"The Solid State Active Denial Technology (SS-ADT) is a non-lethal weapon system which disrupts hostile activities and can deny personnel from remaining in specific areas, without causing permanent physical harm or collateral damage."
The video depicts it so appealing that it seems that we should have this system in our houses for protection. We need protection, security we need protection... We need it badly.
It is a non lethal weapon after all.
Let's listen to Mark Cancian's experience with the non lethal weapon on his article "‘Heat Ray’ And ‘The Voice Of God’: My Experience With The Nonlethal Weapons Eyed For Use In D.C. Protests" published at Forbes:
Excerpt:
"How should people think about these systems? The reporting has been breathless as if the military were about to shine death rays on peaceful citizens. The exotic nature of the technologies has added to the anxiety. In fact, both systems have been around for a long time and deployed overseas. (It’s not clear whether (emphasys mine) ADS was used overseas.) ADS has not been used operationally in the United States. LRAD is commercially available, and police departments use it occasionally. Indeed, LRAD has a variety of uses from scaring wildlife off runways to alerting boaters about danger.Because the LRAD is like a powerful megaphone, its use seems relatively familiar. ADS is different, a novel and exotic capability for which there is no ready analog. People should think of it like a taser, which police departments routinely use. For those fortunate enough not to have met one up close, a quick explanation: a Taser fires electrodes into the victim and then hits them with a high voltage that is enough to short-circuit the nervous system for a short period of time. Victims are incapacitated. Tasers have gained acceptance because they provide an intermediate step between a baton and a bullet. Someone coming after a police officer with a stick, for example, needs to be stopped, but they don’t need to be shot.ADS is similar. It uses technology to incapacitate people without hurting them. It’s an intermediate force option. An important difference, however, is that tasers are used every day, and are hence familiar, while ADS is strange and unfamiliar.Aren’t these the kind of systems that militarize the police? No. Militarization of the police is a real problem, but that’s not the issue here. Debates about militarization arise because DOD has a program whereby it provides excess military gear to police departments. Many have criticized the program for encouraging the overuse of force. However, the ADS and LRAD provide the opposite kind of capability: civilian policing capabilities brought into the military. Further, ADS would not be available even if police departments wanted it because the system is expensive, complicated, and scarce.So, would it have been appropriate to deploy the systems? It’s important to note that the systems were not used and were not even moved to the area. The D.C. National Guard does not own them; they would come from other parts of DOD, likely the Marine base at Quantico. It’s also clear that a staff member just asked a question. That’s what staff members are supposed to do. It’s a long way from asking a question to deploying a capability.The question of usage gets wrapped up in disputes about President Trump’s attitude towards the use of force against demonstrators, and the fact that many people disagreed with his views. It’s a reasonable discussion about what level of violence requires what level of response. Wherever the line gets drawn, however, it is better to use a high-tech electronic beam than batons, tear gas, and, ultimately, firearms."
Entire article here.
Geneva Guidelines on Less-Lethal Weapons and Related Equipment .
Decide.
Graphic content - "non lethal weapon and the Olsen case"
