The Active Denial System 

A Revolutionary, Non-lethal 

Weapon for Today’s Battlefield 

Susan LeVine 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University

June 2009 
ii

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the 

U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from 

unclassified materials. 

Susan Levine is the Principal Deputy Director for Policy and Strategy in the Joint NonLethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD). She helped establish the Defense Department’s 

Non-Lethal Weapons Program in the late 1990’s and is a founding member of the 

JNLWD. Her responsibilities include overall management, planning and technical 

support to the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, including interfacing with the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense on non-lethal weapons policy and strategic planning issues. 

Ms. LeVine is also responsible for principal oversight of the Active Denial System. She 

has served as a government advisor to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Defense 

Science Board. Ms LeVine earned Bachelor and Masters degrees in Physics from the 

University of South Carolina and is a recipient of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service 

Award. 

Defense & Technology Papers are published by the National Defense University Center 

for Technology and National Security Policy, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. 

CTNSP publications are available at http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/publications.html.

 
iii

Contents 

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 

The Complex Battlefield..................................................................................................... 2 

Technology Concept ........................................................................................................... 2 

Initial System Configurations ............................................................................................. 3 

Human Effects Research..................................................................................................... 5 

Independent Human Effects Research Review................................................................... 8 

Field Demonstrations.......................................................................................................... 8

Legal and Treaty Compliance Reviews ............................................................................ 10 

Education and Awareness................................................................................................. 10 

Policy Implications ........................................................................................................... 11 

Future Plans ...................................................................................................................... 11 

Summary........................................................................................................................... 12 
iv

Figure 1. The Active Denial System directed energy beam can engage 

targets at extended ranges, giving a clear warning to potential aggressors 

while increasing the force protection of U.S. troops. (Image courtesy of 

Raytheon Company) 
1

Introduction 

Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. Armed Forces have participated in many operations 

that combine military operations against combatants in situations where the civilian 

population is at risk. Such complex operations, as they are now called, necessarily place 

troops in close contact with local civilians—and sometimes in confrontations that lead to 

violence. Use of force against civilians can create local tensions that undermine efforts to 

rebuild a society and, thanks to the globalization of communications, widespread 

condemnation that can jeopardize the entire mission. 

Non-lethal weapons provide an additional set of tools for our troops engaged in complex 

operations. Research efforts to advance the types and efficacy of non-lethal weapons 

available to our warfighters is producing novel capabilities. One such capability is the 

Active Denial System (ADS). ADS can provide our troops a capability they currently do 

not have, the ability to reach out and engage potential adversaries at distances well 

beyond small arms range, and in a safe, effective, and non-lethal manner. The ADS can 

immediately compel an individual to cease threatening behavior or depart through 

application of a directed energy beam that provides a sensation of intense heat on the 

surface of the skin. The effect is overwhelming, causing an immediate repel response by 

the targeted individual. The vignettes below illustrate two of many possible applications. 

A soldier is manning a checkpoint, guarding an important facility. She notices a group of 

people approaching her position. The group appears agitated and threatening. Or is it? 

The soldier tries to decide as the group nears. There are women and children in the group, 

as well as several men yelling something in a language the soldier does not understand. 

Through a loudspeaker the soldier warns the group that they are approaching a restricted 

area. She tells them to halt. They keep coming. Are they ignoring the warning? Or did 

they not understand it? They are almost on her. She may have to use lethal force. 

But the soldier has another option. She calls for support from the operators of the 

compound’s ADS, who have been observing the situation through the system’s onboard 

optics. In particular, they have been watching a man who appears to be leading the group. 

Upon the order of the on-scene commander, the ADS operators target the man and 

activate the beam (see figure 1 on facing page). The man turns and runs a few steps. The 

group stops, puzzled by his behavior. The man regains his composure and returns to the 

group, urging it on to the compound. The ADS operators reengage the man, who turns 

and runs off. The group quickly follows him. 

A United States Navy ship is underway in international waters. The lookout on deck has 

been monitoring the movement of a small “go-fast” boat that has been trailing his ship. 

The boat’s behavior is becoming increasingly suspect, approaching the ship, veering off, 

returning a few minutes later, coming ever closer. Does the boat hold a group of terrorists 

attempting a suicide attack, or just a family trying to get a closer look at a Navy ship? 

The officer-of-the-deck alerts the commanding officer, who decides to issue a clear 

warning to the occupants of the boat. As the boat approaches the ship again, operators of 

the shipboard ADS target the boat driver. Upon feeling the intense heat, the boat driver 

immediately stops piloting the boat, ducks for cover, and does not resume following the 

ship. 
2

As these vignettes illustrate, ADS technology has the potential to provide our warfighters 

new options in sensitive situations. Along with new technologies come numerous 

questions. Does the military really need this technology? How does it work? Is it legal 

and compliant with U.S. international treaty obligations? How quickly can it be 

deployed? What are the policy implications for employment? Does the risk of injury rule 

out its use against human targets? This article addresses those topics and the in-depth 

research that has resulted in the development of the ADS as a potential game changer for 

the 21st-century warfighter. 

The Complex Battlefield 

Today’s battlefield is characterized by urban terrain and poses a challenge in 

distinguishing ordinary citizens engaged in harmless activities from those who intend to 

cause harm. As engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti 

demonstrate, today’s battlefield environment has created an increased demand for nonlethal weapons. When a suspicious situation arises, our troops have only moments to 

make a decision on the use of lethal force, even when clearly allowed within the rules of 

engagement. When a lethal shot takes the life of an innocent victim, the consequences are 

passed through the victim’s family and friends. The Iraqi or Afghani man or woman who 

may originally have supported or been indifferent to U.S. forces may switch to 

supporting insurgents. Because of such incidents, the campaign to win hearts and minds 

can be lost because of the understandable need for self-protection. 

Today’s non-lethal weapons, while useful in a number of situations, have limitations, 

particularly with respect to range and universality of effect. Blunt impact munitions, 

electric stun guns, flash bang grenades, and pepper spray have been used successfully in 

many situations, but they have limited range, on the order of 50 meters or less. The ADS 

provides a means to project non-lethal force well beyond that range, greatly enhancing 

force protection for U.S. troops. 

Technology Concept 

Although the use of a millimeter wave beam as a non-lethal weapon is new, the 

phenomenon of millimeter waves has been studied since James Maxwell’s theory of 

electromagnetism revolutionized physics in the late 1800s. Maxwell’s theory opened the 

door to the electromagnetic spectrum, which ranges from radio waves, microwaves, 

millimeter waves, infrared radiation, and visible light to x-rays. 

The ADS is often mistakenly referred to as a weapon that produces microwave energy, 

but there is a big difference between microwaves and millimeter waves. Microwaves 

penetrate deeply, which is why they can cook, for example, a large roast. Microwave 

ovens operate at a frequency of approximately 2.5 GHz (2.5 x 109

 Hz), with a 

corresponding wavelength of 4.7 inches. The ADS operates at 95 GHz (95 x 109 Hz), 

with a corresponding wavelength of approximately 1/64th inch—about the thickness of 

three sheets of paper. This extremely short wavelength allows the application of this 

technology as a non-lethal weapon, because the ADS heats only the top layer of skin. 
3

Initial System Configurations 

The first ADS configuration consisted of a conex shipping container housing the 

necessary components, with the antenna mounted on the roof. This system, known simply 

as System 0, allowed for proof of concept testing that led to the ADS Advanced Concept 

Technology Demonstration (ACTD). For demonstration and warfighter assessment 

purposes, the ADS ACTD first integrated the millimeter wave beam into a hybrid-electric 

version of the Highly Mobile Multi-Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), popularly known as a 

“Humvee.” This technology demonstrator, referred to as System 1, is shown in figure 2. 

The ADS ACTD and System 1 configuration were conceived prior to the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001. Recognizing the potential applications of this technology in 

complex operations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense provided additional funding 

to the ADS ACTD to build System 2, which is armored, environmentally sealed, and 

designed to operate between 0 and 125 degrees Fahrenheit. System 2 is a containerized 

design composed of two boxes that can be transported by, or operated from, a variety of 

tactical trucks. One box contains the components necessary to produce the directed 

energy beam. The second box is a self-contained power generator unit and operator 

station. 

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, 

NM, has been the principal developer of active denial technology. Known worldwide as a 

leader in directed energy technology development, the AFRL Directed Energy Division 

conceived the design to weaponize millimeter waves as a non-lethal directed energy 

weapon into a configuration that would be militarily useful. For System 1, the substantial 

technical challenge was integrating all the technology components needed to mount a 

self-contained, millimeter wave system onto the Humvee platform. System 0 had a total 

volume of 1,280 cubic feet and a weight of 16,500 lbs. To integrate the technology on the 

Humvee, system components had to be scaled down to a volume of 190 cubic feet and a 

maximum weight of roughly 6,000 lbs. Major technical challenges included development 

of self-contained power generation and a system to reduce the considerable heat 

generated by system components. 

Power Generation. The production of millimeter waves requires the conversion of 

electrical energy to millimeter wave energy. To generate millimeter wave energy that 

reaches tactically significant ranges (on the order of hundreds of meters), a substantial 

amount of electrical energy is needed by the millimeter wave source. A Humvee with a 

hybrid electric power plant, using a combination of lithium ion batteries and a diesel 

generator, was chosen as the optimum method for generating and storing the required 

electric energy in the constrained space of the Humvee. 

A primary challenge for System 1 developers was producing a millimeter wave source 

that was efficient and generated sufficient power to be effective at the required distances. 

A vacuum tube device called a gyrotron, which is commonly used in high-power radio 

frequency applications, was selected. The source developed for ADS achieved record- 
4

Figure 2. ADS Technology Demonstrator 

Figure 3. ADS Technology Demonstrator Components 
5

breaking levels of power conversion efficiency for this type of device—in excess of 50 

percent—and output power levels of approximately 100 kilowatts. To help achieve this 

efficiency, it was necessary to produce very high magnetic fields around the gyrotron, 

which was done with a superconducting magnet operating at approximately 4 degrees 

Kelvin. This was achieved with a liquid helium cryocompressor instead of surrounding 

the magnet in liquid cryogens, which would have made the system nearly impractical for 

field applications. Even with the gyrotron‘s high efficiency, nearly half of its input power 

had to be dissipated. This was accomplished in the Humvee with extensive use of liquid 

cooling loops, radiators and fans. 

System Operation. Figure 3 depicts the main components of the ADS. The system works 

as follows. The Humvee’s hybrid-electric power plant is the prime power source for the 

entire system, including the gyrotron. The gyrotron’s millimeter wave output is sent 

through a beam conditioner system that focuses the waves into a beam and carefully 

steers it to a small subreflector plate in front of the main antenna. The subreflector then 

broadens the beam to evenly illuminate the main antenna reflector array, which then 

sends the millimeter wave beam down range. The antenna is made up of 25 separate 

subreflectors, each of which affects the beam differently; together they produce a nearly 

constant beam diameter down to the maximum effective range. A video camera for day 

operations and an infrared camera for night operations allow the system operator in the 

Humvee to aim and fire the system using a joystick, while seeing exactly where the 

millimeter waves are directed and the reactions of the human targets on the display panel. 

Concerns that a human target could accidentally be overexposed are mitigated by the fact 

that the beam is turned off immediately by releasing the trigger or at the expiration of a 

preset time. Through the use of a laser range finder, the output power level can be 

adjusted for different ranges to ensure safety parameters are not exceeded. Integrating 

these components into the Humvee was a significant technological achievement. 

Human Effects Research 

ADS human effects testing has been extensive. Over the last 12 years, significant 

resources have been invested in understanding the interaction and effects of millimeter 

wave energy on a human subject. Since 1993, the Directed Energy Bioffects Division of 

the ARL Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks City-Base, San Antonio, TX, has 

comprehensively examined the interaction of millimeter waves with the human body. The 

objective was to study the effectiveness and understand the risk and safety margins 

associated with the use of this technology as a non-lethal, counter-personnel weapon. 

The ADS research program emphasized four major areas: 1) understanding the basic 

science and physiology of millimeter wave interactions with the human body, 2) 

evaluating specific effects on skin, 3) evaluating specific effects on the eyes, and 4) 

determining the risk of cancer. Other areas of interest, such as risk to reproductive 

organs, were also studied. 

Basic Science. At 95GHz, the ADS energy is non-ionizing, meaning that the millimeter 

waves do not have enough photonic energy to affect cellular structure. The energy 

reaches a skin depth of 1/64th inch, raising the skin’s temperature in a manner similar to 

the infrared energy from the sun. The ADS heating sensation is intense, but it does not 
6

produce a burn; the sensation ends when exposure to the beam ends. The increase in skin 

temperature triggers nociceptors, which are nerve endings in the skin that are thermal 

sensitive. This sudden exposure to the nerve endings evokes the temporary, intolerable 

heating sensation and instinctive human escape response. 

With blunt impact, non-lethal weapons, such as bean bag rounds, the gender, weight, 

condition, and overall physical health of the targeted individual can be factors in 

determining both the non-lethal weapon’s effectiveness and the likelihood of injury. With 

the millimeter wave beam, the instinctive repel response is universal; all individuals, no 

matter their physical characteristics, react to move away from the beam in roughly the 

same response time. Furthermore, as will be discussed more fully below, experience and 

test results so far have shown the risk of injury to be extremely remote independent of an 

individual’s physical characteristics. 

Reflexive Reaction. Because the ADS beam does not affect cellular structure, the 

sensation of heat ends when exposure to the beam ends. The reason the sensation is more 

intense is that most of the energy of the beam is deposited on the surface of the skin, 

where it excites nociceptors. Cutaneous nociceptors have two interesting properties: they 

are highly sensitive to a threatening stimulus (though not to normal stimuli), and they 

trigger a reflex. Thus, heating of the skin by an ADS beam creates an intolerable 

sensation and reflexive movement to end the discomfort—ducking and running, for 

example. 

Skin Effects. Thorough studies to understand and quantify the effects on human skin were 

conducted. A major goal of the skin effect studies was to determine if the rapid increase 

in skin temperature could cause injury, and also to quantify the human reaction rate for 

the perception of the temperature increase. The baseline for conducting the initial human 

effects studies was research conducted in the 1940s on skin temperature increases and the 

effects of intense heating on the skin.1

 ADS human effects testing, like all DOD scientific 

research using human volunteers, was conducted under strict human use experimentation 

protocols that are reviewed by an Institutional Review Board and approved by the lead 

Service Surgeon General. The initial human effects studies were conducted in a 

laboratory and consisted of exposing the backs of volunteer subjects to a small spot of 

millimeter wave energy. The subjects sat on a stool and moved when the heating 

sensation became intolerable. Their reaction time was measured, and any resulting skin 

irritation examined. The research showed that a considerable safety margin exists 

between the time it takes for a person to feel the heating sensation and move away from 

the beam and the time it takes for the beam to produce an injury. Research results were 

published in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals in 19972

 and 2000.3 Testing 

later moved to the field, where data on full spot size exposures was recorded. 

 

1

 Morit, A.R. and Henriques, F.C. Jr, (1947). Studies of thermal injury. II. The relative importance of time 

and surface temperature in the causation of cutaneous burns. Am J Pathol, 23, 697-720 2

 Blick, DW, Adair, ER, Hurt, WD, Sherry, CJ, Walters, TJ and Merritt, JH (1997) Thresholds of 

Microwave-Evoked Warmth Sensations in Human Skin, Bioelectromagnetics 18: 403-409. 3

 Walters, TJ, Blick, DW, Johnson, LR, Adair, ER, and Foster, KR (2000) Heating and Pain Sensation 

Produced in Human Skin by Millimeter Waves: Comparison to a Simple Thermal Model. Health Physics

78(3): 259-267. 
7

As of the time of writing, there have been over 11,000 exposures on over 700 humans in 

the laboratory and field studies. Of those 700 humans, 172 volunteers were exposed in 

the laboratory small spot size evaluations; the other volunteers were exposed in outdoor 

field assessments using the full spot size from the full-scale millimeter wave source and 

antenna configuration. 

With respect to concerns about skin damage, in most instances there is no after-effect. On 

occasion, some skin reddening and irritation has been observed. The 11,000 exposures 

produced only eight second-degree burns, six of which consisted of pea-size blisters that 

healed without medical attention. The other two required medical care; both individuals 

recovered fully without complications. 

Effects on the Eyes. A thorough research program was conducted to assess effects on the 

eyes, with and without eyewear (glasses, contact lenses, night vision goggles, etc.). 

Researchers learned that the human eye reflexively blinks within a quarter of a second of 

detecting millimeter waves, quickly protecting the eyes. In addition to the blink response, 

the human reflex is to raise the hands or turn the head to avoid the effect. The research 

also showed that the use of eyewear does not impact the human target. Similar to the skin 

effect studies, the eye effect research began with small spot size exposures in the 

laboratory, followed by full spot size exposures in outdoor field experiments. Research 

results of the eye tests were published in the scientific medical journal Health Physics in 

20024

 and 2003.5 

Cancer Studies. Scientists believed from the outset that millimeter waves are nonionizing and, therefore, do not initiate, promote, or co-promote skin cancer. To confirm 

this hypothesis, a research program was conducted to determine whether the ADS beam 

might promote or co-promote carcinogenesis in the skin. Using established practices in 

skin cancer research, the ADS human effects research team investigated the possibility 

that single or repeated exposures would promote or co-promote skin cancer. These tests 

included exposing mice to millimeter waves for up to 12 weeks. The results of these tests 

clearly showed no evidence of cancer promotion or co-promotion. The test results were 

conclusive that the ADS millimeter wave energy is not a cancer risk. The findings of 

these studies were published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Carcinogenesis in 

2001.6

Other Considerations. Effects on reproductive organs were also considered in the 

research program. Due to the shallow penetration depth of millimeter waves, there is no 

damage to reproductive organs. As part of the verification testing, a sperm 

motility/morphology study was conducted and verified no effects. Likewise, pacemakers, 

metal implants, artificial hips, etc. are unaffected by millimeter waves. 

 

4

 Chalfin S, D’Andrea JA, Comeau PD, Belt ME and Hatcher DJ (2002). Millimeter wave absorption in the 

nonhuman primate eye at 35GHz and 94GHz. Health Physics, 83, 83-90. 5

 Foster KR, D’Andrea JA, Chalfin, S, and Hatcher, DJ (2003). Thermal Modeling of Millimeter Wave 

Damage to the primate cornea at 35GHz and 94 GHz. Health Physics, 84(6): 764-769. 6

 Mason, PA, Walters, TJ, DiGiovanni, J, Beason, CW, Jauchem, JR, Dick, EJ, Jr., Mahajan, K, Dusch, SJ, 

Shields, BA, Merritt, JH, Murphy, MR, and Ryan, KL (2001). Lack of Effect of 94.0 GHz Radio 

Frequency Radiation Exposure in an Animal Model of Skin Carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis, 22:1701-

1708, 2001. 
8

Independent Human Effects Research Review 

The human effects research and independent reviews of the ADS make it the most 

studied and reviewed non-lethal weapon in DOD history. The research results have been 

scrutinized by several independent review groups, both government and non-government, 

to provide an additional assessment on the thoroughness of the research, as well as to 

assist in the overall understanding and public education required for this revolutionary 

non-lethal capability. Within DOD, the research was reviewed by the NLW Human 

Effects Review Board (HERB), which consists of representatives from all the Service 

Surgeon Generals and the Medical Officer of the Marine Corps. The HERB was 

established in 1999 to review non-lethal weapon development programs in DOD. The 

HERB reviewed the ADS research program in 2004 and assessed the research as 

thorough and comprehensive, recognizing it as a role model for other non-lethal weapons 

development efforts. The Tri-Service Electromagnetic Radiation Panel, which is 

chartered with providing technical advice on non-ionizing radiation issues in the 0–300 

Ghz portion of the electromagnetic spectrum as they relate to the health and safety of 

DOD personnel in their missions, also examined the ADS research program in 2004. The 

Armed Forces Epidemiological Board examined occupational safety issues for DOD 

personnel who might be exposed to the millimeter wave beam as part of testing, training, 

exercises, and operational use. 

In addition to multiple reviews within DOD, the independent, non-government Human 

Effects Advisory Panel (HEAP) has also reviewed the program. The HEAP was 

established in 1998 to provide an independent human effects review of DOD non-lethal 

weapon efforts. Under the guidance of Penn State University, HEAP panels are formed 

with non-government personnel, particularly drawing from the academic community, 

with credentials in the specific technology areas under review. The HEAP that reviewed 

the ADS research program included recognized experts in multiple disciplines from Yale 

University, the University of Virginia Medical Center, Hershey Medical Center, and 

Temple University School of Medicine. The HEAP has reviewed the ADS research 

program three times—in 2002, 2004, and 20077

—and has consistently concluded that 

ADS is a model non-lethal weapon development program with a resulting human effect 

that has minimal risk of injury. 

In July 2005, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

approved a policy allowing the exposure of DOD personnel for purposes of 

demonstrating, training, and assessing the ADS ACTD systems outside the strictly 

controlled research environment and without the use of human-use protocols. This was a 

significant achievement for this new capability and a critical step in moving it from the 

laboratory to the field. 

Field Demonstrations 

Demonstrating the ability of the ADS to have military utility was a critical part of the 

development effort. The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) 

 

7

 “A Narrative Summary and Independent Assessment of the Active Denial System,” Dr. John Kenny, et al, 

Human Effects Advisory Panel, February 11, 2008 
9

conducted three joint military utility assessments (JMUAs) of ADS ACTD System 1. The 

three JMUAs were held over the course of 8 months, using Air Force, Army, Marine 

Corps, Coast Guard, and Border Patrol personnel to operate System 1 in a variety of 

scenarios and in a wide range of realistic environments. Not surprisingly, the Humvee 

platform, which is at its maximum weight with the millimeter wave weapon system and 

is unarmored and not ruggedized, was deemed an operational issue for deployment in a 

desert environment. However, the military utility assessment results demonstrated the 

warfighters’ assessment that the ADS is a highly effective, non-lethal, counter-personnel 

capability. 

Joint Military Utility Assessment One was conducted at Creech Air Force Base, NV, in 

August 2005. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the ability of ADS to 

enhance military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) and entry control point (ECP) 

operations. Three airmen from the 99th Security Forces Group, at Creech Air Force Base 

and Nellis Air Force Base, and four soldiers from the Air Defense Artillery School and 1st

Air Defense Artillery Battalion, Fort Bliss, were trained as weapon crew for this 

assessment. Live, force-on-force exercises were conducted, including two MOUT 

scenarios and two ECP scenarios. ECP scenarios entailed extended overwatch for a total 

of 61⁄2 hours. The ADS crews fired 657 shots and achieved 914 hits on human targets. 

This operational assessment was accomplished in conjunction with USAF Expeditionary 

Personnel Training. Friendly forces and opposing forces (OPFOR) were volunteers from 

the training squadron cadre and trainees. As part of the assessment, participants answered 

questionnaires on statements regarding ADS effectiveness. There was strong consensus 

among the warfighter participants that ADS has military utility and is effective at 

impacting the actions of individuals and crowds. 

Joint Military Utility Assessment Two was conducted at Fort Benning, GA, in September 

2005, at the McKenna MOUT Site. Four previously trained soldiers from Fort Bliss and 

one airman from Creech participated as weapon crew and over-the-shoulder mentors to 

the newly trained crew, which included three soldiers from the 29th Infantry Regiment at 

Fort Benning, and three Marines from the II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp 

Lejeune. Scenarios accomplished included obstacle reduction, three iterations; entry 

control point, 3 hours overwatch; snatch and grab (prisoner recovery), two iterations, 

including tactical repositioning of ADS; search and rescue, four iterations; and perimeter 

security, six iterations. ADS crews fired 979 shots and achieved 1463 hits on human 

targets. Friendly forces and OPFOR were volunteers from local Fort Benning units and 

military retirees. Warfighters participating in this JMUA indicated strong agreement that 

ADS can easily complement existing crowd control techniques 

Joint Military Utility Assessment Three was conducted at Santa Rosa Island, Eglin AFB, 

FL, in April 2006. The primary objective was to assess the capability of ADS to enhance 

the force protection mission in port and harbor environments. The following personnel 

were trained as weapon crew: three USCG personnel from the USCG Special Mission 

Training Center (SMTC), Camp Lejeune and two airmen from the AF Security Forces 

Center and 37th Security Forces Squadron, Lackland AFB. These trained personnel 

participated in boat-on-water scenarios and pierside security demonstrations. Three 

pierside demonstrations and three boat-on-water iterations were accomplished, with five 

target boats per iteration. For this first-time, live-fire demonstration over water, safety 
10

considerations required the vessels to be stationary while their crew members conducted 

hostile activities. ADS crews fired 305 shots and achieved 474 hits on human targets. 

OPFOR were volunteers from USCG SMTC. 

Legal and Treaty Compliance Reviews 

As with lethal weapons, all DOD non-lethal weapons undergo a comprehensive legal and 

treaty compliance review to ensure that the system under development is consistent with 

domestic and international law, including the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), as well as 

any applicable treaties to which the United States is a signatory. Since the Air Force was 

the lead service developer, the Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) had the lead in 

assessing the legality of the system. The findings of the Air Force JAG were reviewed 

and coordinated with the JAGs of the other Services, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) General Counsel. With respect to domestic law, the legal 

review concluded that there is no law that prohibits the development, acquisition, use, or 

possession of weapons such as the Active Denial System. With respect to international 

law, the legal review examined the three specific criteria that must be satisfactorily 

addressed to determine the legality of a weapon under the LOAC. These include 1) 

whether the weapon causes unnecessary suffering that is disproportionate to the military 

advantages of using the weapon, 2) whether the weapon is discriminate and capable of 

being controlled so it can be directed against a lawful target, and 3) whether there is a 

specific rule of law prohibiting its use under LOAC. The legal review concluded that 

ADS, when used as intended, does not cause unnecessary suffering due to the brevity of 

the effect and the target’s ability to leave the area. ADS is also discriminate since it can 

be directed at a specific target. Additionally, there are no specific laws prohibiting use of 

a system such as ADS under the Law of Armed Conflict. 

In addition to the legal review, a treaty compliance assessment was conducted by the 

OSD Treaty Compliance office. This review examined all applicable treaties to which the 

United States is a signatory to determine whether the use of ADS would violate any 

treaties. The compliance review found ADS compliant with all relevant arms control 

agreements. 

Education and Awareness 

An important part of the ADS program has been a proactive education and awareness 

effort that has provided information on this new, non-lethal weapon capability through a 

series of public displays and media engagements. In November 2006, the ADS made its 

public debut on display at the grand opening of the National Museum of the Marine 

Corps in Quantico, VA. In January 2007, the first ADS media day was held at Moody 

AFB, GA, in which members of the media were able to interview developers of the 

technology, witness live-fire scenarios, and volunteer to experience the ADS beam first 

hand. That media day led to factual stories in a number of print and broadcast media 

outlets. In April 2007, the Discovery Channel’s “Future Weapons” program aired a 

segment on the ADS. During October 2007, at Marine Corps Base Quantico, both System 

1 and System 2 were on display, and government officials, news media, and even a 

representative from Human Rights Watch had the opportunity to ask questions of ADS 
11

subject matter experts, witness demonstrations, and volunteer to experience the effects of 

the beam. The CBS News program “60 Minutes” aired a segment on ADS in March 2008 

ADS also was featured that month on the History Channel’s “Modern Marvels” show. 

Additionally, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program maintains an active and 

information-rich website on ADS at https://www.jnlwp.com/ads.asp. 

These public education and awareness efforts are part of a proactive strategy to provide 

factual information on the ADS to demystify the technology and demonstrate the benefits 

it can provide in today’s complex operational environment. These efforts underscore a 

recommendation from the December 2007 report of the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on Directed Energy Weapons. The task force recommended that DOD undertake a 

“concerted education effort to replace the ‘death ray’ myth of directed [energy] weapons” 

and that “the military departments should accelerate efforts to credibly assess effects on 

human targets, and widely publicize the facts.”8

 

Policy Implications 

First-time deployment of this new technology will attract the close attention of the 

leadership of DOD, Congress, the American public, and the international community. As 

stated in the Defense Science Board task force report, policy determination on the use of 

directed energy weapons such as the ADS “needs to be informed by a thorough and 

credible understanding of the risk and benefits of employing such weapons.”9

Additionally, the task force noted that much of the concern over legal and policy issues 

“is the product of inadequate communications rather than any unusual legal or policy 

constraints.”10 

All of the program efforts to date have been focused on providing a solid foundation for 

those in positions of leadership and policy development to make an informed and 

educated decision on the future use of this technology. In June 2006, Mr. Ryan Henry, 

the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, signed a memorandum 

expressing continued support for the development of the ADS. The memorandum notes 

that the ADS “offers the possibility for wide-ranging applications in multiple scenarios” 

and is a “technology that the Department should pursue.” 

Future Plans 

While much has been accomplished in developing and demonstrating the technology, 

much more remains to be done, particularly in reducing the size, weight, and cost of key 

ADS components. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program continues to invest science 

and technology research dollars in advanced ADS technologies. A key goal is to enable 

the development of next-generation, millimeter wave sources, moving beyond the current 

tube-based technologies to solid-state devices. 

 

8

 Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons, Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, December 2007. 9

 Ibid, xiii. 

10 Ibid, xii. 
12

To facilitate transition from ACTD to a formal program of record, the Joint Non-Lethal 

Weapons Program is sponsoring a transition or “bridge” program led by the Air 

Armament Center at Eglin Air Force base. 

Summary 

Active denial technology can fill a critical gap in the escalation of force continuum, the 

gap between a mission of presence and the use of lethal force. Directed energy weapons 

such as ADS may prove to have a profound impact on warfighter capabilities in support 

of complex operations. In one way, ADS today is at the stage of the biplane in 1914; 

Warfighters want the capability, and, while the system is not yet as sleek and efficient as 

a user might want, the technology will evolve. The early configuration is worthy of 

deployment and a true operational assessment on today’s complex battlefield.