That is an amazing thought but one thing we have to consider that most of the advanced gadgets that we take for granted today came from military founded projects like the GPS, touch screens, even nuclear energy... the global race for technological and military superiority played a big role into bringing lots of inventions to life. The human race thrive on competition and produce better results under pressure but that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand where you're coming from and I'll choose global peace and harmony a million time over a touch screen phone :)

I love it when liberals whine about military spending on the internet, which was only made possible by years of military research. There are numerous examples of military developments having a profound impact on civilian technology. Quit being hypocrites and learn to live in the real world.

I have to admit that this type of technology has been suspected for quite sometime(although the zombie part is new). I remember hearing about it on Coast to Coast AM back in the day when it still was Art Bell on the Chancellor Broadcasting Network. I guess not everything I heard on the program is BS after all.

It is the very military that you are so against that enables you to post such comments on the Internet. Without our military you could be speaking German, Russian or Chinese today.

BTW - The Military-Industrial Complex consumes 13% of our GDP and is falling. However, the Welfare-Industrial Complex (WIC) consumes 16% of GDP and is growing. This does not include Social Security (which BHO is robbing) or Medicare. Add in the future cost of ObamCare and we are talking about (at least) 300 billion/year.

For some people, their kicks come from thinking up new ways to kill and control people, under the official employment and funding of their country.

hey, nature is war. if (supposing that this is possible) aliens from another planet were to visit and they were more intelligent than us, they would more than likely wage war on US, HUMANS, for being of lesser intellect. However, in nature, all intelligent beings wage war over mates, territory, food, and supplies. so you can't really get rid of war without getting rid of nature.

That doesn't mean we should sit back and accept all forms of war and assocated costs, some wars are nessesary; but dumping money into "pain-rays" isn't the best way to use taxes

Reality dude.

@ DunkinH

We don't have to fund military R&D in order to have these types of innovations ultimately disseminate into the private sector.

The US government could just as easily pump those public funds into NASA and other non-defense-related agencies to contract R&D with groups both public and private, and we would get the same, if not greater benefit since the technology wouldn't be sitting under classified lock-and-key well past the typical patent expiration dates.

Why do you think big government contractors like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, et al lobby so heavily for defense spending and not NASA or some other non-military contracting? Because all of their proprietary designs get to stay proprietary for many more years, whereas NASA releases its patents for almost nothing in royalties and keeps very little under lock-and-key.

While I think that it is important that the US maintain a large competitive edge in military capabilities against (potentially) hostile forces...I want to try and dispel the myth that there is a virtue to funding massive amounts of defense spending far and above many times more than the rest of the world...it's driving the US into a financial-ditch.

War is not natural. 99.99% of the species live in symbiotic relation with their environment and their same species. Disputes over territory, resources, and water rarely, if ever, lead to death or hoarding. Man, like war, is a freak of nature; not the norm.

In light of U.S. Military reasearch from 1998, written by Lt. Col Timothy Thomas and published by Parameters magazine (and available online from their army.mil website) which tells of in person demonstrations of Soviet psychotronics at that time, can you defend your statement that there is "no reason" to believe they are "anywhere near" having working psychotronics?

Thomas of course, was a specialist in Soviet analysis during the Cold War.

well, then go talk to a male silver back gorilla. they'd kill each other over a goddamn banana, not over politics or oil. So even though mankind might end up destroying itself, peace will never be possible. War is nature, Nature is war. so suck it up and kill yourself if you want "World Peace", unless you want to be the one that kills mankind.

No Paul, it is not. Only for the truely self centered, evil, and souless empty shells that roam the Earth. I do believe many do not have souls. It's about the only way some men (and women) could ever do the evil deeds do. A lot of good souls think that evil has tipped the scales of mankind. Not true. It just seems so due to the good not needing to keep feeding a fantasy self image propped up by demanding ego inflating attention from anyone and everyone.

@ paldude

Agreed.

While I'm not going to go into the theological rout, you did touch on a good point.

A lot of these "soulless" people are actually more like sociopaths. They are truly only in it for themselves. Look at people like Bernie Madoff who willingly screwed his whole family and countless investors just to see how big of a pile of money he could amass for himself. Or scum like Anthony Mozilo who screwed an entire nation and defrauded millions of investors by having his company (Countrywide) craft time-bomb loans that they could sell to investors and Fannie/Freddie without a care for the repercussions and damage it could cause to innocent people...they just wanted to enrich themselves...and they did...handily

I'm a firm believer that those who live by the sword die by the sword, and that cooler heads ultimately, at least eventually, prevail and that a person's evil intentions and weakness of character will ultimately be their own undoing...but that it takes action on the part of good people to crush such injustice, because it isn't going to happen all by itself.

In any case, humanity isn't going to destroy itself as far as I'm concerned. If you compare how far humanity has progressed both civilly and technologically in the last 100 years, it is incredible, the last 500 years is astronomical, and the last 10,000 years is mind blowing! We are moving in a positive direction; look no further than with regard to nuclear weapons! We've had the ability to destroy each other and decimate civilization and it hasn't happened (yet). On top of that, most world powers take care to give equal protection to all of their inhabitants and laws are respected to protect people and ensure that everyone has a voice...such concepts were nothing more than imaginary just 1,000 years ago save for a handful of small nations, and certainly nothing world-wide!

Of course there will be bumps along the way, but I think that short of a global catastrophe like a massive plague or meteor striking the Earth, we are well on our way to becoming an even more egalitarian and civilized species.

until you're bit by a zombie that is

lol what have you been smoking? cuz I know Sara Palin wants some!

Localized administration of intense magnetic fields through the skull is being explored as a method for depression therapy. I suppose at higher power with a focused "beam" it could possibly be weaponized.

Several other thoughts spring to mind...

First, a "Pain Ray"?? How many more technologies do we need to borrow from Star Trek?

Second, just wait till the chem-trail/HAARP conspiracists get a-hold o' this one!

Most Americans are already zombies, so the Russian ray-gun would be redundant overkill.

yo wllllaaaaaaaannnnngggg...we heard you like to eeeeaaaaaaarrrrrgggg, so we eeeeeeaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggged your eeeeeeeerrrrrrrnnnnnnng so you can eeeeeeerrrrrrnnnnnnng while you eeeeaaaaaaarrrrrgggg!

Alan, you really need to give L4D a try.

Tin foil is ferro-magnetic (look up the term I do not mean it has the same properties as iron, nickel, and cobalt) It would be useless against a time-changing magnetic flux (which is what we're talking about in technical terms). There is no defense against a magnetic field. That said, it's useless to try and apply this in a "gun." Every human has subtle variances in electro-magnetic brain function that would make a single weapon useless. You'd have to line the right gun up with the right person. Good luck mother russia.

What have you been smoking? You probably are trying to tie in the "Flux Capacitor" from the movie, "Back to the Future". Lmao

You're absolutly right Patjp93. For more or less the same reason the military has to use variable calibur magazines and adjustable rifleling barrels on all their rifles. Human skull thickness differs from person to person, thus rotational resonance field flux from the spinning round must be appropriate for the target brain pan thickness. Because as your post clear illustrates, some peoples skulls are very very hard and nearly as thick as the head itself.

i'd be more worried about a railgun that can demolish a house with a grain of sand than a stinkin' "zombie ray"

haha a Rail gun is more useful since it can destroy just about ANYTHING you point it at (yes, even goddamn M1A2 abrams tank. No, not a f***ing planet.)

In truth many of you are both over analyzing and over amplifieng the reality. They would never need to atune themselves to any group but rather one consistent known wavelength. All brains are basic in their functionality, if they can find the few wavelenghts that are also constant between any brains under subject examination they can simply atune the device to that. There are hertz values known which at certain range frequencies that can stop the human heart, a simple tracing of electro-firing in the brain (which has already been shown effective in physchiatric medications) will unlock this nightmarish pandoric box. I know many will scream I am not educated enough in the supposed fields required, so be it, that is after all what the goverments of the world pray for. No one daring to think simplistically against seemingly intricate developments. Of course anyone with a slight understanding of construction will tell you, you do not need to tear down walls to raze a structure, simply remove the key support and nature does the rest. As to those who think the human creature is far more resilient then a forty storey building only needs to have their ear or groin hit hard enough to know that isn't exactly true.

Master of the Universe He also impressed G. W. Bush, but if he impressed you, Master of the Universe, that is a plus.

We already know that light, sound and microwaves can under the right conditions cause a disorienting effect. Most likely they are working on concepts like these. Probably not so much as an offensive weapon, but more likely defensive or standoff in nature. I don't think we're talking about taking over peoples minds or frying brains, but creating enough distraction or disorientation to gain an edge. If you could cause disorientation in a pilot or a tank crew just for a few seconds or so they could quickly go from being the aggressor to being a target.

We already have stuff like this and there is little doubt some has been weaponized. For years they've used things like flash-bangs to stun and disorient, which even for a few seconds is enough to switch the advantage. That same basic principle which makes the adversary temporarily non-functional, turned into some aimable weapon could have very similar effects. I don't think this is earth shattering news by any means, but when you are talking about combative situations, even a few seconds advantage can make all the difference. These "zombie weapons" wouldn't need to do any permanent damage. Just buy some time so you can easily kill them with conventional means. Think about the most sophisticated and highest performing fighter jet and "blind" the pilot for 5 seconds or so. You might not even need to shoot him down.

If they projected video to your eyes they could make you see something else and try and guide you into doing something. Like pulling a gun or grabing a knife and killing someone. I was seeing how is was like a tazer to the back of your head, if anyone had tryed, ouch. How would they keep up with a jet with this weapon? I see like a light house or spiral tower could but a jet is to fast and can approach at different angles and could go into auto pilot. Plus jets could shoot targets most likely before this weapon gets in range. They could design a missile to find these weapons and target them first, before the jets are in range of them. Plus satellite and other spy pictures would give away a bases setup and this weapon would just become another first target to take out or you would become blind in the air.

James,

No problem tracking a jet. They may be difficult to hit with a bullet or a missile, but remember those only travel at up to around 4000 miles per hour. These weapons would travel at light speed, 186,000 miles per second. Also the beam would not need to be pin point. The equipment wouldn't necessarily need to be stationary.

Power is somewhat of an issue, but if supplied from a small nuclear source, the equipment could be pretty small. This is very achievable. The Air Force tested an airborne laser system, (Boeing YAL-1), that successfully shot down ballistic missiles in their boost phase. (Much faster than a jet) Bear in mind, this needed to be sustained and powerful enough to generate high heat in the missile to blow it up. For the kind of beam we're talking about here, you wouldn't need anywhere near that much energy. Also keep in mind that we know about the YAL, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of secret development that goes on without the general public being knowledgeable.

There already have been cases reported of powerful laser light being shown into cockpits. The concept has been around a while. Even idiots with relatively portable, not very high powered, commercially available lasers have done this without any sophisticated tracking. BTW, it is a Federal offense to shine a laser at a plane. This has been considered to be a very real terrorist threat with readily available technology. The government understands the potential. So imagine what could be done with a government supported effort. Microwave and sonic weapons already exist for use in crowd control and as an anti-piracy defensive weapon. If you think this stuff can't be upscaled to a very long range powerful weapon, you're being a bit naive.

Again, keep in mind that these weapons don't need to be fatal. Just disorienting enough to get an easy shot with conventional weapons. Put the jet in "auto pilot"? Sure, but then try to react to a a missile strike. A few seconds is a deadly advantage. Modern strike jets are very impressive weapons, no doubt. They will win out over people throwing rocks every time, but they aren't invulnerable. You can spend a lot of money trying to build the better aggressive weapon, but an effective defense will cost far less money. This is one reason why Russia is looking at these weapons. You don't need to necessarily be better, just good enough to gain an advantage and make your less advanced weapons systems much more effective.

I have little doubt that we already have some of these weapons or at least have developed the technology. You're not going to brag about something that potentially makes your best weapons vulnerable.

"voila"... it's from French.