Slippery Slime Developed to Control Crowds

powlow writes "Southwest Research Institute (press release )developed a non-hazardous chemical spray system that spreads a highly slippery, viscous gel (which the lab designated a "mobility denial system" and dubbed "banana peel in a can") to inhibit the movement of individuals or vehicles on treated surfaces. Marines Corps believes it can be used for crowd control. (Defense Technical Information Center's PDF Report) In tests, volunteers attempted in vain to walk across a lawn sprayed with the slime, and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones."

Comments

Many would have broken bones?

[Xpilot]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[juventasone]

I wonder if they've developed a method for cleaning it up as well. That might prove entertaining.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[martissimo]

the chemical itself is labeled as non-hazardous, as in, you wont see your finger melt off if you dip it in the stuff.

id say the process of using it would be considered "non-lethal", but i suppose that certainly somebody could crack their skull open in a fall, but the site does say it "will help the Marines stop or deter threats without the use of deadly force."

beats the heck out of shootin people, but could really could cause a lot of injuries too it sounds like

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[FransUNC]

A major flaw with this is the fact that at most riots, the police want the suspects to leave, therefore ending the riot. With this, you're forcing the people to stay at the scene, which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Even if they design the stuff to wear off after a certain amount of time, you're going to have some bruised and pissed off rioters on your hands.

Like I saw mentioned in another post, what happens if someone gets seriously injured? This just seems to be one giant lawsuit waiting to happen. I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with them, especially in manners like this.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Thrikreen]

That's the thing, people would notice the zone of the goo, but if they are still stupid enough to attempt to cross it even knowing what the goo does, it's their own damn fault if they get hurt. At least on the riot control's side, they're not hitting people with the batons or pepper sprays, etc., which could lead to lawsuits of excessive/unnecessary force.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Riskable]

I believe the point to this whole thing is more of a pre-emptive strike. If they see an angry mob marching towards a certain area they can spray this crap all over the road and the angry mob will suddenly find themselves with nowhere to go... Confused, and eventually dispersing.

How often do you see a police blockade for things like this? No need for an entire police batallion carrying large shields--just a bit of goo and a couple of warning cones is all ya need!

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[nordicfrost]

Everyone knows that "non-lethal" is just another word for "it'll hurt you bad, but you survive". A (girl) friend of mine was at a demonstration in a still-near-facist country in south western Europe. She and the crowd were quiet and protesting when the police started fireing "beanbags" into the crowd. This weapon is supposed to be very safe, it is fired from a M-16 rifle with an explosive round in the chamber and a beanbag accessory on the flame muffler. The cop aimed for this girl's leg, fired and the leg broke.

Non-lethal is ver relative. CS (tear) gas is one of the least lethal and hurtful ways of dispersing a crowd but rarely used. I went through the CS test in the military, not comforable but not very painful.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Rogerborg]

• A major flaw with this is the fact that at most riots, the police want the suspects to leave

Not always. During the WTO demonstrations in London last summer, the response to a very small proportion of violent demonstrators was to box large numbers of (overwhelmingly peaceful) people in and stop them leaving. We're talking all day here, until the demonstraters were cold, hungry and just wanted to go home. Illegal detention, say the detractors; screw the damn hippies, say proponents (when translated from Weaselese).

Any device that gives control is going to be looked on favourably.

To give some perspective, credit where credit is due: British riot police have learned some long, hard lessons, and are, I think, the finest in the world.

I participate in fairly large scale historic reenactments including shield wall and mixed infantry and cavalry actions. In fact, reenactors were solicited as police extras in a recent film about the 1984 British miner's strike, because we are used to doing shieldwalls and charges.

But our level of expertise stops at the 1984 level, when the British riot police used haphazard tactics and made a lot of mistakes. Eighteen years later, they are simply astonishing to watch in action, and they do it (largely) without using chemical weapons or firearms or even batons, they do it through slick manouvres and integrated foot and horse actions that put the right amount of deterrent in the right place at the right time, to stop conflicts before they start.

Argue the morality of controlling political demonstrations, but don't forget that crowd control also involves preventing injury at otherwise good natured public events. And you can definitely do that without fancy chemical weapons, you just have to invest in training. Crowd control is about people, not about technology.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Shotgun Willy]

With this, you're forcing the people to stay at the scene, which kind of defeats the purpose

Not if they are rioting on a steep hill.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Kenneth]

There are also weaker versions of tear gas (irritant gas?) that are often used to break up protests in some countries. It isn't plesant, and has the tendency to make you want to be elsewhere, but isn't nearly as bad as the real tear gas.

(ot) In the Dominican Republic, I saw the strangest thing. There was a huelga (translates as strike, but more resembels a riot). There were rocks and molitov cocktails being thrown by protestors, and tear gas and rubber bullets being shot by police. At noon, everyone went home for lunch and then siesta, at 2:00 everyone came back and resumed the protest.

As for the goo, I tend to doubt it will be used ON protestors. More likely it will be used to prevent passage across a particular area. Slime a nice perimeter around something, and it makes it very difficult to get through. It would be a good substitute for a fence when you need a barrier in a few seconds.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[booch]

This is terrible. The protesters get broken bones, and the cops don't even get the joy of beating them.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[5KVGhost]

It's only a "major flaw" if you don't understand the intended use of the substance. Try reading the article:

"Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command, headquartered in Quantico, Va.

...

"The concept of employment for this system is to be part of a barrier or obstacle plan that will provide stand-off distance and force protection for U.S. military personnel," says Warren. "The MDS will be applicable in many different missions to include checkpoint operations, denying avenues of approach, and dealing with confrontational crowds."

Not for crowd control. Not for encouraging dispersal. It's purpose is as a quickly deployed barrier against incursion by people or vehicles that they need to be kept out.

And people get injured in riots and attacks all the time. Current old-fasioned non-lethal weapons are, in fact, _designed_ to injure, in preference to killing outright. There are some circumstances where you have to stop people from doing violent things, particularly in millitary situations.

skating?

[RalfM]

I wonder if they can't just skate across it. I expect they'll just start to have a different type of shoe to deal with the problem soon (at least the professional protestors). What do the Hurling people wear? Nike Glide ;-)

Ralf

Field tests

[dubl-u]

They also field-tested this at Mardi Gras this year in New Orleans. Unfortunately, the crowds mistook it for a personal lubricant and 47 people ended up hospitalized for exhaustion.

Re:Field tests

[Kintanon]

Greasing the pillars didn't stop me, I ended up with close to 50lbs of beads after climbing one greased pillar.>:)

Kintanon

Broken Bones??

[Raul654]

Are they seriously pushing this as a crowd control product? I mean, tear gas is bad and not used often, but after a few hours, you're all back to normal. What's going to happen to a city that uses this on demostrators, many of whom will end up in the hospital with big doctor's bills. Would those demostrators not have a legitamit case against the city/county/state/fed goven't that did that?

Re:Broken Bones??

[Platinum Dragon]

I mean, tear gas is bad and not used often, but after a few hours, you're all back to normal.

Weeeelllllllll....

One, two, five canisters, you might be OK. Once you're downwind of twenty-plus canisters, things start getting iffy.

Numerous women reported early periods after the April 2001 Quebec City protests, which saw over 1000 canisters of tear gas being lobbed at peaceful, boisterous protesters from behind a 4km-long fence. It is thought that three different varieties of gas were used during the actions.

Less-Lethal Technology

[johnthorensen]

As one involved on the fringes of law enforcement, I find this interesting in many ways. Currently, there are several options should a law enforcement officer wish to disable a single person:

• Rubber Bullets / Bean Bag Rounds (can cause permanent damage, although if used properly rarely do)
• "Pepperball"-type products. Fabrique Nationale has a new one on the way that is a purpose-built CO2 launcher (not a paintball gun) that shoots chemical mace, a hard-nosed projectile, and my personal favorite, a "malodorant" that causes the target to puke himself into giving up

On the mass-of-people front, there isn't much to do besides tear gas grenades, or making an example out of some with the above options. This gel could prove to be very useful, especially as a deterrent BEFORE riot-type activities start (anyone for slicking down the sidewalk in front of the WTO meeting?) A few skinned knees are MUCH more desirable than broken teeth cause some cop got jostled when he fired the rubber baton launcher.

Problem with this stuff

[Auckerman]

This is fine as long as "riot police" get the "sensitivity training". If it won't kill, it is more often used. Just look at the Seattle protests of over zealous used of tear gas and pepper spray. Yes, rioters were gased, but there is video of sit in protestors being gassed, hit with batons, etc.

If it's not deadly, its more okay to use...Now this, people can break bones...great....

My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-lethal, less than lethal, etc, all of these technologies lend themselves to abuse of law enforcement types. Civil disobediance will be curtailed by uses of this type of thing?

"What? Dr. King? You're planning to march where? You and those nigger troublemakers can get the hell out of Selma. You can walk back to the bus, because you aren't going to make it into town. You'll break every fibula in the group if you walk past this slippery line."

Because it's non lethal. Why would anyone make a big deal about it?

If it's not serious enough for them to use force, that means that the event isn't serious.

Re:My issue with this.

[cryptochrome]

You think slippery slime could have derailed the Civil Rights Movement by virtue of it being a non-lethal way of stopping a march? No way. When they turned the fire hoses and tear gas on the masses, people noticed. It only strengthened the movement. What mattered was that people were there demanding their rights, even when people were trying to stop them. Especially when people were trying to stop them. That just made them try harder to find way, which they did, and people noticed them more.

The only thing that works against non-violent protest is a populace that refuses to acknowledge their humanity. When Ghandi took on the British Empire, and MLK took on the US, they confronted peoples who admitted their fundamental humanity but had ignored it for economic and cultural reasons. Conversely when the Jews protested against the Nazis, and the Blacks against the Afrikaaners in South Africa, they were much less successful because the populations there regarded them as subhuman.

Broken Bones..

[TheCrunch]

I'm sure a crowd of people slipping around is a very amusing sight, but what happens if someone gets seriously injured? How would the ambulance crew get to them without being injured themselves?

What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

I'm all for non-lethal supression of demonstrations when they create a public nuisance without cause. But what happens when the demonstrators are right? Will non-lethal slime, sound waves etc. increase the likelyhood of police supression?

No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement? ... etc.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[zmooc]

Isn't there something like "the right to demonstrate" in your 1st amendment or whatever it is called? Not that the 1st amendment would even have any meaning in the USA to day (DMCA, SSSCA, this bloke that got fined $450000 for saying something in an online discussion). Anyway - here in the Netherlands we have this basic law that everybody has the right to demonstrate. There are some exceptions, but in general it is against the law for the police to stop a demonstration.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[cgenman]

The purpose of non-lethal weapons is to stop someone from doing something when what they are doing is not threatening someone's life, only their property or rules. Police can, will, and are encouraged (by me) to kill anyone attempting to kill anyone else. They are not going to use slippery slime in a hostage situation.

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. This is about the power to suppress. It would be very important for the police to have the power to suppress crowds during a soccer riot. It is less useful when they wield it to protect the WTO's oppression. It is downright wrong to use it to prevent participation in national election conventions. The tool is agnostic, the people are not.

Unfortunately, history has shown that people hardly ever protest unnecessarily, and those that should get gassed usually aren't the ones that do. (when was the last time you heard of a KKK demonstration getting the mustard?). The police are looking for tools that they can use besides the threat of death. While rubber bullets may occasionally kill people, their general "safety" record is an encouragement to turn them on crowds. This looks to be another tool that may occasionally lead to fractured skulls and death, but the not-directly-lethal nature (and the inevitable corporate hype) will seduce many in law enforcement to turn to this when property / rules are challenged.

They have been turning the firehoses on protesters since the civil rights movement. Somehow this seems nicer.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[mikera]

Statements containing "NEVER" are often wrong.

If you have a just cause, and no other way to obtain your goals, e.g. through being denied access to appropriate power or influence, then you either have to resort to violence or give up.

That applies equally to individuals, groups and nations. Notice that I'm not advocating violence at all. Just pointing out that it sometimes is necessary and even "The Right Thing".

The biggest danger of course is the stifling of debate and freedoms to the extent that resort to violence occurs. Alarmingly, this is a growing trend in the world today. I confidently predict an upswing in violence as a result.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[UnifiedTechs]

Though slippery slime is not as bad as some of the other so-called "non lethal" weapons being developed out there, it's still in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention [www.opcw.nl], which bans chemical agents producing temporary incapacitation.

While I skimed thrue the OPCW and was not able to find it I am sure there must be something regarding excemptions for riot control agents, the simple definition you gave would also outlaw Mace, Pepper spray, and other devices commonly used by police forces.

I did notice an excemtion for small quanities and I'm sure there is a way to get it under that, the purpose of the OPCW is warfare weapons, Non-leathel riot control is not something they want to ban, name a single country that would not be interested in a non-leathel chemical to use in case of domestic riots. Worst case an amendment is made, there are provisions for that.

How can the crowd disperse?

[possible]

How could a crowd disperse if they were unable to move across slippery ground, or if they were themselves covered in slippery goo? Sounds like it would make it more difficult to disperse a crowd than, say, tear gas.

get real mate

[Pengo]

Since when was war fair? If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away. It's pretty easy for you to sign on to 'fair war' when your sitting behind your computer under the delusion that you will never be called out. I sure as hell bet your attutude would change if your where the one of the front line.

Re:get real mate

[perlyking]

If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away.

To be fair if you want more troops to survive then not sending them into other countries to meddle would be the most efficient idea.
On the domestic front I can't help but feel this would be too convenient to use on protests.

Won't do much to crowds...

[gnovos]

Cop1: "EVERYONE DISPERSE! THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!"

Cop2: "They aren't moving, slime em."

SPLOTCH!

Cop1: "NOW EVERYONE DISPERSE!"

Hippie: "Ok, ok, we're moving... um, wait a second, we CAN'T MOVE!"

Cop1: "Bill, you go out there and drag a few out."

Cop2: "You got it Bob..."

(Bill slips on the slime halfway down the street)

Cop1: "Damn... Hey, Charlie, get you but out there and help Bill!"

... hours pass ...

Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."

Cop7: "Sure thing boss!"

Re:Won't do much to crowds...

[tunah]

Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."

Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?

Re:Won't do much to crowds...

[gnovos]

Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."
Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?


I would have to call that a true Freudian slip . Hee hee!

dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare

[Crazy Diamond]

Being slimed is inhumane but rubber bullets are not? And since you are so anti-chemical weapons, maybe you should've read your own link where it refers only to chemical weapon use in warfare. Being slimed refers to riot control which is approved given proper listing of chemicals used. In fact do you understand all implications of the treaty. Why isn't dihydrogen monoxide considered a chemical weapon? Discount the fact that you're wrong about slime, a blast of good old dihydrogen monoxide has temporarily incapacitated many a charging rioter. It has been used for crowd/riot control for ages. Under your (wrong) interpretation that would be illegal under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

From YOUR link:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a
result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless
of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on
Chemicals.)

From YOUR link:

5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

From YOUR link:

7. "Riot Control Agent" means:

Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

From YOUR link:

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

As for combat uses... if they can hit an adversary with foam or slime, why can't they equally easily hit them with a bullet or a bomb?

I just thought you might want to reread this sentence on the definition of a toxic chemical: "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause ..." With slime, which chemical action on which life process causes temporary incapacitation?

If you say it's a physical effect causing the normal life process of walking to result in incapacitation, why are lead bullets not considered chemical weapons? I'd say a bullet piercing flesh is a very chemical action. Any good chemist could explain to you the atomic chemistry of why the lead bullet traveling at considerable speed can pierce a less rigid entity such as a human's skin and internal organs.

As usual, the innocent get hit

[smurfi]

So guess what happens when this stuff is used for the second time, on a demonstration with >95% peaceful people and <5% rioters??

Right -- all the peaceful people will slide around helplessly, while the rioters will wear metal-spiked soccer shoes and escape unscathed.

Great idea, folks. Reallygreat. :-(

Very funny, but on a more serious note

[horza]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...

Phillip.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[gnovos]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...

Wow, that gave me the heebie jeebies! It doesn't even have to be protesters throwing fire, it could be Africanized bees, somone having a heart attack, tear gas, heck ANY chemical spill, an ambulance that needs to get through, anything realy...

If I were a terrorist, I would be tickled pink to see this used. I'd be in a 5 star hotel one block from the protesters, and when they get hit with the slime, I'd start dropping the chloring gas canisters...

Or even scarier, imagine if the bad guys actually got ahold of thier own version. Since it's non-toxic, it won't be guarded well, but imagine, a little sprayed down a few streets on Nob Hill in San Francisco one dark and stormy night and every passing fire truck (and there are a lot) becomes a kinetic bomb racing down into the financial district.

Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Colin Smith]

If the police have non lethal weapons, it will simply encourage them to use them.

Example. In London the other day a domestic was ended by the police shooting the bloke with one of these anti-riot guns. It may well have been warranted but I think the precendent is dangerous.

I forsee the use of stun guns for giving a bit of lip back to officers. Peacefull protests will be broken up with whichever weapon they have in their arsenal.

Not all technology is good technology.

[fhwang]

Can we stop a bit to consider the impact of these things, please? Yes, it's a cool engineering feat, and I'm sure the scientists are nice guys. But who's going to use this? I have friends who are very active in anti-globalization protests -- they don't break anything, they just march very loudly -- and I don't relish hearing stories from them about falling and breaking bones because SWAT teams hosed them down with slippery goo.

Technology has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are awful. Take, for example, recent engineering advances in weapons design. It used to be that because of how much a gun weighed and how much kick it gave when you fired it, you probably had to be at least a teenager to use it. U.S. gun manufacturers saw a market opportunity, so they told their engineers to design guns that were simpler to maintain, less mass, and less kick. Engineers succeeded, through their earnest ingenuity and resourcefulness. And now the streets of Sierra Leone are full of 8-year-old children who have been pulled away from their families and forcefully recruited into fighting a civil war. Hooray for science!

I don't mean to say we should go back to living in caves, or to say that those engineers were evil people. But we shouldn't blindly accept everything in the name of progress. An advanced way of killing or incapacitating another human being doesn't seem like progress to me.

equalization

[mattr]

I'd imagine golf cleats, soccer shoes, or strap-on crampons would be effective. So would a few ropes.

Aside from the sheer fright of such military weaponry being beta-tested on our citizens, I'm a little concerned about second order effects. Asphixiating bubbles? Does it melt or what happens if you are breathing this stuff at the bottom of a football-style pileup? Instant freezing on cold sidewalks? Heart attacks? Could people slide into traffic or babies fall into sewers? etc.

Also this could be a nasty transport mechanism for gel-capsules of other substances maybe irritants. Is there any chance this could be used frm a height like poorman's napalm?

This sickening line of thought launched by wondering what the protesters might do if they had some with them. It might be very nasty with a Moltov thrown on it, or mixed with gasoline or acetone. You couldn't just drop and roll, you can't run away, and it could be aspirated. A terrifying catastrophe waiting to happen.

Re:Marine Corps?

[banky]

I discussed this at length in a rather old post... Basically, the Marines have as part of their duty guarding things like Embassies. So when the mob comes to torch the place, you don't want to just open up on them with your SAW gunnners and grenadiers. Tear gas (CS gas, really) isn't easily controlled; a good wind and its more or less gone. Other methods (riot guns for example) may provoke a more violent response (they hear BANG! and see people go down; the Americans are killing everyone!) and generally speaking, don't work against crowds (one shot one bad guy). Night sticks put you in harms way BIG TIME. So the Marines are looking for ways to supplement their arsenal because the only other option is to just kill the bad guys.

Ask your local black bloc

[Platinum Dragon]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

The mass anti-corporate globalization protests over the past three years have seen the development of some fairly effective, DIY defense tactics against "non-lethal" crowd control measures.

Tear gas and pepper spray? Bandanna soaked with cider or vinegar on the low end, gas mask on the high end, full-coverage clothing. Gas masks are especially preferable if the riot troopers are especially teargas-happy.

Batons and rubber bullets? Shields, helmets, padding, and loads of backup.

I haven't learned of any reasonable defenses against taser attacks yet, and they have been used on occasion (I'm specifically thinking of a few incidents during the Ottawa G20/IMF/WB protests last November). Something would be needed to block the electrodes; hockey pads, perhaps? Sometimes, dogs will also be used (again, Ottawa G20), and there's just not much you can do when a well-trained Fido decides to gnaw on your leg. Again, padding, perhaps sports pads.

This stuff? Skis, high-traction footwear, maybe carry something to dissolve the slime. Perhaps sandbags might become the next big thing at protests?

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Capitalism has no mechanisms for dealing with its own flaws. The only thing that keeps capitalism from getting out of control is democracy.

Of course. Without democracy, capitalism in itself has no controlling feedback. Democracy is the control. Democracy is essential.

In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism.

Nothing is stopping us from having this discussion. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from creating real, effective, meaningful political movements that could effectively correct flaws. Not smash windows! Correct flaws! Nothing is stopping you people.

But you don't. And that's the problem in my view.

Somebody's got to do it! But who? Why not the people? Who are you waiting for?

Smashing windows will not make a Savior appear. The people must do it. From the bottom up. Through hard work. Blood, sweat and screaming running tears! Not some hero. Nobody but the people.

Definitely not the "media attention" that the so-called Anarchists so crave with their smashups, even though they complain about the evil media corporations.

If the media corporations are evil, then don't wait for the media to save you! Do it yourselves for goodness' sake!

I can also see another problem. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela made real sacrifices. The rioters don't even dare show their faces demonstrating in democratic countries. Their sympathisers don't even dare risk a few damn slashdot karma points showing their nick in discussions like this.

I realize that you don't see any importance in this. But it's really absolutely essential. Those who are not willing to stand for their views, wether it costs them some sacrifice or not, those cannot get political gains. It's not just that they don't deserve it. It simply isn't attainable.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Trombone slides

[rarose]

As a former trombone player, I'm guessing this stuff wouldn't be what you'd want. It sounds like they lay this stuff on thick enough that the slipperyness is provided by low-friction shear within their gloop. A trombone slide is a tight enough fit (at the bottom seal area anyway) that their gloop wouldn't be thick enough to contain the internal shear.

One of those silicone pastes and water is still probably the best bet for you. (Please don't tell me you're still using oil!)

Re:Crampons.

[fajoli]

In this legal environment, people circumventing the slime with crampons and cleats would lead to crampons and cleats being outlawed. This would of course lead to only the outlaw being able to stand up making them much easier targets.

The rest of us law abiding folks would toe the line and slither around from place to place on our bellies as any law-abiding, God-fearing, American would do.

Next showing in Afganistan:

[Pig Hogger]

Ossama Bin Laden on ice

Beats the crap out of the beauty and the beast. Reserve your tickets now!

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[SecurityGuy]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is hardly true that people only riot for good cause. Notable poor causes in the U.S. include your college team winning a sporting event. Woo hoo, we won, let's go flip someone's car over and set something on fire!

Re:Marine Corps?

[El Kevbo]

Why do the Marines need crowd control? Wouldn't this be the job of law enforcement, and maybe National Guard?

Our elected officials have this notion in their head that the Marine Corps is the world's 911 force. Somalia was a hell of a wake up call for the Marines. Until that time, they didn't really spend any time training for crowd control or less than lethal methods of controlling or attacking people. Why should they? It wasn't their job to do so. Let the MPs deal with that shit!

Well, they've since woken up and realized that it is now their job to do so, for good or bad. I've been to Quantico during the phase of The Basic School (the officer training program through which *all* Marine Corps officers go and learn to be rifle platoon leaders) which they are taught riot control. It's quite impressive.

Should the Marines should have to deal with this shit? That's another discussion all together (and I'm sure that you can guess my opinion). But the reality is that as long as our elected officials keep sending them into giving them missions where crowd control is required, the Marine Corps will keep training for it.

Kevin

Turning the guns on ourselves

[Snowfox]

Why is it that, of weapons being developed of late, most seem designed for use on a country's own population?

Microwave pain devices, crowd stunners, directed painful noise producers, movement inhibitors, etc.

What's happening to our right to protest? Didn't we used to have a voice?

Re:I am quite *pleased*

[thesolo]

If anything, this will encourage peaceful protests and deter harmful ones.

Oh, if only that were true...

However, your comment is filled with naivety. This won't be limited to use on violent protestors/rioters, it will be used on ALL protestors. Watch footage from the WTO protests in Seattle, or the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia; peaceful protestors, those who were doing SIT-INS, and who had PERMITS to be there, were beaten by police, maced, & tear-gased. In the case of the RNC, Philadelphia police arrested hundreds of the PEACEFUL protestors, and held them for days without just cause. (Btw, the city is now facing dozens of lawsuits for that. My best friend was one of the peaceful protestors locked up.)

All of these new "crowd-control" devices, crowd foam, slippery slime, and the microwave-gun developed at Quantico last year (Which can give a person 3rd-degree burns in a matter of seconds), are going to be used on peaceful protestors, who have a right to protest. These aren't black-bloc anarchists, these are regular people who are trying to make a difference through nonviolence.

So How Is This New?

[StormyMonday]

"Instant banana peel" has been around since 1972.

It was used a couple of times in anti-Vietnam war rallies/riots (definitions depend on who you talk to). The rally/riot organizers loathed it -- it turned their nice focused, angry gathering into a party. The stuff is fun.

Re:You forgot the most important one.

[Aqualung]

It's budweiser... not like there was any real beer in the tent to start with ;)

This was rejected half a century ago.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

"Liquid banana peel" - either this or another one - was invented in the late '60s (as a water-cannon additive) and rejected at that time.

Test subjects wearing helmets and knee/elbow pads were shown in promos, but even some of them were injured.

Imagine a crowd down, many with compound fractures, and the paramedics trying to fish them out and patch them up before they bleed to death.

Then imagine the paramedics too slippery to help - or to go help anyone else.

Then imagine the floor of the emergency room with slick spots from stuff transferred from patients.

Then imagine it during a city-wide riot, with burning and looting.

Re:Marine Corps?

[JabberWokky]

delicious mixture of mashed potatoes, sausage gravy, syrup, and Jell-O.

There is no such thing as a mixure of those four ingredients that can be qualified with the characteristic "delicious".

--
Evan