Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

Cooks you like a microwave, but uses longer waves (partially to reduce the risk of long-term effects such as cancer). Now all we need is for the Army to finally deploy their XM25 Air-Burst Weapons (aka bolters) and for DARPA to develop practical exoskeletons.

EDIT: Actually, I exaggerate a bit. It doesn't really cook you as the effects don't penetrate deeper than the skin and most humans flee within 3 seconds of exposure.

This was actually posted quite a while back, but it's still quite interesting. It intrigues me to no end that this allegedly non-lethal weapon will take much longer to get into service than conventional weaponry.

It's easy to make a weapon that kills someone. It's not so easy to make a weapon that doesn't.

Theres a lot of things that need to be met that makes this weapon "humane". To keep lethal weapons humane, they must kill quickly. Thats about their only requirement. Much more is required for non-lethal weapon. Hence it takes longer to develop.

Not that the milatry give a crap.

To qoute you...

"Actually your wrong." - Beef

I hate non-lethal weaponry. Pointless and soft, like THE HEADS OF PEOPLE WHO MAKE POLITICAL COMMENTS ON DAKKA.

Dude. That's so not a melta gun. It's for anti-horde!

Posted By malfred on 12/10/2006 10:32 AM
Dude. That's so not a melta gun. It's for anti-horde!

Still better than a lasgun

"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."

Unforseen effects? Maybe. But I'll bet anyone would rather be hit with this millimeter raygun and possibly suffer some unforseen effects than, oh, a fifty-caliber machine-gun slug, whose effects are well-documented.

@ djones, like you would know. Unless they tested it out on you.

What? Isn't it obvious that he's right, though? We know what it takes to kill somebody - you get a small piece of metal, possibly with explosives in it, and you project it at very high speeds through certain areas of the body. New variations on that design don't take a great deal of thinking through.

There is, however, a very fine line that you have to walk when trying to come up with a nonlethal weapon. First, it has to be nonlethal and humane - even though I'd argue that people would rather experience a few hours of crippling pain instead of being killed, it is politically impossible to use a nonlethal weapon that inflicts a great deal of pain or that has lasting long-term effects. On the other hand, the weapon has to be effective. If it only creates a mild itching sensation, then it's utterly useless as a weapon.

Essentially, the problem is that overkill is just fine, and is even encouraged, to a degree, with a lethal weapon. If the bullet is big enough and fast enough to kill the target, then it doesn't much matter whether or not it merely cuts nickel-sized holes in their body or whether it explodes their entire torso. When designing and testing the thing, you can freely move between these two extremes, probably settling somewhere in between so as to leave a factor of safety. With nonlethal weapons, on the other hand, too much force completely defeats the point - you're just killing somebody. However, too little force means that you're not fighting them effectively. That's a pretty small target to hit.

And of course the military cares. Nonlethal weaponry is fewer civilian deaths, and, politically speaking, that's a wonderful thing.

My question about this "non-lethal" weapon... what are it's effects if directed at, oh say... the human eye? If it caused blistering from extended exposure (5 seconds) what happens if a person happens to be LOOKING at the emitter? The human eye is fairly sensitive to such things.

Posted By Gotchaye on 12/10/2006 2:03 PM

And of course the military cares. Nonlethal weaponry is fewer civilian deaths, and, politically speaking, that's a wonderful thing.

But using less than lethal weaponry against civilians just creates more insurgents/guerilllas/freedom fighters/whatever.  I don't mean to sound callous, but it would probably be better just to kill them.

Posted By Noble713 on 12/10/2006 12:24 AM

EDIT: Actually, I exaggerate a bit. It doesn't really cook you as the effects don't penetrate deeper than the skin and most humans flee within 3 seconds of exposure.

So...it won't be used on the angry, the drunk, those in crowds, or angry drunk crowds? Pull the other one, it hath bells on. =)

Would have been useful when those stupid GUY FAWKES masks rose up and molested the soldiers...

Ideas are microwave beam proof, Felix.

So that's why we're all still alive! I had wondered...

Posted By Gotchaye on 12/10/2006 2:03 PM

And of course the military cares. Nonlethal weaponry is fewer civilian deaths, and, politically speaking, that's a wonderful thing.

Do they?  what planet are you living on.  Civilian casulties are always brushed aside as acceptable losses.  Wake up.  And politically speaking most countries control there media enough not to show the civilian casualties.

Posted By Construct on 12/10/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By Noble713 on 12/10/2006 12:24 AM

EDIT: Actually, I exaggerate a bit. It doesn't really cook you as the effects don't penetrate deeper than the skin and most humans flee within 3 seconds of exposure.

So...it won't be used on the angry, the drunk, those in crowds, or angry drunk crowds? Pull the other one, it hath bells on. =)

Exactly.

 

Also what if the person cant flee in 3 secs and the user keeps cooking the poor bast@rd?  I have seen cops taser someone 5-6 times reapetedly just for the hell of it.  That and the cop was all gungho.

Screw civilians. Non-lethal weapons should be used on ALL targets.

"Saddam Hussein is evil -- let's go kill his conscripts to set them free!"

@ Kimon

its still non lethal if it makes you blind.

Posted By pnweerar on 12/11/2006 5:33 AM
Screw civilians. Non-lethal weapons should be used on ALL targets.

"Saddam Hussein is evil -- let's go kill his conscripts to set them free!"

 

He was an evil dictator who deserves to die.  Hoever the sad truth is

American bombings in Iraq have killed more civilians than he managed in all his years of power.  

 

Way OTT but thats an incorrect statement. He has been accused of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people.

 

You better show some stats from reputable sources before you begin pandering that pablum Beef.

Might be correct, might not. Finding official reliable numbers is not an easy thing. Either way this should probably be discussed in the DCM forums or the OT zone. Here it's just gonna end up locked.


Back on topic, I understand the appeal of being able to 'harmlessly' repel and disperse possible threats/crowds, but what good is that in actually stopping an 'insurgent'. Surely the capture/death of said combatant would be much more preferable that simply making them run away with a blistered backside and more anger than they started off with.

Now, tweak it so that it will detonate any ammo that the person hit is carrying and then we're talking. Then it won't kill 'em unless they're already up to no good.

Posted By beef on 12/10/2006 12:51 PM
@ djones, like you would know. Unless they tested it out on you.

Considering that everyone in the US Military is required to be very fluent in the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat), I would say yes, I would know.  It's my job to know.  What experience do you have to draw apon to make your assumptions?

Posted By beef on 12/11/2006 9:35 AM

Posted By pnweerar on 12/11/2006 5:33 AM
Screw civilians. Non-lethal weapons should be used on ALL targets.

"Saddam Hussein is evil -- let's go kill his conscripts to set them free!"

 

He was an evil dictator who deserves to die.  Hoever the sad truth is

American bombings in Iraq have killed more civilians than he managed in all his years of power.  

 

You're just further and further show casing your ignorance.  Stop listening to Michael Moore. That only kills your brain cells.  Read the LOAC sometime.  It'll teach you a thing or two about how we wage war.

I doubt he's listening to Michael Moore, as even Moore wouldn't make such an utterly ignorant statement devoid of any rational thought much less facts. Moore likes to distort the truth to his ends, not make up bald faced lies.

Beef, you do realize that the insurgents in Iraq are doing the bombings? Not the Americans (or the British forces to the south)? Don't you? Or is your complete inability to post coherently due to some mental defect that extends to making such baseless claims? Even during the initial combat operations, some 90% (or more?) of the ordnance dropped was precision guided munitions (compared to some 25% twelve years earlier). You know, really expensive bombs designed to accurately strike their military target and thereby reduce civilian casualties.

"most people run away in 3 seconds"

Hmmm...I wonder when the folks at the next Abu Graib (sp?) will start using these on people tied to chairs. Effective little torture device there.

Remember the 'box of pain' from the first Dune book?

Insurgents? Nice word. However the fact is you will look at it from an American perspective not an Iraqi one. I work with alot of Iraqi's that have fled the war. There is moreviolence now that saddam is gone then when he was there. Most of these Iraqi's agree that while he was in power if the average citizen stayed out of politics they were fine. However if they tried to get political Yes he would kill them. The country is alot more unsafe now then before.

As for the bombing being accurate when the US troops were bombing Afganistan a few of there missiled landed in a village in Balochistan which is in Pakistan Bordiering Afganistan). Now whats the poor villigers fault? One minute they are chilling, and next min they are dead.

@nyarlathopes, yes I relise that the insurgents are doing the bombing Now. But Ask your self why they are doing the bombings? Bush went into Iraq for What? WOMD, yeah right, Democracy for the Iraqi's, yes right, Oil? most proobably, Hunting Osama, Bollocks. The world is now even more unsafe. All that war has done is create more terrorists.

Look around you, since WW2 how many countries has the Us bombed?, How many countries does the US have some sort of sanctions against? 99.9%, As for statistics everybody knows they are made up and unreliable.

Posted By beef on 12/11/2006 11:18 PM

yes I relise that the insurgents are doing the bombing Now. But Ask your self why they are doing the bombings? Bush went into Iraq for What? WOMD, yeah right, Democracy for the Iraqi's, yes right, Oil? most proobably, Hunting Osama, Bollocks. The world is now even more unsafe. All that war has done is create more terrorists. 

I think this clip does an excellent job of summarizing your viewpoints, Beef.

youtube.com/watch