From here:

New Device Will Sense Through Concrete Walls

Troops conducting urban operations soon will have the capabilities of superheroes, being able to sense through 12 inches of concrete to determine if someone is inside a building.

The new "Radar Scope" will give warfighters searching a building the ability to tell within seconds if someone is in the next room, Edward Baranoski from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Special Projects Office, told the American Forces Press Service.

By simply holding the portable, handheld device up to a wall, users will be able to detect movements as small as breathing, he said.

The Radar Scope, developed by DARPA, is expected to be fielded to troops in Iraq as soon as this spring, Baranoski said. The device is likely to be fielded to the squad level, for use by troops going door to door in search of terrorists.

The Radar Scope will give warfighters the capability to sense through a foot of concrete and 50 feet beyond that into a room, Baranoski explained.

It will bring to the fight what larger, commercially available motion detectors couldn't, he said. Weighing just a pound and a half, the Radar Scope will be about the size of a telephone handset and cost just about $1,000, making it light enough for a soldier to carry and inexpensive enough to be fielded widely.

The Radar Scope will be waterproof and rugged, and will run on AA batteries, he said.

"It may not change how four-man stacks go into a room (during clearing operations)," Baranoski said. "But as they go into a building, it can help them prioritize what rooms they go into. It will give them an extra degree of knowledge so they know if someone is inside."

Even as the organization hurries to get the devices to combat forces, DARPA already is laying groundwork for bigger plans that build on this technology.

Proposals are expected this week for the new "Visi Building" technology that's more than a motion detector. It will actually "see" through multiple walls, penetrating entire buildings to show floor plans, locations of occupants and placement of materials such as weapons caches, Baranoski said.

"It will give (troops) a lot of opportunity to stake out buildings and really see inside," he said. "It will go a long way in extending their surveillance capabilities."

The device is expected to take several years to develop. Ultimately, service members will be able to use it simply by driving or flying by the structure under surveillance, Baranoski said.

You mean they'll be able to mistakenly blow up a civilian without even seeing them?

EDIT: And why is your link leading to Sports Illustrated on Campus??

One step at a time my friend.

If the Iraqi's start using anti-cheat software on their servers, plus get an admin to ban everyone, they'll win the match. Every soldier of the Resistance knows he'll respawn eventually...

^^Awesome post

They need aim hax not wall hax. You don't need wall hax to blow up a city block from a few km's in the air.

Another marvel of modern technology. Good find, Oob. Good find!

Civilians don't have gun carrying silhouettes.

You've obviously never seen the video of the helicopter blowing unarmed farmers to pieces. It did look suspicious, because you can't see shit other than where people are and there movements.

Like I've mentioned before, technology is neutral. Why don't you go start your own anti-U.S. blog somewhere?

Umm, how about I don't? That doesn't even make sense at all. Technology is neutral? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? If they can't tell if the people are armed or not, then there is a chance they will kill innocents. You claimed they'd be able to tell the difference, however even after observing for 10 minutes or so through night vision, which is likely more clear than this technology, trained personal still blew innocents to pieces, it is unlikely that they will be able to tell the difference. You dig? I don't see anything anti American in there. Infact I had a chance to go off on some Anti american tangent, however after watching the video the pilots acted reasonably, but were mistaken.

There is always going to civilians who are caught up in conflict, that's as old as warfare itself. Nonetheless, such a technology has vast implications for scanning buildings for hostiles. Perhaps future improvements will allow for better picture quality... It's still a very useful piece of technology. If they find that there is no one in a house, it'll probably save the efforts of searching it.

I agree with JPAR's points. Adolf, your posts mentioned a future system able to detect weapons caches etc, but the current one - from what you've said - is only able to detect human movement. By itself, that's not going to tell you the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant with any accuracy, unless a non-combatant is simply a person who doesn't breathe.

Technology is never neutral. This system is designed to decrease US casualties in urban combat by letting them know which rooms are occupied and which are not. That's a good thing, in itself.

What I fear, and what probably JPAR and others sense also, is that this technology would enable soldiers to attack people they cannot see, without taking the risk of finding out whether the person they just bounced a grenade into is a combatant or not.

US forces in Iraq are becoming infamous for overreacting with immense firepower when they come under attack - e.g, an entire convoy shooting up a building after a sniper opens fire. Troops blanket an area with fire until there is no further movement. On average, for every 280,000 US bullets fired in Iraq, just one hits an enemy combatant.

Compare and contrast with British tactics in Iraq, where (generally) their convoys halt and two squads flank the sniper, enter the building and clear them out before the squad moves on. It's riskier for the soldiers, but it generates far less ill-will and thus assists the mission in Iraq overall.

If improperly used, this new US wall vision may further encourage short-sighted US tactics, which save soldiers' lives in the short run, but cause immense death, destruction and ill-will in the long run - hence more soldiers' lives, more expense, and more years of conflict and instability.

I agree. However, I'm still worried that this technology will reinforce current US tactics that are unnecessarily wasteful of non-combatants' lives when they do detect human presence in a building. They'll still have to search just as per normal.

I believe that, due to the American methods of dealing with combatants, it's unlikely that any technological improvements will actually decrease the said unfortunate mistakes. Nonetheless, the usefulness of this system will be enhanced after some tactical changes (to more along the British lines).

...

I do believe that's the first time you and me have completely agreed on something, Adolf.

Terrifying. I need a beer. :P