Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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?
... etc.
No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement?
e4 e5
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.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
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.
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!"
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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.
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.
..." With slime, which chemical action on which life process causes temporary incapacitation?
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
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.
Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
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.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
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.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"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.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.