I don't have anything against this AD thing, for the record. I thought it was pretty cool, and could work, as long as you have one of those things around when you need them.
But there could be problems. Apparently the millimeter waves, like microwaves, are dangerous, but it seems they've "set it on stun," so to speak. And effective:
"When you feel that millimeter wave energy, you get a heating sensation, a clear distinct sensation that you know somebody's telling you to stop your actions and get out of the area," said LeVine.
But then the writer of the article asks a good question. (Go, writer.)
But what if you're stuck in a crowd? Trapped on the ground or simply unable to get out of the weapon's path?
But from a
marketing standpoint, the answer made me say "uh-oh."
LeVine said that's not possible due to the operator's training and the camera used to target the device. She said the operator will see what is happening.
Why did she evade the question? IMHO, it doesn't help her cause. She should have said, at least: "We train our operaters to avoid situations like these, but this isn't a perfect weapon. Serious injuries could occur, but it is much safer than firing an M-16 into the crowd."
It's better to just tell it like it is right up front. Saying that a situation like that "isn't possible" is so obviously incorrect. Can't you just hear the backlash later on down the road, when the machine fries someone?
Reporter: I thought you said this was a non-lethal weapon. Can you tell me why someone was killed?
Her: This isn't a perfect world and in war there are unpredictable conditions, yada yada.
Reporter: Was the operater properly trained, yada yada yada?
I wonder, just from a PR or marketing standpoint, why she didn't tell it like it is. Do you know what I mean? Am I missing something?
ltd.
