As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Hot Pockets: ADS & Non-Lethal Weaponry

NexusSixNexusSix Registered User regular
edited December 2006 in Debate and/or Discourse
I scanned through the first few pages of the D&D threads and I didn't see this mentioned, so I'm assuming this topic hasn't been covered... at least not recently.

Any who:

"The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

"You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

"According to documents obtained for Wired News under federal sunshine laws, the Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

"The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

"The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

"Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

"The beam produces what experimenters call the 'Goodbye effect,' or 'prompt and highly motivated escape behavior.' In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds.

"'It will repel you,'" one test subject said. 'If hit by the beam, you will move out of it -- reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to experience it again.'"

That's the gist. The rest of the article can be found at:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72134-0.html?tw=rss.index

Foreign Implications: Should the military even be involved in the development of non-lethal weapons? After all, the primary purpose of this type of weapon is crowd control (i.e., police action). Applying the use of military force for police actions is missing the point: the whole point of the military is to kill the enemy as fast, quickly and efficiently as possible (i.e., area denial, individual suppression, etc.). Certifying something like the ADS system for use in Iraq falls outside of military parameters and denies soldiers the use of their best tools--it doesn't let them get their job done (killing anyone who stands in the way of the mission objective). Antiseptic warfare doesn't seem to make much sense--if you're going to commit to military action... commit, or don't. Also, just for the record: I'm more of a don't commit guy unless absolutely necessary (Afghanistan = commit; Iraq = WTF were you thinking?)

Domestic Implications: Something like this might come in handy for dealing with dangerous crowds--I'm thinking cases where the safety of the general public is at peril due to something like the Rodney King riots--but would police be more trigger happy to use a non-lethal system like this? Y'know, the hippies got a bit uppity at the Iraq protest, so we Hot-Pocketed their asses.

Thoughts? Would you support the use of this type of weapon for either foreign or domestic use? Feelings on the use military force vs. police action?

REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
NexusSix on
«13

Posts

  • Options
    ToadTheMushroomToadTheMushroom Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    If even a single person gets any sort of cancer from this, heads will roll. Water cannons are fine, why bother with some death fucking ray?

    ToadTheMushroom on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    NexusSix wrote:
    Also, just for the record: I'm more of a don't commit guy unless absolutely necessary (Afghanistan = commit; Iraq = WTF were you thinking?)

    Unfortunately for me, you aren't driving military policy. As long as we have soldiers playing babysitter, we probably should give them a method of giving the locals a "time-out" rather than resorting straight to the belt.

    EDIT: Though I also think that this whole things sounds a little too good to be true, and won't be surprised when I hear about two-headed Iraqis being born five years from now.
    Domestic Implications: Something like this might come in handy for dealing with dangerous crowds--I'm thinking cases where the safety of the general public is at peril due to something like the Rodney King riots--but would police be more trigger happy to use a non-lethal system like this? Y'know, the hippies got a bit uppity at the Iraq protest, so we Hot-Pocketed their asses.

    Without doubt they'd be more trigger happy with a system like this. See: Tasers.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    NexusSix wrote:
    Also, just for the record: I'm more of a don't commit guy unless absolutely necessary (Afghanistan = commit; Iraq = WTF were you thinking?)

    Unfortunately for me, you aren't driving military policy. As long as we have soldiers playing babysitter, we probably should give them a method of giving the locals a "time-out" rather than resorting straight to the belt.

    EDIT: Though I also think that this whole things sounds a little too good to be true, and won't be surprised when I hear about two-headed Iraqis being born five years from now.

    They already are in large numbers, but that's because of our DU rounds.

    Also, what are the odds that someone would decide that milimeter-wave beams are acceptable interrogation tools, since - hey- no permanent damage!

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sometimes you just need to give someone a warning. You shoot a man in the head who's throwing rocks at your convoy and you become the bad-guy. You zap his ass with a heat-ray so he gets subdued but otherwise no physical harm, you're okay.

    I'd prefer this system over gunning down protesters, let's just hope it's actually safe.

    TankHammer on
  • Options
    TiemlerTiemler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    Without doubt they'd be more trigger happy with a system like this. See: Tasers.

    Exactly. And they won't use it properly.
    The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

    Also, the description of it in action, a large group of people suddenly running... Oh, great, so a near-altercation instead becomes a fatal mass trampling? I suppose when we see the first of these headlines, it'll be used as evidence of how violent the mob was, you know, being scary muslims and all, and not how dangerous crowds can be when their flight response is triggered suddenly.

    Hopefully, we've at least field-tested the directed-sound area denial systems at this point. They pose fewer risks, so unless they just plain don't work, they should be our go-to crowd control system.

    Tiemler on
  • Options
    ZonkytonkmanZonkytonkman Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    the nature of war in iraw is as different from conventional warfare as could be, so new tactics and weapons are necessary.

    In urban guerilla warfare, you don't typically know who the enemy is, so dispersing everyone is extremely effective, I would imagine.

    Zonkytonkman on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    NexusSix wrote:
    Foreign Implications: Should the military even be involved in the development of non-lethal weapons? After all, the primary purpose of this type of weapon is crowd control (i.e., police action). Applying the use of military force for police actions is missing the point: the whole point of the military is to kill the enemy as fast, quickly and efficiently as possible (i.e., area denial, individual suppression, etc.).
    Imagine you're in a crowded street in Baghdad. Someone starts shooting at you. You're not certain where the shots are coming from. You can either:

    1): Attempt to retreat, and possibly take casualties while running away.
    2): Lay down suppressing fire and probably kill some civilians.
    3): Use ADS and make whoever's shooting at you get the hell out of dodge.
    Antiseptic warfare doesn't seem to make much sense--if you're going to commit to military action... commit, or don't.
    Yeah, I'm with you there, but most people are seriously not cool with any kind of collateral damage. Which is kind of ridiculous, when you realize we were firebombing Tokyo sixty years ago, but whatever.
    Domestic Implications: Something like this might come in handy for dealing with dangerous crowds--I'm thinking cases where the safety of the general public is at peril due to something like the Rodney King riots--but would police be more trigger happy to use a non-lethal system like this? Y'know, the hippies got a bit uppity at the Iraq protest, so we Hot-Pocketed their asses.
    This would end up being both more effective and safer than other crowd-disbursal tools availible. I'm with you on trigger-happy, though, considering the sort of abuses that happen with tasers.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Also, what are the odds that someone would decide that milimeter-wave beams are acceptable interrogation tools, since - hey- no permanent damage!
    What are the odds that people won't decide this is an acceptable interrogation tool?

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Also, what are the odds that someone would decide that milimeter-wave beams are acceptable interrogation tools, since - hey- no permanent damage!
    I'd imagine you could achieve the same effect far more simply (and cheaply) with a pair of jumper cables and a car battery.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Also, what are the odds that someone would decide that milimeter-wave beams are acceptable interrogation tools, since - hey- no permanent damage!
    I'd imagine you could achieve the same effect far more simply (and cheaply) with a pair of jumper cables and a car battery.
    But you've already got your little gizmo right there, and the jumper cables and car battery have already been declared torture, whereas this has been tested and it's completely safe.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Also, what are the odds that someone would decide that milimeter-wave beams are acceptable interrogation tools, since - hey- no permanent damage!
    I'd imagine you could achieve the same effect far more simply (and cheaply) with a pair of jumper cables and a car battery.
    But you've already got your little gizmo right there, and the jumper cables and car battery have already been declared torture, whereas this has been tested and it's completely safe.
    God I hope they build it into a little Dune-style box they make people stick their hands in at knifepoint. It's still fucking barbaric, but it has panache.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Darth WaiterDarth Waiter Elrond Hubbard Mordor XenuRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    After the recent thread about police brutality and tasers, yeah, I'm gonna go with not-a-good-idea-to-test-on-humans. I really don't know what else to say other than it sounds good on paper, but I'd rather resort to simpler things like blockades.

    Funny thought: If this is supposed to repel standing crowds, what happens when some unfortunate soul gets tossed into this field/effect and can't move quickly enough to get out? Seizure? Paralysis? Death?

    Darth Waiter on
  • Options
    blizzard224blizzard224 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    This is, quite frankly, an awsome development.

    If sometime in the future we can have weapons like this being used in almost all civil and forein situations the amount of lives saved would be staggering. I have trouble justifying any war in my mind at the moment, something like this would make it so much easier.

    As far as using it for riot control, I don't really like it. It's something for serious conflict, not riots. Waterguns do fine there.

    blizzard224 on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    If sometime in the future we can have weapons like this being used in almost all civil and forein situations the amount of lives saved would be staggering. I have trouble justifying any war in my mind at the moment, something like this would make it so much easier.
    O_o What about this makes you think people would use it consistently in anything other than peacekeeping engagements?

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    bone daddy wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Also, what are the odds that someone would decide that milimeter-wave beams are acceptable interrogation tools, since - hey- no permanent damage!
    I'd imagine you could achieve the same effect far more simply (and cheaply) with a pair of jumper cables and a car battery.
    But you've already got your little gizmo right there, and the jumper cables and car battery have already been declared torture, whereas this has been tested and it's completely safe.
    God I hope they build it into a little Dune-style box they make people stick their hands in at knifepoint. It's still fucking barbaric, but it has panache.
    Yom Gabbar (sp?)! :D That'd be awesome, haha.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    From ye olde Wiki
    The ADS works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. When the waves contact skin, the energy in the waves is turned into heat which in turn heats the water molecules in the skin to around 55 C (130 degrees Fahrenheit), causing an intensely painful burning sensation. The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of approximately one kilometer.

    A higher radio frequency is chosen because, as a property of electromagnetic waves, they are unable to penetrate the body as deeply as lower frequency waves, thereby affecting external organs only, such as skin.

    This is certainly "Less Than Lethal", and not "Non-lethal". If you crank up the power, and use lower frequency waves, you can cook someone's internal organs easy enough. Heck, even high power at it's usual frequency will burn and blister skin. Also, what if this hits your eyes?

    The ADS is designed to encourage our pain reflex - to get away from what's causing the pain as fast as possible. It's instinctive for humans to do it. My concern is what happens when someone can't move: They're human shields, or unconcious, or whatever.

    I'm pretty sure rioters will come armed with tinfoil suits and Faraday cages now - the hippies have evolved!

    3lwap0 on
  • Options
    NexusSixNexusSix Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    If sometime in the future we can have weapons like this being used in almost all civil and forein situations the amount of lives saved would be staggering.

    On a strictly moral standpoint, I completely agree with you. Civilians--children, mothers, sons, daughters--being sprayed with bullets or buried under the rubble of an "oops, wrong target" bomb strike--is heartbreaking and repulsive.

    But on the flip side: non-lethal weapons allow for free repeats. Here's a very simplistic example: group of soldiers are manning a checkpoint, small group of "terrorists" blends in with the general population and open up with small-arms fire on soldiers and civilians, soldiers use non-lethal (ADS, rubber bullets, etc.) to disperse everybody. "Terrorists" retreat to safehouse, show up again and do the same thing the next day, repeat, repeat, repeat. When a target is permanently "neutralized," said target won't show up again the next day to pull the same shit.

    Edit: Gom Jabbar. :wink:

    NexusSix on
    REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
    Ng Security Industries, Inc.
    PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
    -ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
  • Options
    EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    That wired news article is from the writer who runs the Defensetech.org website. Brilliant fellow, was an embed with the UK military in Iraq, and posts some interesting news bits on the website.

    The ADS system has been tested on civilians, by the Air Force, in different scenarios:
    From the Defensetech.org website on the ADS system:
    "F-WR-2002-0024-H - Effects of Ethanol on Millimeter-Wave-Induced Pain translates roughly into “let’s see if a guy can stand the pain if we give him enough vodkas.”
    FWR-2002-0023 Facial sensitivity and eye aversion response says that earlier trials included testing the pain beam on subjects buttocks; and
    FWR-2004-0029-H: Effects of Active Denial System Exposures on the Performance of Military Working Dog Teams involved putting a trained attack dog and its handler in front of the beam and seeing what happened when the animal was exposed to sudden, intense pain. Down, boy, down...

    The beam has been tested thousands of times, and the bottom line is the same – apart from very occasional blisters (seven in ten thousand exposures), all the ADS does is hurt a lot. Earlier concerns about zippers and spectacles seem to have been settled. But the Pentagon are hugely defensive about it. Perhaps it’s coincidence, but since those FoIA documents went out the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Program updated their web site’s section on the ADS. The best bit is the new video here. If you ignore the Pentagon PR blather and move to a point 1 minute 19 seconds in you can see the actual effects of the beam, but only for 8 seconds, and again at 1 min 40 for 6 seconds."

    It's been in development for years now and it's technology is pretty proven to work. There are only a few cases of blisters out of the many tests they've conducted, Noah (The writer of the Wired article and Defensetech.org) states that 7 out of 10,000 exposures experienced blisters, which is a small enough number for me personally.

    I can see this working in riots and checkpoints. In the riots that's I've had to deal with while in Iraq, you don't use waterguns. You use non-lethal ammunition, dogs, and lots of yelling; in one case, a dust storm hit our FOB pretty bad and you couldn't see anything beyond 10ft infront of you. Rocks where flying everywhere, the Iraqi's where chanting "Allah Ahakbar" over and over again while throwing rocks at us(one hit my face, one hit my IBA, one hit my buddies hand and broke it, one hit my LT's jaw and knocked a tooth out). That night, we fired over 5000 rounds of non-lethal shotgun ammunition, around 1500 M203 non-lethals, over 3,000 FN-303 rounds, and threw over 200 flashbangs and 100 donkey dick grenades(A non-lethal frag grenade. It has rubber ball bearings inside and when it explodes, it sends the ball bearings everywhere). The riot didn't stop until 5am, when it had started at 5pm. And we went through several riots throughout my tour.

    An ADS weapon like this could effectively limit the amount of casualties sustained by friendly force, reduce the amount of Non-lethal or even lethal ammunition used, and quickly disperse or end a riot. I can see it being misused though, a few soldiers bored with guarding a Check point, decide to use the ADS on some random passer-by, watching him run away theoretically unharmed, but irritated and afraid.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, they do mention that the victims be away from water, as that will increase the pain caused and damage caused. So it's a big no for maritime use...but if you are that close a ship and rioting there is something wrong already.

    Evigilant on
    XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • Options
    Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Another tool with questionable applications being foisted upon the American people with warm n' fuzzy code words like "Goodbye Effect" and being proffered as a better tool to get the job done.

    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    This is, quite frankly, an awsome development.

    If sometime in the future we can have weapons like this being used in almost all civil and forein situations the amount of lives saved would be staggering. I have trouble justifying any war in my mind at the moment, something like this would make it so much easier.

    It's very likely defeatable with a farraday cage. Just bascially a mesh suit, which would be pretty easy to fabricate.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    GolemGolem of Sand Saint Joseph, MORegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Not as big as between being alive with a sunburn and laying in the street with a hole in your head.

    Id take a non-lethal inhumane hit over a bullet in my face anyday.

    Golem on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Blister>GSW.


    Could they keep the 'ray' on indefinitely as kind of a invisible 'fence'?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Not as big as between being alive with a sunburn and laying in the street with a hole in your head.

    Id take a non-lethal inhumane hit over a bullet in my face anyday.
    Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand:
    You all probably won't find this as hilarious as we did, and you can probably label me as sick but:

    We nicknamed our Mk. 19 (An automatic 40mm grenade launcher) "Humanely", and each individual 40mm round was named "Dignity" and "Respect". This way in the future if we where asked why didn't we treat them humanely, with dignity and respect we could reply:
    "but sir we did treat them Humanely. We gave them dignity 3 times but those suckers dodged respect every time.

    Evigilant on
    XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • Options
    Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Not as big as between being alive with a sunburn and laying in the street with a hole in your head.

    Id take a non-lethal inhumane hit over a bullet in my face anyday.
    Touche.

    Still, this just doesn't strike me as an effective weapon of war. It doesn't eliminate a threat, it just moves the threat in the opposite direction temporarily. It has far better utility as a police weapon, and I bet there are plenty of law enforcement groups who want to get their hands on the magic pain ray.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • Options
    GolemGolem of Sand Saint Joseph, MORegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Not as big as between being alive with a sunburn and laying in the street with a hole in your head.

    Id take a non-lethal inhumane hit over a bullet in my face anyday.
    Touche.

    Still, this just doesn't strike me as an effective weapon of war. It doesn't eliminate a threat, it just moves the threat in the opposite direction temporarily.

    Agreed.

    Golem on
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Not as big as between being alive with a sunburn and laying in the street with a hole in your head.

    Id take a non-lethal inhumane hit over a bullet in my face anyday.
    Touche.

    Still, this just doesn't strike me as an effective weapon of war. It doesn't eliminate a threat, it just moves the threat in the opposite direction temporarily. It has far better utility as a police weapon, and I bet there are plenty of law enforcement groups who want to get their hands on the magic pain ray.
    I just wish they'd also get their hands on a proper understanding of the right to peacable assembly and de-escalation tactics, seeing as they're not the Roman army and protest groups aren't a barbarian horde.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    There's a vast gulf between 'nonlethal' and 'humane' it seems.

    Not as big as between being alive with a sunburn and laying in the street with a hole in your head.

    Id take a non-lethal inhumane hit over a bullet in my face anyday.
    Touche.

    Still, this just doesn't strike me as an effective weapon of war. It doesn't eliminate a threat, it just moves the threat in the opposite direction temporarily. It has far better utility as a police weapon, and I bet there are plenty of law enforcement groups who want to get their hands on the magic pain ray.

    Its not a battlefield weapon. Its a way for soldiers to control a hostile civilian population once the war's over.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    3lwap0 wrote:
    This is certainly "Less Than Lethal", and not "Non-lethal". If you crank up the power, and use lower frequency waves, you can cook someone's internal organs easy enough. Heck, even high power at it's usual frequency will burn and blister skin. Also, what if this hits your eyes?

    The ADS is designed to encourage our pain reflex - to get away from what's causing the pain as fast as possible. It's instinctive for humans to do it. My concern is what happens when someone can't move: They're human shields, or unconcious, or whatever.

    The sheer distance this can be fired, the concern for vital areas more prone to injury/permanent injury (eyes) and the risk of people incapacitated in the beam's path (or the risk of people dying due to being trampled in a panic'd stampede) do give me pause on such a device.

    I wholeheartedly approve of the military producing tools to utilize in situations where lethal force is not required, however I realisitically recognize that it's only a matter of time before that tool is misused, intentionally or accidentally.

    I can only hope that those who are using it are trained to do so in the most professional manner.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    Malkor wrote:
    Its not a battlefield weapon. Its a way for soldiers to control a hostile civilian population once the war's over.
    Honestly, dispersing crowds seems much less a problem than dealing with saboteurs, snipers, and bombers. If the extent of our problems in Iraq revolved around getting unarmed assembled masses of people to go on home, we'd be in pretty good shape.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Malkor wrote:
    Its not a battlefield weapon. Its a way for soldiers to control a hostile civilian population once the war's over.
    Honestly, dispersing crowds seems much less a problem than dealing with saboteurs, snipers, and bombers. If the extent of our problems in Iraq revolved around getting unarmed assembled masses of people to go on home, we'd be in pretty good shape.
    This technology wasn't created just to deal with our current problem in Iraq. The DoD works on non-lethal tech in addition to guns and missiles. Its just that Iraq is the perfect situation to test their tech in a real world situation.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    Malkor wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Malkor wrote:
    Its not a battlefield weapon. Its a way for soldiers to control a hostile civilian population once the war's over.
    Honestly, dispersing crowds seems much less a problem than dealing with saboteurs, snipers, and bombers. If the extent of our problems in Iraq revolved around getting unarmed assembled masses of people to go on home, we'd be in pretty good shape.
    This technology wasn't created just to deal with our current problem in Iraq. The DoD works on non-lethal tech in addition to guns and missiles. Its just that Iraq is the perfect situation to test their tech in a real world situation.
    I guess I don't really see the general utility of it for soldiers. It sounds like it's basically being hawked as a tool that will allow soldiers or police to more indiscrimantly lay down the hurt. It seems to me that pretty much the best way to piss someone off is to fire a pain beam at them when they're not attacking you.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    We could only use the Gom Jabbar if we taught the prisoners the Litany Against Fear. I think that's somewhere in the U.N. prisoner codes.

    Anyway, while this might not have the best military applications it would certainly have some use at home, so long as it were saved for the correct situation. Something on the scale of the Rodney King riots could happen again pretty easily. It shouldn't be used when a few nazis at a rally get uppitidy or something.

    Casual Eddy on
  • Options
    DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Evigilant wrote:
    Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand:
    You all probably won't find this as hilarious as we did, and you can probably label me as sick but:

    We nicknamed our Mk. 19 (An automatic 40mm grenade launcher) "Humanely", and each individual 40mm round was named "Dignity" and "Respect". This way in the future if we where asked why didn't we treat them humanely, with dignity and respect we could reply:
    "but sir we did treat them Humanely. We gave them dignity 3 times but those suckers dodged respect every time.

    Irrelevant or not, it's pretty damned funny.

    Delzhand on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    Anyway, while this might not have the best military applications it would certainly have some use at home, so long as it were saved for the correct situation. Something on the scale of the Rodney King riots could happen again pretty easily. It shouldn't be used when a few nazis at a rally get uppitidy or something.
    I'll bet General Bonkers would turn it on those stinking hippies and their knit-ins, just on principle.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Anyway, while this might not have the best military applications it would certainly have some use at home, so long as it were saved for the correct situation. Something on the scale of the Rodney King riots could happen again pretty easily. It shouldn't be used when a few nazis at a rally get uppitidy or something.
    I'll bet General Bonkers would turn it on those stinking hippies and their knit-ins, just on principle.

    You get 100,000 points for knowing who General Bonkers is. <3

    He got a lot of flak for declaring the war on string unwinnable - he needs our support. (But he does hate hippies. And dogs.)

    Casual Eddy on
  • Options
    TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    The real question we should ask is, if this thing only blisters skin 0.07% of the time, does that mean we can't cook with it? I'd like to know if it can heat up a hot dog.

    Concern for this weapon being used inappropriately isn't really on the top of my list, as it's at least better than billy clubs, tear gas and all the other less-than-lethal methods that are already in use. I'm sure some yahoo is going to zap a villaiger at some point. You give an 18-year-old ex-football jock with an assault rifle a laser gun and tell him only to use it in emergencies, he's gonna wanna start shooting cans off a fence within the first 10 seconds. At least he's not popping some poor Afghani kid's kneecaps with rubber bullets or cracking a woman's skull in the marketplace because she won't remove her scarf so he can get a look at her.

    I'm not saying that this image represents all of our troops, just to be clear. I'm saying that there are troops that act this way from time to time and I think a ranged pain-ray is much better in their hands than the alternatives. I'd rather we not be over in the Middle East at all but we don't really have a choice right now.

    TankHammer on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    I guess I don't really see the general utility of it for soldiers. It sounds like it's basically being hawked as a tool that will allow soldiers or police to more indiscrimantly lay down the hurt. It seems to me that pretty much the best way to piss someone off is to fire a pain beam at them when they're not attacking you.

    And pissing somebody off is not the best idea in a country where AK-47's and explosives grow on trees. Seriously, you hit me with the magic "sucks to be you" pain ray, you can bet your sweet ass I'm not going to feel bad when my buddies blast one of your convoys and then disappear off into the desert. I might even be more willing to help them dig the hole for the IED.

    EDIT: Also, considering the recent incident involving Tasers at UCLA, there is no goddamned way I want this in the hands of the police.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2006
    I'm happy for non-lethal alternatives.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Malkor wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Malkor wrote:
    Its not a battlefield weapon. Its a way for soldiers to control a hostile civilian population once the war's over.
    Honestly, dispersing crowds seems much less a problem than dealing with saboteurs, snipers, and bombers. If the extent of our problems in Iraq revolved around getting unarmed assembled masses of people to go on home, we'd be in pretty good shape.
    This technology wasn't created just to deal with our current problem in Iraq. The DoD works on non-lethal tech in addition to guns and missiles. Its just that Iraq is the perfect situation to test their tech in a real world situation.
    I guess I don't really see the general utility of it for soldiers. It sounds like it's basically being hawked as a tool that will allow soldiers or police to more indiscrimantly lay down the hurt. It seems to me that pretty much the best way to piss someone off is to fire a pain beam at them when they're not attacking you.

    Well, as said before, it looks like situation it's meant for is - an unidentified gunman is taking potshots at you from inside a civilian building. You can't immediately see where he is and firing off shots randomly might kill civilians, so instead you pain ray the whole building. Yeah, that means women and children are going to experience mind-boggling pain for five minutes, but at least they're not dead.

    However, I'm extremely skeptical of the argument that there are no lasting effects. I find that impossible to believe.

    Also, I'm curious if it's possible for the "bad guys" to DIY one of these devices. What cooks the goose can cook the gander.

    Finally, how effective would a Faraday cage be at dampening this? It'd be funny if it could be defeated with a few layers of ferrous chicken wire.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    I just wish they'd also get their hands on a proper understanding of the right to peacable assembly and de-escalation tactics, seeing as they're not the Roman army and protest groups aren't a barbarian horde.
    I fear the day when they decide to begin laying this on peaceful protests

    Corlis on
    But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
    I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Sign In or Register to comment.