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.
"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
--
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!
"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.
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
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.
--
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
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
We were taught basically the same thing.
Best Slashdot Co
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
Actually, in a mass battle, wounding is more effective than killing. Besides the moral effects, kill an enemy, you've taken out an enemy. Wound one, you've taken him out, plus two people to carry him, plus medics to treat him, plus logistics to support him, etc etc.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
My impression is that it's a wide beam--like meters wide, at range--so unless you can run out of the field of effect in less than two seconds, you're still gonna be feeling pretty toasty.
No relation to Happy Monkey
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.
RTFA
Read The Fucking Article
The wavelengths do not penetrate the skin thus internal organs are not harmed. Of course this does mean they couldn't just adjust the MASER to penetrate though...
There are several easy ways to protect yourself:
For the technically sophisticated rioter ....
*** Proven iconoclast, aspiring epicurean ***
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.
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.
Most people are opposed to killing someone if they don't have to, so the fear comes from the fact that because it's non-lethal and remote, people would be more apt to use it inappropriately.
For example, say that the person who delivers my newspaper always throws my paper in the bushes. I'm certainly not going to kill him over it, but if I had one of these, I may be tempted to use it on him to "get even". I don't want to imagine what kind of effect this could have on road rage...
Don't forget, also, that under the Geneva Conventions of War (a laughable thing) bullets aren't supposed to fragement, and they're supposed to blow through, rather than get stuck in the body somewhere; it's more humane that way.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
My god... it's the ultimate LART.
I wonder if it could be head mounted with voice control?...
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
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.
I thought aluminum foil was used against the CIA mind control satelites?
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.
"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
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
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.
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
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
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)
Actually, the situation with the M-16 and the AK-47 is somewhat reversed. What impressed me upon first seeing an M-16 round was that the bullet itself is quite small (it's basically a pointy .22) but it's backed up by a BIG powder charge.
The smaller, high-velocity bullet will tumble upon entering the body, with the result that the entry wound for an M-16 is very small while the exit wound is very large. The AK-47 has a larger, slower bullet, which doesn't leave nearly as large an exit wound.
Nominally, the higher velocity M-16 round was designed to be accurate over longer distances, though I don't think they were too disappointed by its damage-causing potential. The M-16's range advantage is a little misleading, since most infantry combat occurs at pretty close range (hey, if you saw them at a distance you would just call in an artillery or airstrike). The AK-47 also is well known for being easy to manufacture and extremely reliable, while the M-16 can be quite finicky.
Of course, I was just an Air Force puke, so if any Grunts or Jarheads want to weigh in, feel free...
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 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
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
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:[.]
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!
Dont let the name "Department of Defense" fool you. Theyre still the "Department of War".
...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!"
[
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
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!
:)
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book