Department could use it to protect American embassies like the one attacked by protestors in Belgrade. Yet the Pentagon is spending just $13.1 million on the ray gun this year out of a $475 billion defense budget.
Around here $13.1 million is peanuts.
PAYTON: Absolutely peanuts, you’re right.
MARTIN: Why, if this is a breakthrough technology that can change the rules –
PAYTON: Yes.
MARTIN: Why peanuts?
PAYTON: Well, we don’t have enough money to do the things that are the here and now, so it’s extremely competitive. Yes, 13 million is chump change. I regret that.
MARTIN: Could you have fielded it sooner if you had more money to spend on it?
PAYTON: Yes.
MARTIN: A report by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board says the military is reluctant to spend much money on Active Denial until it has proven itself in the field.
Sounds like a catch-22. You can’t get real money until it’s fielded, but you can’t field it until you get real money.
PAYTON: That’s exactly the way it is.
MARTIN: Colonel Hymes, who’s in charge of all non-lethal weapons for the Pentagon, says the ray gun will be ready to go to Iraq this summer, but it’s swimming against the tide of conventional military wisdom.
HYMES: The Active Denial System, being new technology, is going to have a lot of stigma around it.
MARTIN: I’ve never heard anybody use the word stigma with respect to a new weapon. If this system could kill people it would be easier to field.
HYMES: Lethal weapons have an easier time getting into our system.
MARTIN: You’re going up against the culture of your own military.
HYMES: Absolutely.
MARTIN: The ray gun’s been tested on humans more than 11,000 times over ten years. The early tests, recorded with an infrared camera, were against people in their underwear so scientists could measure skin temperature. Their backs were turned so their eyes would not be exposed. Out of 11,000 tests there have been six cases of rashes and blisters and two of more serious second-degree burns. It’s now cleared for full power on any part of the body.
Some people claim they’ve been able to stand in the beam for four or five seconds. So how long can I take the heat? Here goes.
OPERATOR: Engage.
MARTIN: One one thousand, two one thousand, three one.... (Martin quickly moves out of the beam's path.)
__________________  |