Slashdot Mirror
Marine Corps Testing Maser for Anti-Personnel Use
Former1626er writes: "The Marine Corps is testing out phasers or what the military industrial complex calls "non-lethal direct energy weapon." Here's the UPI story, and if you have a subscription to the Marine Corps Times you can read the original story - "The People Zapper" - there. In brief: the Marines are deploying a microwave laser for anti-personnel usage, with the idea basically being: burn people so they run away. So, how many of you have read the sci-fi novella "Press Enter"?
I guess this isn't exactly going to rate very high, wit just the single remark that this reminds me of Star Trek. Oh, what the [...]
does it have settings ranging from "stun" to "fry to a delicate brown"?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Originally appearing in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine (10+ years ago).
Offtopic, but you asked.
-Patric
For those who have not read it, "Press Enter" is a short story by John Varley about a government/military computer that becomes sentient. It kills any civilians who find out about it by hypnotizing them with flashing patterns on their computer monitors and convincing them to kill themselves in nasty ways. One poor woman ends up cooking her brains in a microwave.
Free Hans!
$4M a year for a heat gun? Damn. I think the tear gas and rubber bullets would've sufficed.
I will assume that this weapon will be able to fry more than people. You may be able to use it for making toast really fast among other things. I think that there may be many more uses by lazy people than for the military.
---> suck it
Wouldn't this cause more permanent damage to more delicate external organs like your eyes?
As an alternative, you could use this as mass birth control too... (heat up those testies!)
Ouch.
There's been a bit of fuss about this type of weapon as inhumane, but I'm not sure it's any more or less brutal than, say, a machine gun, a bayonette, or a grenade. In any case I doubt these will replace guns any time soon.
-John
.. We'll have old men sitting on porches drinking out of mason jars, while they clean their 'masers'..
This will of course lead to all sorts of 'maser' safety issues. (make *SURE* the saftey it on).
"we're not sure if it was the maser or the moonshine, but he hasn't moved for 5 hours.."
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
"In brief: the Marines are deploying a microwave laser for anti-personnel usage"
now, it's either a MASER or a LASER. the M in maser stands for microwave, the L in laser stands for light.
I know it sounds picky, but microwaves really aren't the same wavelength as light. Just as a side note: the MASER was developed first (1963 I think), with the LASER coming a couple years after.
Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949
--
Anybody remember the old Mars Attacks Card "The Heat Ray"? Like they're not going to have an option to pump it up from "Ouch" to "Bubble bubble boil and trouble".
As both a former Marine infantrymen---well, Always A Marine, but you know what I mean---and a current raving liberal /. nerd I am curious about the utility of this weapon. And this whole line of "non-lethal" research.
Lethal weaponry is meant to effect immediate change through violent force. Political will to its ultimate ---and hopefully least used --- expression.
"Non-lethal" weaponry is about the maintenance of the status quo. "Preservation of order". "Humanitarian missions". "Curbing civil disorder".
Curious. Fascinating, Captain. Fascinating. Just a paranoid thought to chew on. And a statement of how military objectives and missions have changed.
For now, quelling "civil disorder" is outside the U.S. Of course, with the most militaristic police forces in the West it doesn't take a genius...
Too rare are the sci-fi books which contend with actual injury and suffering inflicted by heat or light based weapons.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Integrate it with a car and ditch the noisy alarm. False positives won't wake the neighborhood, and real positives would be more entertaining! (And I bet a crook's howls would end sooner than one of those Whoop!Whoop!Whoop!Ennnnnh!Ennnnnh! alarm cycles!)
Imagine the fun if you had one of these babies mounted by the front door for when the jeezoids come a-knocking!
God, the possibilities are endless!
I have mixed feelings on this, since this technology eventually *will* be used on humans, and on Americans who choose to riot or protest.
Don't beleive me? Ask survivors of the Kent State Massacre exactly what the U.S. military will do and to whom.
One one hand, it's great that this technology has 'proven' (I'd really like to see those classified studies) not to be lethal. Like pepper-spray, however, there is serious application for misuse, torture and serious human-rights abuse. It's one thing to use an energy beam to make a dangerous crowd uncomfortble enough to disperse, it's quite another to 'teach them a lesson' by repeated application as police all around the country are known to do with pepper spray, batons, and/or their firearms.
Who's definition of 'dangerous' do we use, and who watches the watchers?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
***
***
umm... what's a sig? is that a 'hacking' thing?
"You see Congressman, the reason the Marines need this weapon is that it is effective and non-lethal. Let me demonstrate on your aide here.
Aide explodes violently.
"Hmmm, needs tweaking."
Later,
ErikZ
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I certainly hope the military plans to teach these guys how to aim. The guys on Star Trek miss ALL THE TIME and always get shot. The ever-expendable security staff on all four shows have a terrible time working those weapons, even the big-ass rifles. I hope we have better luck!
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Don't get me wrong, I love that the military finally did something right (and VERY cost-effectively too... $40M over 3 years? Is that a typo?) in developing non-lethal weapons.
Among some questions... How big is this thing? The article implies that it could be mounted on a tank or aircraft. Could it be adapted to hand-held size? If there's a tank or aircraft for "crowd control", isn't it a little late to think about the non-lethalness of the weapons used? And would it be able to target individuals, or would it just burn en masse, the entire crowd?
Is overexposure a potential problem? The article says "130 degrees F in 2 seconds, but what happens in the first second? The third? I have a mental picture of a Marine saying, "Stay right there so I can non-lethally deter you from... STOP THAT!!" followed by a similar picture of a hideously burned face because he left the weapon on "crispy pork rinds".
Kudos to the Marines for developing this technology, but until it gets faster than 2 seconds, I somehow can't see it being very effective.
Busco a alguien que me quiera como yo la quiera.
How is this supposed to hit a single target accurately at 2,000 feet? I see no mentioning of any real precision. Is this designed just to spray everyone in a group with pain at long range? In that case, I can see human rights people protesting over this device if it indiscriminantly hits groups.
Also, how would a aircraft system work? To maintain an accurate bead on a target from 2000 feet away from a helicopter that is constantly in motion seems to me impossible. Even at closer ranges, it seems to me to be a difficult task to keep this fired at the proper target.
Whether He be the Son Of God, I know not, but this I know: whereas I was blind, now I see.
"It provides decision makers with options. You can guarantee that the Marines were excruciatingly detailed in building in technological limiters to keep the system from having a lethal effect,"
How many times in recent history have we seen a "limiter" been removed and yielded a more powerful/devistation device.
I'm betting that underground instructions for making your own with two savlaged microwaves and $1000 in other parts will soon swoop down on the net and we'll have some really strange reports of unruly parties with load music being broken up by neighbors driving by and kapping the pad.
Or "Mob's new torture device of choice found to be low-cost version of new military 'non-lethal technology"
It's going to get icky.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
What does a Marine need with a non-lethal weapon? Marines are the fast reaction force that goes in to places like Bosnia or Kuwait, kills people and blows shit up. War, in other words. They are not POLICE, they are SOLDIERS.
Plus, what use is a maser going to be to a guy in the field? Either it is mounted on a vehicle instead of a machine gun (rendering the vehicle hopelessly vulnerable), or some poor grunt has to hump the friggin huge battery on his back.
Control of mobs in a war is simple: Gas them, then shoot the ones at the front until the ones at the back run away. War is ugly. Get over it.
Well...
There is an old story of a security gaurd at a telecom company who used to warm up on cold winter nights by standing in front of the microwave transmitters.
The story goes, he was found dead one night over the holidays. Evidently the power output was bumped up during that time period and he cooked.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Time I checked "lethal" means it kills people. How can something be more lethal than something that doesn't kill people and yet less lethal than something that does? Does it only kill some people? Can it be used indescriminantly because it usualy doesn't kill people?
The problem with non-lethal weapons is that when the State has the ability to exert its will on its people -- without the consequences of lethal force -- it is more likely to do so.
--
I agree, this technology will soon be used to disperse crowds in the U.S. However, what is good, not bad, about this is that presumably this microwave would be used instead of tear gas, pepper spray, or beating as a method of attacking protesters.
All of those technologies CAN KILL you, and immobilize you for quite some time. This, it seems, just hurts, nothing more.
On the other hand, if I were a rioter and I knew that this weapon was being used on me, it would make me _more angry_ and _more likely_ to attack the cops. After all, it can't hurt you.
So, like everything in life, it has its pros and cons.
"Chill, Orrin!"---Trent Lott
I find that I have mixed feelings about weapons like this. On the one hand, it's probably better than killing people or permanently maiming them. On the other hand, though, it's pretty easy to imaging people using that fact to justify over-using such a device -- witness some of the controversies over the police practice of swabbing pepper spray in the eyes of nonviolent protesters. The line between appropriate use of nonlethal weapons and torture can get pretty thin.
This is the worst thing I have seen for a very long time. Burn them so they run away? What the fuck? Shooting them in the head is more humane.
When you are subjected to microwave radiation, you can get internal burns. That means that you can be slightly burned on the outside, but your internal organs can be damaged. Burnt tissue begins to decay. Internal decay is bad.
This is possibly worse than biological warfare. It leads to many of the same problems as radiation burn.
What are they thinking?
The only good use for this is for a guerilla force trying to defend a narrow passage or tunnel.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before energy weapons like this replace standard projectile weapons -- at high energies, they can cause as much damage without as much mess and zero tracability (no ballisitics). Could be good for assasins.
Another interesting point here is for the development of energy shields -- people will need to where kevlar (or the next material of the week) plus some sort of field generator that can disrupt incoming energy beams.
Last interesting thing is whether at higher energies they can increase the effective target area from a narrow killer beam to a wide, shotgun-ish field that can repel crowds.
Just flexing the brain,
--brian
It seems odd that those running the army would think of something like this. Sure, it could have some potential use in day to day life, (scary as that may be) but in a war it would seem a bit useless. The point of any war is to force something out of someone, be it property, goods, or a concept ie. the crusades. We do that by giving our rivals no choice. "If we kill all of you, it will be worse than giving us what we want." Either that, or we do kill all of them, and we take what we want. Either way, a war usually involves eliminating the enemy forces. Not stunning them. Many light conspiracy theorists believe war is important even for population control on our end, (shouldn't there be more remote control tanks and planes by now?). I just wonder what was going through these scientist's heads when they thought it would be productive to simply wound the enemy.
Blinkity
we were taught one thing: kill. I fondly remember one moment that, to me, crystallized the entire process of indoctrination.
It was a class on basic security procedures. It was boot camp. They were explaining the official policy on shooting to kill: how you were supposed to shoot to wound in this circumstance and that circumstance. There was a pause, and the Drill Instructor teaching the class, uttered in his gruff voice: "When aiming to wound, the head is an exceptional target".
No one nodded (we're recruits, we got in enough trouble as it was), but the meaning was clear: this isn't summer camp. Military law and procedures are often written by joint committees of military and civilian "officials", but the facts of life were clear: kill you target or risk your life and the lives of your fellow Marines. Making someone "run away" is hard if they're on psychotropics, or they're fanatics pledged to kill you. You don't fuck around. The guy on the Zodiac may have a pistol, or may have a briefcase nuke. You drop him, end of story.
I will, of course, be considered a fanatical jarhead - that's what happens when Marines express views.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
So where's the damn lightning gun?
Or the BFG?
"I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
Recently there have been lots of "anti-terrorist" domestic military exercises taking place in major US cities, as well as the escalating usage of military weapons/personnel against protest efforts by peaceful American citizens during events such as the WTO conference recently in Seattle, constituting possible violations against the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
The increasing use of military force right here in America lends weight to the idea that "non-lethal weaponry" is being deployed more as a domestic deterrent rather than as true war weaponry for use against other countries. Obviously they don't want to kill American citizens if they don't have to, but a zap from something like this would, apparently, be acceptable to the People In Charge...
__
props to all dead homiez
Hmm, is this a point weapon or an area weapon ? It talks about a range out to 750 metres. I havent done the math, but what with that nasty inverse square rule, I wonder how many civilians they can stun before they drain the grid (hmm, maybe not so effective here in California :) )
Cheers,
Winton
Here's a frightening thought. Ever see what happens to metal when it's put in the microwave? What if you're carrying your keys in your pocket and you get zapped by this thing?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
There you are, a marine, with a thin wooden sawhorse barricade standing between you and an unruly mob threatening to riot.
Completely unfazed, you unshoulder your brand new non-lethal microwave gun and level it at the first guy who tries to cross the line.
Pulling the trigger doesn't give you the same feedback as a rifle. It's somewhat anticlimactic. The gun emits a low hum and the battery pack becomes slightly warm to the touch.
Suddenly you are surprised with a loud crack. Your first thought is that someone has fired a conventional handgun, but you quickly connect the sound with the bright blue bolt that has appeared between your gun and the target. You smell the smoke of an electrical fire before the gun suddenly goes dead. For his part, the target has burst into flames and is thrashing about on the ground.
After the flames have been extinguished, medics quickly rush to the aid of the unfortunate wouldbe rioter. As one of them checks the man's vital signs, another reaches into the inside pocket of what remains of his jacket. His hand comes out clutching a barely recognizeable lump. "Dammit, not again," he says. Curious, you ask what he found. The medic holds up the lump for your examination. "Strawberry Pop-Tarts. Still in the foil wrapper."
"...a microwave laser..."
is a contradiction. LASER is an acronym for "Light Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation".
Just call it a MASER...
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
We were taught basically the same thing.
Best Slashdot Co
From the article:
"The article quoted an official saying that human subjects had been exposed to the beams more than 6,000 times under laboratory conditions. Furthermore, military researchers had completed a study, which has not been released, on the long-term health effects of exposure."
Select quip from the following:
a) Makes the Kool-Aid test seem positively benign.
b) "You know, it didn't REALLY bug me until #3,500 or so."
c) "Hey, this wasn't in the recruitment commercials!"
Ohh, subjects. Sorry.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Guess there's a use now for aluminum foil hats. How long after this comes into effect until someone starts making clothes with sewn-in wire mesh?
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
I was involved with the people who first put forth the concept of nonlethals. I worked with them between 1993 and 1998. I think that this is a good development overall because it helps to enforce what Janet Morris (nonlethal doctrine proposer) and Marine Sgt. Robert Walsh [ret.] described as the force continuum.
The force continuum is the application of different techniques to deterr an attacker or to stop a mob. At the lowest end you have visual and auditory cues, such as "no trespassing". At the high end you have to face lethal force, such as an M-16 or a rocket launcher. Nonlethal doctrine establishes this force continuum so that you have a greater number of options to apply between those two extremes. The idea is that in a confrontation, you will first warn. If that fails, use a deterrent. If that fails, use a stronger deterrent, and so on.
The V-MADS system talked about in the article is one more option for deterring an attacker, and it should not be taken in its own context. Nonlethal weapons and doctrine were created in response to geopolitical changes that metamorphosed the US armed forces from a military to a global quasi-police force. Political, diplomatic, legal and humanitarian pressures make it undesirable or impractical to blast an enemy to the Stone Age or to indiscriminately attack (and kill) a horde armed with sticks, stones, and Molotovs because our forces have better lethal alternatives. The force continuum gives you a wide range of options between diplomacy and military obliteration.
For more information on nonlethals, including a whole section on gadgets (R&D and production) available as of 1997, check out The Nonlethal Weapons Catalog. For gadgets only, check out The Gentle Soldier's Shopping Cart.
Cheers!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
I'm not sure why I'm writing about this here... /. it's because someone down there put a bullet in me...
There is a heroine complex (I'm not kidding, it's like New Jack City) in Chicago at 1510, 1520, and 1433 14th Place (Ashland and Roosevelt). My XGF just disappeared (again) and I'm sure is pan-handling and living there (again).
Please test this weapon there! Fry the place and watch the junkies come out screaming.
I'm going down there tommorrow daytime to try to find Mia, who coincidentally is the XGF who's MIA, and convince her to go home, wish me luck! The cops don't want to help (they know it's there... I drove by on a recon last night and there were three cop cars and a van circling the place, but they seemed more interested in getting my plates because I approacher the place that in shutting it down!)
Wish me luck, if this is my last post to
"I've seen plays that were more exciting than this.
Honest to god... Plays!" Homer Simpson
what kind of energy consumption does it have? ...
...
they mentioned mounting it on vehicles
also: did the military test it on soldiers?
Repel crowds ? in order to penatrate to the
second row, wouldnt it have to penetrate the
ppl in front(and thereby thier organs? and
what about soft membranes like eyballs
did you ever see indiana jones and the lost
arc? I do not want the gov to have things
that can melt my eyeballs. I like my eyeballs.
This is not a weapon for war.
They do not have enough range. They are
designed for use them against a civilian
population.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
All these people that wrap themselves in aluminum foil to counter the secret government mind rays are going to be turned into baked potatoes.
... by the time this weapon makes into the hands of the police, you'll be able to counter it with your Robocop SPF 2000 sunblock!
Sean
I like this idea for several reasons.
.357 hi caliber.
First, there's no exit wound or blood splatter, so it would make a highly effective sniping device. I've read that the location of the sniper can be pinpointed by measuring how the blood sprayd and the angle of the entry/exit. With this thing, they just fall to the ground with no messy cleanup.
Second, i suspect people will immediately set about reverse-engineering this thing and figuring out how to tweak the frequency so that it DOES go deeper than skin.
Thirdly, so much for bullet-proof vests. You'd need to wear a full-on bodysuit because the damage would occur in a rather larger radius 0(think umbra/penumbra field of effect), rather than the precision shot of a
Combine these and you don't have to be a marksmen to cook someone's brain from half a mile away, even if they are wearing bulletproof gear.
Given the fact that our military contractors love to sell weapons of mass destruction to non-US countries, we should be seeing these on the streets in the near future (assuming they are adopted).
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
You ever watch birds fall off of microwave towers?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
There are many other non-lethal weapons under development than just this. There is ultrasonic weapons in testing that can incapacitate individuals with nausea and/or pain/cramping. There is a REAL stun gun that was actually posted on slashdot about a year ago in which an ultraviolet laser is combined with high electric charge to produce a phaser in the mold of star trek - the ultraviolet laser is used to ionize a column of air to your target nearly simultaneous with a burst of electricity ala a taser. The ionized air column acts as a direct path to your target for your electric shock. The weapon can be dialed to whatever strength you want...mild stun to (potentially) lethal jolt. And it can shoot around corners (via mirrors)! Beautiful! Use that instead of a pussy paintball gun. YOu KNOW when you get hit.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Sounds like the military is takeing Unreal Tournament to a new level. So where do I sign up again?
We already have fucking lethal weapons available at any sporting goods store, gun shop, or pawn shop! Why the *hell* does there seem to be more fear over non-lethal weapons? I just don't get it. If I can disable a thief in my home long enough to tie him up or for police to come get him or even just drive him off, is that not preferred to a kill?
Yes. It would be nice if you civilians and politicians decided to learn from history. Everytime there's a scuffle in the world and people call on the military to go exert their muscle it seems that the consequences are never thought through. Witness Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. Ofcourse, when people DO start dying, then the military gets slapped for being rough. Witness the case in Yugoslavia where 82nd Airborne soldiers were told not to act so soldierly after minorly roughing a person they were interrogating regarding KLA actions. I'm not going to say that the military should be allowed to commit war crimes; however, realize that the military should be the absolute last resort...and only when the consequences of people, possibly innocents, dying or getting hurt, are accepted. This weapon was developed in part because it was felt that tear-gas and rubber bullets were "too harsh"... I'm sorry, but I hope the American people wake the fuck up soon. The military is meant for waging war; not domestic disputes or minor scuffles. People die when the military is used. Perhaps video games do desensitize people to violence. It seems that Americans are all too willing to use the military for everything but then throw a fit when people actually start getting hurt.
Had to get that out.
Humorless sig goes here.
I'd hate to consider what this would do if it hit a person's eye(s). I remember reading before about people getting hit by laser-like weapons and having serious and permenant eye problems ranging from intense headaches to blurred vision and worse. This sounds like a decent enough idea in theory but trying to control a micrometer sized beam from distances up to almost 2,300 feet away seems a bit like a problem.
.--bagel--.---------------.
| aim: | bagel is back |
| icq: | 158450 |
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
The Marine Corps and other services are interested in non-lethal weapons as an alternative to lead bullets when dealing with civilians in the new brand of deployment to "humanitarian" and "civil unrest" type missions. These devices can best be thought of as potent riot weapons. They have no need (or money, for that matter) for weapons that cause people "to wake up with what looks like sunburns". I don't know what caused your mother's burns, but if you think they were "testing a weapon" on her, you are a dreamer and you have definitely seen too many movies. As for the "Gulf Was Syndrome" that they came down with: are we talking cramps, nausea, etc? MUST be the same thing!!
Scratch-o-Matic
Evil is the money of root.
This would be fun to clear a path at the fry's returns counter
http://cam.vidcard.com
-mind different
There are several easy ways to protect yourself:
For the technically sophisticated rioter ....
*** Proven iconoclast, aspiring epicurean ***
I want a lightsaber!! Attach a slender carbon nanotube pole to a MASER emitter (with a one way mirror!), then put a metal reflector on the end.. The waves would bounce around inside until you slashed someone with it. Not quite an 'energy sword' but I think it comes close.
Douglas Adams
1952-2001 :(
This just might bring back chain mail. Just think -- all those SCA people have something. Perhaps we'll see more people making their own metal clothes?
Or, to save yourself the trouble... don't be a troublemaker. Consume. Obey. Conform.
Yeah, right.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
I am assuming that just like their foam gun and wheel shooting equipment that this thing will also come out looking bad. According to the article they are going to shoot this thing from up to 750 meters? From that distance the energy is going to be distributed over the entire body of the victim... err target. That means it will damage eye's, the skin around your ears, and if you are a card carrying member of the Y-chromosone club your going to get your testes roasted.
Think about that last one for a minute there, boys.
The more I listen to this stuff the more skeptical I become. This whole project seems more like an excuse to just dump money on a few companies and academics.
For more info check out this and this and maybe this.
In recent protests (anti-WTO, among others), demonstrators frequently brought countermeasures--gas masks to protect against tear gas, padded armor, etc.
What, if anything, can the average protesters do to protect themselves from a maser?
I am not a pacifist. With a gun comes a responsibility. The person using the gun realizes that they are taking the life of the person they are attacking. The society that sends them into battle must realize this as well.
Non-lethal weaponry is not new, America has used it for decades for the punish slaves. Instead of whips, we have a "directed energy weapon". The point of these weapons is not to kill, just to make them wish they were dead.
The last thing America needs is more enemies. Take a moment to think about what you would do if someone from France came to your work and burned your skin until you fell on the floor in a fetal position. Would you retaliate? How would you do it? If we start torturing others, they will return to torture us through terrorism.
they could adapt it to explode all those mines, and un expolded ordinance out there. should be pretty effective.
Hehe - I forgot that whole "interspecies-sex-with-trisexual-centaurs" aspect of the Gaean books ;-)
Sean
A 3rd degree burn is "charred black". You can live with a 3rd degreen burn (to a certain extent). This weapon is legal.
Those troops who fired at the Kent State protesters were National Guard, otherwise known as that state's militia. Nothing to do with the U.S. Marine Corps, who btw, have to do peacekeeping missions where people WILL be shooting at them with lethal force. How silly is it to respond to lethal force with non-lethal?
Kent State protests were 30 years ago, and the Seattle protests were dealt with by people who have since been dealt with. I'd much rather protesters be mildly burned than shot at.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Now, not only will I have to wear my tinfoil hat, but I gotta start wearing the tinfoil longjohns as well...
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
My god... it's the ultimate LART.
I wonder if it could be head mounted with voice control?...
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
With microwave weapons, aluminum foil is all you need.
Once a Marine, always a jarhead.
Another defence might be shredded metal foil. Fill the air with it, like confetti, and the beams will be reflecting all over the place.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
Where a seargeant was convicted of molesting, raping, and killing little girls, and a number of people were reprimanded for keeping quiet for fear of being killed by said seargeant? No, cowardly civilians never think things through, but there's two sides to every coin... And when the coin stands on the side... ai yi yi
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
In 1970, there was a non-peaceful protest, (read semi-riot) in and around Kent State University. Students, draft-dodgers, and Vietnam war veterans were protesting continuing involvement in the Vietnam campaign. While there was 'violence' per se, it didn't really amount to a lot more than public vandalism of government offices.
The second night of protests, Kent-State's ROTC building was 'mysteriously' set fire. The National Guard arrived armed with assault rifles and bayonets to 'put down' the violence and began to harras and intimidate the protestors. Several students were cut, stabbed, and beaten.
On the fourth day of protests, students began to throw rocks at national guardsmen. The guard responded by firing upon the otherwise unarmed students, killing 13. Nine more were wounded.
The pro-war senator said that these people, some of whom were innocent bystanders, deserved exactly what they got.
American justice in action, folks.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Carry a little bit of glad wrap with you next time you plan to go rioting.
The maximum allowed non-lethal caliber is half a foot? Well, I suppose if you only hit an arm with a six-inch shell that might be survivable...
Since the 1950's when the first long range microwave radars went up (to detect soviet bombers at long ranges), we have been aware of the harmful effects of microwaves on the human body. Long term exposure at low intensities causes cancer and damage to the eyes. Your eyes are full of liquid which is mostly water. Having your eyeballs boiled from the inside out is bad for them. Exposure to higher intensities is probably worse for you rather than better.
What is the real purpose of this proposed weapon? We already have the ability to non-lethally incapacitate people with guns. Have you ever seen how fast people run after you shoot them in the ass or the leg? Not very fast. We already have teargas and firehoses for crowds. Fire hoses work great- Im not a proponent of breaking up protests, but the tools are all already there.
The difference between this gun and all the other tools is that this gun sanitizes the use of force. No obvious permanant damage from zapping the crowd, no blood or bodies. You can go zap whole crowds of people into agony and it will have minimal PR and legal ramifications. Sure, some losers will get cancer or eye damage, but they were being noisy and disruptive! Serves them right!
Havent we seen enough abuse of pepper spray yet? Why do we need more painful weapons? I predict that not only will this be used against crowds, but even more likely as a torture tool, much like electroshock is used today.
microwaves (~ 10^-3 m) are smaller than 12.7 mm.
what a great way to make lots of toast fast!
No...it's okay...I wasn't using my Civil Liberties anyway
Perhaps a software version could be implemented in the next release of Slashcode, with the setting 'troll'.
In all honesty, I don't see these types of weapons taking off quickly or easily. The military (of which I am a member) has utilized firearms for how long? And refined them how much? They've proven reliable in the most extreme conditions, don't require power supplies, etc. I'm all for technology, but cars still use round wheels and not hover devices (yet).
Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...
I think, a while back on slashdot I read something about a gun that used some method (laser?) to ionize the air between the gun and the target. The air could then conduct electricity, and a large current was sent across it. Wouldn't this be a bit better than burn attempts?
Anyone have details?
--
Tweet, tweet.
Don't forget all the great homosexual antics between humans! Varley doesn't just make up cool new worlds, he also puts lots of great sex in them!
"Tear gas and rubber bullets just have not been effective, so they've wanted something more lethal than those and less lethal than an M16."
My dictionary defines lethal as capable of causing death. Isn't "slightly lethal" like being "a little pregnant"?
This
Here's a picture of the original Tucker telephone: http://www.state.ar.us/doc/images/gal28.jpg (interestingly enough on the Arkansas Dept. of Corrections' own web site.)
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
There is also a relatively short article about it available without subscription; its here.
Would it be possible to make chain mail with the proper size chain links to deflect this thing? I'm only going from the shield in microwave ovens, but it seems like it could work. Wouldn't it be trippy to see a thousand protesters wearing the stuff? Toss in a few swords and it'd be like some battle from a medieval fantasy novel...
_ The bureaucracy is expanding to meet
the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
The obvious antimeasure is a slightly parabolic mirror you can hide behind and at the same time refry your attacker.
The hard part is how to aim it. Perhaps you'll need a small slit to see through.
I don't know which materals act as mirrors at these frequencies, but there has to be plenty. Metals usually work.
As a former active duty Marine I applaud the research being done with non-lethal weapons. The Marine Corps is often used as the US overseas police force. Marines guard the US embassies all over the world. Rioting and aggitated crowd control are problems Marines face. If a Marine were to use a M16 and kill a member of an aggitated crowd it would only worsen a poor situation. Non-lethal weapons are the best technology available for these types of missions.
-crowbar
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
As has been pointed out, my numbers are wrong. 4 killed, + 9 wounded (1 in a wheelchair for life) = 13.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The rulers of a corrupt society must use coercion to govern the people. This is nothing new. James Madison wrote some good literature on such topics. He stuff might be of interest to US of A citizens.
Do the ends justify the means? Maybe so.
I fear non lethal weapons. Weapons should be dangerous, otherwise they are too easy to use. if the political cost of getting your way by force is zero then what kind of democracy do we get?
,hit you whit his/her bat and no one will care, they can claim you fell
or was already hurt when they got you and so on.
But if they fire a gun there is going to be questions asked.
That's why I think police officers should be armed whit only a gun (if they absolutely need to be armed). The government should not use force unless they are ready to take the consequences of killing people.
any cop can push you around
think of all the anti world trade org demonstrators. if this would have been the 60s they would have to face bullets, just like the anti vietnam protesters did. The anti vietnam protesters got what they wanted because the political cost of fighting a war at hone was to high. people actual got pissed at the government for trying to silence the protesters. But now whit pepper spray, tear gas and riot police the "demonstration problem" can easily be solved whit out any scandals.
Lethal weapons are killing people
Non lethal weapons are killing democracy
So how the hell do they test this thing? Zap lab rats? Dogs? Pigs? The homeless?
And what happens when it comes to field tests? Will they just try it out on humans by using it the first chance they can, and hoping that the people being blasted don't all end up with crispy intestines? Or eyeballs that overheat and pop?
What happens when the Marines want a lethal version for battle use? Will we see villiages cluster-bombed with microwave zappers? Imagine dropping a hundred little things that shoot out mass doses of this in every direction. It would be great for flushing out guerrillas (Sort of like Agent Orange and Napalm in Vietnam.).
IMHO, it seems like we would be far better off spending this money pushing the world toward non-violent means of peace, rather than finding newer and "better" ways to harm others.
Will people wearing shiny metal shirts spark when shot? ;)
-Shieldwolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Huh? Illegal to use weapons? How are you supposed to kill the enemy soldiers then? That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to knock the USA, at least knock them for something that actually exists.
Masters have been using the whip for thousands of years, accomplishing the same task as MASER. I mean, why would the owner want to lose livestock, just to keep the livestock under control?
It might sound silly to some that the Marines are testing out foaming agents, masers, and any number of other nonlethal agents, but if only one of those solutions proves to be viable, the research will have paid off.
Here's an example of why this is important. I was deployed with the 10th MTN Division during operation Restore Hope in Somalia. Our mission was to secure food distribution sites, protect local villages from outside bandits, and help the locals rebuild their own legal and enforcement structure. We were almost always vastly outnumbered by the civilian population.
There were many times when I really would have appreciated a nonlethal option other than hand-to-hand combat. The reality of the situation is that when you're faced with a very hostile crowd and you have only three methods of dealing with that crowd (bullets, the bayonet, or hand-to-hand), there's really only one option that leaves you any chance of surviving.
The flip side of that is that while you may be able to protect your own life by shooting that guy brandishing his AK-74, your long-term odds of escaping alive are seriously compromised. Angry crowds just don't like it when you start killing people.
However, if you can incapacitate someone, you're making the point that you will defend yourself, and the consequences of threatening you will be felt. In essense your response is a means of communication - you are telling people that you respect their lives but that you are in command of the situation.
As soon as the shooting stops, you loose control of the situation, which is the worst position for any combat leader.
Having the option to escalate the situation slowly doesn't always mean that you'll choose a graduated response. Note that recently Special Response police units have really changed their tactics in response to Columbine.
See this article in The Atlantic
The bottom line is that the more options soldiers have, the less likely things will get out of control, which means less loss of life.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
So governments will be less likely to use lethal force to subdue lawless and violent people. Isn't that enlightened of them?
I submit that it's more likely that these sorts of technologies will actually increase the likelihood the governments will violently repress dissent, because this violent repression will have been made less restricted by "[p]olitical, diplomatic, legal and humanitarian pressures."
It's "undesirable or impractical" to run over demonstrators with tanks, but calmly burn them with invisible rays and it doesn't look that repressive at all. Why, if the Chinese had this technology, nobody would remember Tienanmien Square (but the demonstrations there would have been just as effectively crushed).
---
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Use AOL CDs instead. It's more illuminating.
There's a euphemism if ever I heard one...
Well, I suppose burning the human shields would make them all wriggly and hard to hold in place as shields...
Warming stuff up isn't as cool as this baby here. it works by ionizing the air with laser, making it conductive (and shimmering blue, i might add), then passing a modulated current through the ionized air, effectively paralyzing the victim.
Microwave weapons act similar to flame throwers.
They cook you. Weapons like this should be banned.
If we all went back to fighting hand to hand with blade weapons we would have less wars. People don't want to fight if it means they put they're own ass on the line. I say make it harder to fight, not easier. Increase the peace.
I stumbled over "Press Enter" when I was doing some research on Timothy Zahn and had gone in search of his "Cascade Point" (also good). But the anthology that I found had "Press Enter []" right before "Cascade Point, and aftrer glimpsing just a page, it had me hooked. I read it all the way through, then went back and started at the beginning and read it again. And again.
I really don't know why. I read the story mutliple times, and it haunted me for days afterward. I'm not sure exactly what it was, though. There, you see, I still get the shivers thinking about it. Amazing.
You know, I can just see the main character becoming the scary old man of his neighborhood....
It makes me think of a story I vaguely remember reading about a guy who is convinced his wife has been stolen by some supersecret organization, and he uses his skills as a hacker to start bringing down computers worldwide in an effort to get her back. Also a shiver-generator, though not as much as "Press Enter []."
Am I the only one who thinks there's a little box in the title? As in the prompt? Maybe it should be "-". Oh well.
Now I'm going to have to go to that library and check that anthology out again. And maybe some other Varley stuff.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
If you were to put me in the shoes of [Arab extremist | 3rd world country militant | political radical | etc], and equiped me with lethal force - something like an AK or sg552 - do you think I would hesitate to run out in the open, in the hopes of hitting an opponent in order to further my cause, killing or seriously injuring him, if the return fire would A) stun me and knock me out, B) burn my skin, C) cause extreme pain momentarily, or even D) cause extreme pain for a prolonged period of time? Heck no. I'd charge out there with much more confidence than I would if real bullets were being used.
The only way I can see this being used by the marines is if A) it were used for the application of slow, painful deaths, and/or B) civil oppresson.
I find it interesting that in the last book of the Bible, it is mentioned that people's eyes and skin will melt from their body. Ironic, isn't it, how such a weapon could do just that?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The Geneva convention that applies to things like bullet size and type has not been ratified by the United States, although we generally conform to it.
While non-lethal deterrents are obviously much better than lethal ones, when you don't intend to actually kill, I wonder what this would do to nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistence is basically a call on the human conscience - not too many people can stand for armed units gunning down and smashing in the skulls of defenseless civilians. However, if you replace those units with "friendly" foam and MASER shooters, will anybody really care? For instance, would the anti-WTO protests in Seattle have gotten that much attention if the protesters were peacefully dispersed with non-lethal weapons? Would the Vietnam war have lasted even longer if non-lethal weaponry effectively silenced and taken the upper hand from the protest movement?
(Yes I know it sounds hypocritical, but the whole point of non-violent resistence is that others won't stand to let people attack and kill peaceful protesters - non-lethal weapons provide the same effect without casting a nasty shadow on the forces in power)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Say what you will about this maser, some of the niftiest tech came out of the military.
I think the Internet is nifty. I use it every day.
I think the mini spider robots the Corps has developed are cool. They look like the ones in the movie 'runaway' and crawl underwater before a beach assault...then cling to anti-personnel mines when they find them. Minutes before the landing, they all blow up and take the mines with them.
Gotta love that GPS. Wherever you go, there you are.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
You can tell that you've been shot by a sunburn gun because of the little welt in the shape of "Hello Kitty".
After reading the article, I did a quick google search for info on directed-energy technology use in the military, and came across this document. It gives some good background on how the Navy is using LASERs, MASERS, and RF devices. (my first slashdot post! woo-hoo!)
If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
Ever see a 20mm Vulcan autocannon employed in the anti-personnel role? It's standard practice for the US military, and believe me, there is NO chance a human being has any chance of surviving a hit from that thing. Pink mist baby.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
A few years ago, I was the Course Officer for a basic training course, and part of my duties was teaching the Military Law portions of the classroom work to the new recruits.
Dry, dry stuff. Hard to keep a 16 year old's attention.
We were working through the "prisoners of war" section of the Geneva Convention stuff - the part that talks about the rights of prisoners once captured. As I went down the list of things one is legally required to provide prisoners with - which includes reading material and sports equipment - one of the recruits started giggling. He got worse and worse as we went down the list, until I stopped and asked him what he thought was so funny.
He thought the Geneva Convention was ridiculous. These were the enemy, they were captured, and now we had the right to do whatever we wanted to them. After all, hadn't we been busy killing them a few minutes before they were captured?
To this question, I provided 2 examples, which I will now provide to you:
1) In WWI, the Americans were late to the party, and North America in general was completely spared the ravages of war. Accordingly, when the Yanks showed up, they were covered in luxuries from North America that the European battlegrounds had not seen in years. Things like candy bars, real coffee, white bread (not black bread half-sawdust) new boots, and so on. When Germans were captured by Yank units, they were provided to their prisoners as required by the Geneva convention.
When word got back to the lines, that good treatment made the decision to surrender to the Yanks a hell of a lot easier. In fact, it made such a powerful impression that may sons who went into battle in WWII were told by their fathers "Keep your head down, don't volunteer for anything, and surrender to the first American you see"
Having a reputation for humane treatment of prisoners (and of combatants) pays real tactical dividends.
2) On D-Day, the Canadian Army penetrated deeper into France than any other army, and they had a reputation from WWI as being "stormtroopers" - where you found Canadian units was likely to be the center of axis. Accordingly, a division of Hitler Jugand (Hitler Youth) was thrown against them, with orders from Hitler himself to "throw the Canadians back into the sea"
Note that while Hitler youth, they were "youths" in 1939. By 1944, they were in their 20s, and fiece, fanatical fighters form whom Hitler was like unto a god.
The Canadians managed to repulse them and hold their ground, but a large number were captured. Maddened and outraged by their inability to carry out Hitler's orders, these prisoners were slaughtered as a form of revenge.
When word got back to the Canadian lines about what had happened, that unit was "marked". No prisoners were ever taken from that unit, and it was singled out for special attention. When Canadians ran up against this unit, they'd fight like deamons. By the end of the month, the division was essentially exterminated.
So while it may seem silly and 18th-century, the Geneva Convention has real military value, and no professional, regular army seriously considers breaking it as a matter of policy. There may be local lapses in discipline, but no commander who allows his troops to behave in an unlawful matter lasts for long.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
While it may be nonlethal to those it is used on, imagine if this were used on a large crowd: The people burned would turn tail and run, and with a large enough crowd, people towards the back would almost certainly be trampled to death
Calmacil
I can't seem to face up to the facts, I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax... --Talking Heads
The best use of something like this would be to combine the weapon with a standard ballistic weapon. An armed officer attempting to immobilise a person would then have a much better chance of not killing them, but still have that option should the situation turn really nasty. Then we could avoid situations as we've had in the past where officers doing their duty have accidentally killed people and then gone to jail themselves for overreacting. I know I would feel more comfortable upholding the law if the weapon I carried didn't have 'kill' as the only mode.
Talk about killing two birds with one stone. Now hunters won't have to cook they're prey just aim-shoot-eat! ;)
I am not, never was, and never will be a marine, but one thing seems sure: the marines are not primarily interested in using potentially lethal technologies in non-lethal weapons. Microwaves would make great lethal weapons. The public loves the idea of an inteligent, nuanced and sci-fi-esque military. Result: Marines pitch researching a non-lethal microwave weapon so as to encourage funding under the quise of sensitive authoratarianism (if ever there's a mob i find worth joining, i'm not going to run away because of a little burn. their going to have to kill me), and use the technologies in much more powerful, incredibly lethal weapons (check out your GURPS Cyberpunk weapons book).
Good? Bad? Inevitable. I wonder whether we'll be able to mod out home microwaves?
Traditionally, you use your non-lethal weapons to subdue your enemy so you can walk up to them and shoot them in the head with your lethal ones.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
the facts of life were clear: kill your target
And that would make this statement contain irony:
Making someone "run away" is hard if they're fanatics pledged to kill you
Because then you would have a fanatic pledged to kill people worried about fanatics pledged to kill him.
YES: 63%
NO: 36.7%
I dunno if it would go over well at my job, but it sure would be kinda fun ;-)
--
From that distance the energy is going to be distributed over the entire body of the victim... err target. That means it will damage eye's, the skin around your ears, and if you are a card carrying member of the Y-chromosone club your going to get your testes roasted.
Think about that last one for a minute there, boys.
Are you talking to us, or your genitals?
"And like that
I don't mean to support this weapon but the arguement that people run in to the weapon is bogus. If half of your body is burning you'll run in the other direction.
Willy
Willy
The article stated that the microwave beam was specifically tuned to heat the outer layers of the skin to 130 deg. F in two seconds, which is enough to hurt a lot and discourage people with low pain thresholds, but not do any serious damage.
However, what would happen if the microwave beam was tuned somewhat differently. The microwaves could penetrate more deeply into flesh, cooking internal organs, or causing 3rd degree skin burns.
Also, this maser weapon could be effective for disabling electronics. When microwaves hit conductive materials such as metals, they become electrically charged. The charge quickly becomes so great that the material heats up, bits of it vaporize, and the charge arcs through the vapor. This is graphically demonstrated by the lightshow seen by putting a CD in the microwave. The maser shoots the same microwaves in a focused beam. If that beam strikes electronics, integrated circuits and other delicate components would be quickly fried. This has many useful military applications such as disabling enemy radios, radars, computers, night-vision systems, the ignition systems in vehicles, civilian cell phones, aircraft avionics. I would be surprised if the Marines weren't investigating these possibilities as well.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
please mod THIS comment up. /. I won't repeat the above point, but I do think it's at least + a couple insightful.
After cruising through most (but not all, I'll admit) of the threads, I have seen no other post that brings up this point, and it is one of the most relevant to the people on
started with "So you want to build a death ray" Prof. Campbell at Michigan Tech a talk about building a flesh burning device out of a microwave oven, a prabolic antenna, and maxwell's equations. It was a fun filled hour of mayhem!
For this effect approximately squared try The Persistence of Vision, from an anthology of the same name.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
A relevant view point, but to paraphrase your comment, you're basically saying that because of the effect a violent (and deadly) response to a political demonstation has. It is better that those people died, than they got repressed in a non-lethal way?
I agree that the effect on the world would be less if these demonstations had of not had casualties but, does that effect on the world justify those deaths?? After all that in essence is what you are proposing
It's in that place where I put that thing that time
The possibility of `safe' weaponry make sit all the more likely that we will use force where it is inappropriate. Remember that non-lethal does not mean non-harmful. It does not even mean non-lethal, but rather less-likely-lethal.
When I was a boy my father taught me never to point a gun at someone I did not want dead. Not wounded, not scared, not persuaded--DEAD. Force is the same thing. These new weapons may be less-dangerous; they are still dangerous to a degree. We should not use any weaponry until we are dead-certain that we wish our enemy dead and buried, not cowed, not scared, not persuaded to do things our way--dead.
It is my fond hope that we turn away from this sort of foolishness. I fear that we will not. Authoritarians like to wield authority; it's in their nature. Our current government is extraordinarily authoritarian (in historical terms; measured against most current governments it is remarkably libertarian). The thought of being able to wield force more easily makes those who run it quite happy indeed. Eventually, the jack-booted thugs will have an incredible selection of ways in which to annoy, inconvenience, slow, wound, cripple, disable or kill those who oppose them, whether foreign or countrymen.
Sigh.
Care to guess who was pulling security duty outside our embassies in the middle east after the bombing of the Cole? It wasn't Slomin's Shield - I'll tell you that!
More importantly, how much will it cost? "I too have a secret. I'm not left handed either."
Can you say "cancer"?
What about metal objects struck by the beam? Will people be zotted by arcing?
They say it's a "microwave laser". How tight is the beam? If it's not able to affect large groups of people because the beam is too narrow, then how will this be useful against crowds?
I'd hate to be the guy pointing the weapon. No doubt reflections and leaks will bathe him/her in enough radiation to increase the cancer risk for the user significantly. It happens to cops using radar guns over time, but this would be at least an order of magnitude worse. You'd think they would have learned about "harmless" radioactive devices with the depleted uranium tank armor/antitank shells which are supposedly causing cancer in troops now.
Dont let the name "Department of Defense" fool you. Theyre still the "Department of War".
So what happens if I dangle a few mirrors on chains from around my neck? Zap- poor poor policeman.
...the Marines are the front-line troops. Every Marine is a warfighter. There are no Marine mechanics or Marine medtechs.
If we were in a situation where nonlethals are called for, we won't need the Marines. If the Marines have been called in, we're far past nonlethals.
This whole thread is something of a non sequitur.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
As the joke goes, the different armed services of the USA have a few distinctions in their use of military strategy jargon.
The order: "Secure that building!"
[
I guess Bush Jnr. will be invading Iraq again any day now. All those Iraqis proved very useful for showing off blinding lasers, depleted uranium shells, smart bombs and stealth fighters and bombers.
..are light sabers and Jedi Marine Rangers
-------------------
arcane for life
Now, all Big Brother needs is to use a spy sattelite with face recognition technology and an appropriately powered maser, and THEY can cook any "terrorist" they want at any time. Bureaucrat #1:Joe didn't pay his taxes this year. Bureaucrat #2:Fry him!
--why?
But I definitely have a problem with the US as a world police. The simple reason is, that the deal with situations they have no clue of, and nobody really has a clue of, and so just really cannot deal with. What where the few military interventions?
- Palestine - started over 50 years ago. I think with no intervention at all it would have ended at least 40 years ago with a maybe cruel but clean solution.
- Somalia - too many different armed militias benefitting from the war, now after years they realize a war ruins the country and now they start trying to keep peaceful. The foreign military effords were ridiculous.
- Bosnia - they tried hard, but couldn't stop the exodus forced and maintained by all parties. I mean, if they all (not the neutral civilians, but they have nothing to say) wanted to, why try to stop them.
- Kosovo - no ground troops at all and trying to control?
- Ruanda - why no intervention here?
- Racial Riots in LA - why didn't they bomb LA? Or stationed UNO-troops there. There where more people affected than in Kosovo
So I would say making a war "human" makes the war less cruel, but the situation left unbearable.But I'm just an overcivilized geek and have not really a clue of whats going on.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
One of the biggest problems in the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts is civilian Palestinians facing off against isolated Israeli soldiers. If an Israeli soldier fires his weapon, there's anger. If the bullet hits a kid who's in the wrong place at the wrong time, there's an international uproar.
This isn't a war situation, but it is most definitely a military situation for the Israelis. The Palestinians throwing stones probably aren't trying to kill the soldiers, not directly anyway. The soldiers probably don't want to kill the Palestinians, either.
Nonlethal force could help decellerate the "eye-for-an-eye" counter attacks that both sides seem to practice.
Nonlethal force could give these soldiers a new option, one which would encourage people to resolve their differences without rapid escalation of force.
-Paul Komarek
So they have a MASER mounted on a truck eh?
Has anyone seen those "arrowhead" radar reflectors that you get on boats? Mount one on your own truck... hehehe...
Anyone know at what temperature eyeballs are damaged? >Didn't the Red Cross already go ape about lasers designed to blind?
And no, I don't understand what the Marines are doing with a policing weapon. But I'd rather they had it than the police did.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
written by Paladin Press writen about how to convert a microwave into a weapon? Not to mention when was the last time anyone stuck a for or something metal into a microwave. How do they plan on avoiding setting the world on fire or detonating hand grenades these people carry when they shoot off sparks?
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
It's really easy to disperse demonstrators, if you hold your conferences at the right time, in the right place.
I.e., you organise a conference in, for example, Halifax in February.
You have a problem with demonstrators? Just borrow the town fire brigade's fire engine, and hose the demonstrators!
How many soaking-wet demonstrators want to look like a brass monkey?
People in law enforcement abuse these supposedly non-lethal" weapons all the time. You can get in a lot of trouble if you shoot someone with your standard issue pistol, but it's excusable to kill someone with a headshot from a beanbag gun or a rubber bullet. Pepper spray is a favorite tool to torture people in custody. It's common practice to swab the eyes of bound protestors with this stuff. The point is, labeling something as "non-lethal" usually leads to that weapon being used in ways which kill people.
I have seen foil in the microwave. If there is a load (food) asorbing much of the power, then the voltage on foil is too low to arc. It is common pratice to cover turkey drumsticks with foil to keep them from over-cooking. What gets covered, no longer receives power. That is the whole idea! A piece of wadded foil without anything else in the oven to asorb the energy does cause very high voltages to build up, and hense the arc. However in a large crowd, I expect empty highly resonant cavity's confining lots of power to be missing.
The truth shall set you free!
Hmm. I don't understand your dislike of the military. It's a necessary item. A country having a military is no different from a large corporation having a security branch. It's required to protect the interests of the corporation. How long would a country remain sovereign if they had no form of protecting that interest? I agree that the military isn't set up as effectively as it could be. Upper management tends to change their focus on other items they deem important. The fact of the matter is that the military is (supposed to be) nothing more than a lock on the door of your country. You don't leave your home unsecured, do you?
Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=R EV+9&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off
Rev 9:3-6
And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man.
During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.
Well maybe not. It may be something else.
Cheerio,
Link.
When I was in the Swedish army, we were taught time and again to shoot to wound, and for a good reason.
A killed enemy soldier pisses his buddies off like hell, means one less enemy soldier, and gives you more lead in your airspace.
A wounded enemy soldier unnerves his buddies, who have to carry him away, which means three less enemy soldiers (the wounded one plus two to carry him).
(This may not apply to the more extreme branches of the Swedish army, though, like the fallskärms- and kustjägare (appx. paratroopers and amphibious assault troops). Correction: I know it doesn't.)
I know it sounds picky, but microwaves really aren't the same wavelength as light.
Sorry. Microwaves are "light". Masers and lasers operate on the exact same principles. All masers are lasers, but not all lasers are masers. Another way to look at it: if "light" only means visible light, then CO2 lasers should really be called IRASERS, since they operate mainly in the infrared? And UV-lasers should be called UVASERs? I don't think so. Light can have ANY wavelength.
:)
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book