Slashdot Mirror


Riot Control Ray-Gun for Use in Iraq

team99parody writes "An 'Active Denial System' weapon that 'fires a 95GHz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds' is scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006 according to CNET and the print version of New Scientist. It was recently tested on people playing the part of rioters at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico where they asked the subjects to remove glass and contact lenses to protect their eyes. Hopefully real rioters will get the same courtesy. Police and the Marines are working on portable versions. Sandia Labs also has a nice writeup on this system with pictures of smaller versions of the weapon."

44 of 1,317 comments (clear)

  1. Coming to America by nokilli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only logical. Our right to peaceably assemble is in the process of being eviscerated, which means that future efforts on the part of the citizenry to protest the increasingly hateful policies of this government will become more and more confrontational, and which in turn sees the government resorting to ever more punitive policies in response.

    Prediction: the ray-gun is on the streets in America in time for the 2008 Republican National Convention.

    I can't wait to hear what they consider to be acceptable levels of casualties as the result of using this thing on people.

    The thing I regret most in this life is that of all the science fiction movies I loved watching as I grew up, Soylent Green ends up being the one that most closely depicts the future.

    (I'd rather take my chances on the Nostromo.)
    --
    Why didn't you know?

    1. Re:Coming to America by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Our right to peaceably assemble is in the process of being eviscerated,
      Since when are riots considered peaceable assembly? This thing is designed, like teargas, beanbag guns, rubber bullets, etc. to disperse riots. Now I'm not saying that that's all they'll be used for, certainly there are instances where the line is grey and the police in charge of these devices have inappropriately chosen to use them, but there is a valid reason for them to be developed.

      I'm glad that devices like these exist because as much as it's important for people to peaceably assemble, if a mob of people gets rowdy and starts destroying peoples' property en masse, they have abused their right and ought to be dispersed.
    2. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      put in place by a democracy
      Well, Nazi Germany started out as a representative democracy, too.

      But I didn't realize we were supposed to give people a hard time about their sigs.

      The fact is, crap like this is bad. I don't care how violent a small minority of Iraqis are. There is no sense in burning them and giving them cancer just for being in a crowd.

      And yes, if it were applied domestically, crap like this would be just as bad. The grandparent raises a good point. Recent attitudes of law enforcement towards political protesters post Patriot Act have been alarming. Add this "ray gun" crap, and you've got something bad.

      Maybe the grandparent shouldn't have singled out the RNC '08 convention, (would that offend you less?) but he is definitely right.

      In my opinion, anyone who sees a distinction between using this in Iraq and using it in the USA is extremely ignorant, naive, or worse. People are people, regardless of nationality. There are a few bad apples in Iraq but the majority are normal people like you or me. Something like this has far too much potential for misuse.
    3. Re:Coming to America by nokilli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absent the trend in placing new and more onerous restrictions on where, when and how many people are allowed to peaceably assemble, I might agree with you.

    4. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, Johnny, we're talking about your civil liberties.

      Now, I know what you're thinking. "But dude, these aren't Americans like us. We're talking about towel heads. They're all a bunch of douches. Fucking terrorists, they are."

      Well, fuck, son. There's no difference. I'll give you a hint: most Iraqis want nothing to do with terrorism. Meanwhile, we blast them all with depleted uranium and ray guns. Environmental risk? Cancer? Well fuck, it's not our soil.

      Man. Can you imagine what it'd be like if the kind of shit that happens in Iraq were happening in New York, Chicago, insert your home town here? Well fuck. If every American knew that, we wouldn't have this stupid war.

    5. Re:Coming to America by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's designed to be used against people. How does it sort out the "rioters"? Is it any better than the cops at the NYC RNC convention last year, who swept up everyone on the streets, regardless of their "peacable" status? Or any of the other mass arrests I've ever heard of, where my friends, or their friends, have been picked up, even when just caught on the other side of the street, on their way to work?

      Have you ever been in a public demonstration? The actual treatment of your rights - ignoring them - is enough to wake up practically anyone. Especially when you see how different it is from TV and the movies. This raygun is going to get abused even worse than batons and tear gas, because its effects are mostly invisible. So the person leaning on the trigger, farther away from the action, won't be as inhibited by feeling personal responsibility. This thing is a nightmare from hell for people who actually care about exercising freedom, rather than just hiding behind a police fantasy, fearing for their property over crowds that will never threaten them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re: Coming to America by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Course not. Sure didn't some big world superpower give him a load of help in the 1980s?

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    7. Re:Coming to America by q.kontinuum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble is that the mood of crowds is unpredictable, can change *very* quickly, and cannot be reasoned with. Added to that people in packs tend not to act with the same restraint they would individually

      This might be a reason to deny the right to assemble. But the right to assemble is graned by Your constitution, so this argument does not count.

      A mob of lunatics rampaging through the streets burning cars, smashing in windows and robbing houses

      Agreed. But on most demonstrations I was, it was only very few lunatics rampaging being used as an excuse to capture many obviously peacful people.

      or even one just throwing rocks, firecrackers or bottles at a line of police isn't "exercising freedom".

      COMPLETELY different story! How can one person render all others around him illegal? So next time I see a demonstration I don't like I will join the demonstration and throw a bottle. That way, all people around me loose there right to assemble. Nice, very efficient.

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    8. Re:Coming to America by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Protest != Riot
      Riot != Protest

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    9. Re:Coming to America by jglen490 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Since when are riots considered peaceable assembly?"

      First, one must define "riot", and then (more powerfully) must define who gets to decide what a riot is. Witness the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago in which the powers-that-were either panicked or were not understanding the purpose of protest.

      Yes, in an emotionally charged situation it's easy for anyone to lose control of that situation and to thereby allow, or even cause, an escalation. However, comma, this is a very powerful system and hardly qualifies as a "non-lethal" weapon. Any protests of "we would never use it in anger" notwithstanding, all it takes is a few extra seconds of panicked press on the controller to weld glasses to skulls and permanently burn a copy of the latest state quarter into skin, or much worse.

    10. Re:Coming to America by VanWEric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the major point of difference between a riot control shotgun and a riot control laz0r b33m of 95Ghz millimeter microwaveryness is the intent of the person on the trigger end.

      A good cop ain't going to shoot me in the face with a shotgun (unless I'm doing something _really_ bad). A good cop will shoot me in the face with this gizmo if he has been told that it is "just a little pain" with "no permanent damage".

      The real danger comes from divorcing the damage inflicted from the percieved damage inflicted.

      And even if we train the riot cops, we don't know the worst case scenario. Riot cops get tear gassed during training - but that didn't save the life of the girl who was tear gassed during the red sox riots last year.

      --
      www.olin.edu
    11. Re:Coming to America by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it is.

      The reason is that assembling to call the government to task for the wrongs they've done is instantly reclasified as rioting and pillaging.

      Boston tea party. A bunch of guys rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.

      Rodney King verdict riots. A bunch of people rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.

      What's the difference? Was one violent and the other peaceful? Did one involve property damage while the other did not?

      How about the WTO protests in Seattle that were broken up with rubber bullets and tear gas? Were they causing property damage? Were they pillaging?

      And then of course there's all the pillaging that was going on in Tiananmen square.

      Whenever you have a government force putting down "riots", you better take some time to figure out why so many people are so god damned upset. Calling them a bunch of pillagers is moste definately missing the point.

      TW

    12. Re:Coming to America by whopis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we proceed ahead by excusing the actions of one group based on the evils and crimes committed by another group, then we are certainly doomed.

      Why do you insist that if one group is in the wrong, then anything done by the other group must be right and justified? Is it not possible that both groups committed unjustified actions?

      What about the group of blacks that pulled Reginald Denny from his truck and savagely beat him, smashing his head against the ground with a cinder block? Are they justified in beating him because a white jury freed a group of racist police?

      What about the targeting of Korean storeowners during the riots? How does that fit into the picture? Perhaps that was justified due to the light sentence Soon Ja Du (a Korean shopowner) received after shooting and killing Latasha Harlins during a minor robbery attempt.

      This is not about blacks vs. whites, or "whitey" vs. minorities.

      This is about evil people (who come in every race and color) and how much control and force they can exert over others when they are allowed to do so.

      To say that the L.A. Riots are a response to a black man being beaten by white cops is greatly misleading. Like many things this is not a clear cut black and white issue.

      After all, if that is all there was to it, how would you explain the hispanic cop that was involved in the beating? How would you explain the group of black residents that witnessed the beating of Reginald Denny live on the news and rushed out of their houses to save him?

      There are good people, there are evil people, there are people who are a mixture of the two. The ones who want you to believe that these incidents are merely related to race want you to have an uncontrollable visceral reaction to such thoughts. They fear people's ability to use intelligence and reasoning. They don't want you to understand the true causes behind anything. And that is how they will attempt to control you.

    13. Re:Coming to America by BarC0d3z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure how you ended up with Insightful.

      "Rioting" really doesn't accomplish all that much. Whereas "Protesting" accomplishes more. Why do you think Dr. MLK is revered and Malcolm X villanized?

      But to answer your questions: Boton tea party was a small faction of people - the Sons of Liberty - who were considered extremists and denounced publicly by the likes of John Adams. We celebrate them now that history has had a chance to smooth out the rough edges. Regardless, the destruction they caused was very deliberate. Crates of Tea being imported from British owned companies and excessively taxed. It was symbolic because the British were excessively taxing everything imported. Tea just happened to be in the harbor at the time.

      Rodney King riots weren't decrying any wrongs of the government. It started out as a tantrum because 12 men and women couldn't determine beyond a reasonable doubt that those police officers were guilty of the charges brought against them. People were angry because the same laws that protect them from wrongful incarceration were protecting the people they didn't like. It escalated into a free-for-all of looting and stealing. There was no lesson learned that day except that people will steal and in some cases kill when they think they can get away with it.

      You got the WTO right - they were just protests. However there's a fine line when you have a large mass of people who are protesting and a mob of people who are becoming unmanageable. It's also a fine line when you have to be the one to manage those people. Give them their right to protest, but don't let them trample on the rights of others be allowing them to get violent. Rubber bullets sting a lot less than a crowbar to the back of the head.

      Tiananmen Square - I know you were being sarcastic so I won't berate you for it. All I can say is thank God I don't live in a communist state.

      I agree that freedom of assembly is a good thing. I can agree that getting to the cause for disgruntlement is a good thing. But "rioting" isn't synonymous with "protesting" as you seem to want to make it. Rioting does the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish. It allows your opposers to point to you and say, "See! They're barbarians. Their ideas hold no weight."

    14. Re:Coming to America by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Your moral equivalency is really quite striking.

      Everyone has the right to assemble peaceably to protest what they consider a grievance against our duly elected and representative government.

      The Boston Tea party did not protest against a democratic and elected government, but against a monarch taxing unrepresented citizens.

      The Rodney King rioters damaged and looted the property of their fellow private citizens in protest of government action. That's completely unjust to those that had their homes and stores wrecked. A march, a rally, fiery public speeches, petitions, a sit-in at the court or city hall--all of these would have been acceptable. But the rioters damaged their neighbors in their anger at the government, and such action is rightfully stopped. It is one thing to protest against a monarch and another to protest against an elected and accountable government.

      WTO protesters in Seattle were not uniformly non-violent. Many private citizens, once again, had to pay the price for someone else's anger at the government. That's fundamentally unjust, that I might have my property destroyed by someone angry, not at me, but at the government.

      Tiananmen square was certainly peaceful to begin with, although I don't doubt that as it went on the protesters engaged in provocation with the police. But, you cannot draw equivalency between protest in a public square against a totalitarian government and protest in the streets of LA against an elected government's decision which involves destruction of private homes and stores. There is no moral equivalence there, whatsoever.

    15. Re:Coming to America by Irvu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the Republican and Democratic national conventions police have begun creating "Free Speech Zones" located inside barbed wire fences often miles from the actual convention site. People inside these zones were still, in some cases, subject to behavior restrictions (no shouting etc. At the RNC convention in new york police shut down a permitted march and arrested large numbers of people for being on the sidewalk or doing what they were otherwize told they could do. Many of those convinctions were subsequently thrown out and the police were rebuked both for arresting non-violent demontrators and for excessive use of force.

      At the Central American Free-Trade Agreement minesterial in florida last year unarmed and non-violent protestors were shot with bean-bag guns and rubber bullets (in theory non-lethal but they can in fact kill or at least cause permanent soft-tissue damage). Judges there are still sorting out the damage.

      Wake up!

  2. Health implications by JemVai777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I Wonder whether its usage can contribute to cancer down the track?

    --
    "The problem with our economy is that our budget is balanced by people who aren't" - A.E.N.
    1. Re:Health implications by DanMc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't worry about it... US gunfire and air strikes are more likely to kill you than cancer.

    2. Re:Health implications by plumby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It means that the level of uranium 235 (compared to U234/U236) is reduced to below the levels found in nature. It is around 60% as radiocative as natural uranium, and once inside the body has exactly the same effects as natural uranium (mostly lung/kidney damage). Not as dangerous as enriched uranium it's true, but still not particularly nice stuff.

    3. Re:Health implications by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speaking from a social viewpoint, I personally think its a dangerous escalation. If the authorities start firing this at people then it can surely only be a matter of time until they start firing back.

      Mod parent up. That's the point. Shooting at people with stun guns and CS gas causes them to throw stones at you (not to take sides, it also works the other way round: If you start throwing stones, don't be surprised if a CS grenade comes back).
      So why should this be any different? It will be a shock and probably disperse the crowd the first few times around. After that, it'll incite violent reactions. Since it is a most natural reaction to eliminate the source of your pain, I wouldn't want to be the cop who's holding the gun.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Wow this is stupid by vectorian798 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But New Scientist magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes. In another test they were also told to remove metal objects such as coins from their clothing to prevent local hot spots from developing on their skin.

    In real life obviously there are going to be people wearing lenses or carrying metal objects so what gives???

    Is Iraq just the guinea pig for our experiments now?

    While I certainly support non-lethal weapons in use of riot dispersion, this does not seem safe at all (and certainly, I do not want to be aimed at with microwaves!)

    1. Re:Wow this is stupid by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is Iraq just the guinea pig for our experiments now?

      Yes.

      KFG

  4. Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the way to win "hearts and minds" of people angry at the US occupation forces: zap them with rayguns. We'll teach them how the 21st Century US welcomes them with "compassionate conservatism", by frying them with rayguns. After sizzling whole towns, there's no way they'll ever listen to insane jihadists telling them that the Great Satan has burned them with hellfire, that we're all better off in a medieval fiefdom under god. Yeah, sticking Iraqis into a microwave oven is exactly the way to get them to calm down, stop their civil war, and break out those flowers they're supposed to be greeting us with.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, some Americans now remember that Nixon revealed in tapes before the 1972 elections that he was backing the South Vietnamese only long enough to win reelection, then he was dropping them like a napalm bomb. Which he did, to the cheers of the hippies. If third-rate burglars like G. Gordon Liddy hadn't given the press and prosecutors the kind of easy meat they needed to nail Nixon, he would have claimed he pulled out of Vietnam as the "peace president", and sent his Chinese ambassador, George Bush Sr, to a landslide election in 1976.

      Now that Bush Jr is in front of the camera, they're not making any of those mistakes again. Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense who "lost Vietnam" by officiating over the fall of Saigon, has been sure not to let any bodies get counted, let alone televised. President Vice President Cheney learned, while on Nixon's staff, to stay in the privacy of the president's shadow, letting him speak whatever the political genius whispers in his earbuds.

      But it's all so similar to Vietnam, which was so mostly successful for the Republicans, with such clearly identifiable mistakes. This time, though, the press knows they can grab the limelight like Woodward and Bernstein, and turn minor careers into popular myths, guaranteed lifetimes of selling books and being hailed as geniuses. That's why they're howling for Rove now, after 5, 25 years of watching that reptile get away with literal murder (or accessory to).

      Personally, I remember Watergate, and I really remember Iran/Contra. It's not an echo: it's the same creeps, with the same playbook, updated from their Superbowl losses to work with some new blood. Blood all over their hands.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the (literally) tons of money being spent on the Iraq war, including new "high technology" answers to the wrong geopolitical questions, there is a convergence of "Rumsfeld" technology coming.

      Picture 20 or 30 thousand less American troops in Iraq in 2006, replaced with remote controlled DARPA challenge robots with these microwave "rayguns" mounted aboard. Along with the already effective and deadly remotely piloted UAVs riding "shotgun" overhead. All being controlled by US military (or contractors) in nicely air conditioned facilities in Qatar. Everything from "crowd control" to "riot dispersal" to killing insurgents, all without the loss of American solder's lives protested in silent memorial on PBS.

      Considering the penchant for the Dubya regime to "cookie cutter" patch the same problems in different venues, I would expect this very same technology to be applied to the control of domestic American insurg^H^H^H^H^H^Hprotestors in the same time-frame.

  5. That's a relief by legLess · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:
    Burn injury is prevented by limiting the beam's intensity and duration.
    Well thank god for that. We all know the customary restraint of law enforcement and military personnel will prevent any civilian injuries,
    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  6. So many questions by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My first thoughts:
    • How wide-focus is this? Would police be able to use this on the street without frying everyone?
    • Could some sort of protection be made against this? (Portable Faraday cage, maybe?) If not, what's to prevent one of these falling into the black market and eventually being used on Police?
    • So Iraq has become the population-control guinea pig. What's even better is that this will probably be viewed by police as a magical dissent-eliminating ray. It's not. If people can't peacefully protest (or even riot), dissent is just forced underground, causing it to be made manifest more anonymously, more unexpectedly, and likely more distructively. Instead of more protests or riots, we have more things like...say...roadside bombs.

      Wait, isn't that terrorism? Using this thing could increase terrorism? Fucking wonderful.
    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  7. "Nonlethal" at the sandia article by hobotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nonlethal weaponry is a horseshit myth.

    The term they should have used (and what law enforcement uses now, after more than a few wrongful death lawsuits, is the term of "Less lethal". Did any of the Kirtland Air Force Base participants have a pre existing heart condition? I bet they didnt let pregnant women participate.

    Im so glad that when every time one of these proportedly nonlethal weapons pops up its run under a FULL and accurate barrage of labratory and set up tests, which almost never reveal the compounding issues that lead to death in real world enviroments.

    The news.com article asks a few of the many lurking questions to this system. We all know this device is going to Iraq to go through real world testing before its used here in the US. Someone is counting on all the "little kinks" that are more than likely deadly will be ironed out under the public eye.

    I find it highly ironic that our testing of this indescriminant weapon will be used in our even more indescriminant war.

    Terrorists dont use large crowds as weapons, if you stop and think at why this weapon would be needed, its ultimately crowd control on our home front. Now why would we need that? Lakers winning again? I highly doubt it. Someone had a plan when they initated and funded the development of this, and it doesnt look like a good one.

    --
    There is truth in humor.
  8. We have lost the war on Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have given up on winning their hearts and minds, instead we will cook their hearts and minds with experimental ray-guns. God Bless America!

  9. Why is it ... by chrispycreeme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with all our technology, science, power and resources, all we seem to do is come up with more and more fucking evil disgusting ways of hurting people? This is fucking sick.. Does nobody else see this?

  10. Re:Totally Inappropriate Slashdot Article by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Tell me about robots, new types of air-conditioner and spacecraft but keep this weapons crap out of here - we geeks are pretty much pacifists and don't care about this stuff.

    Yeah! tell me about Quake, and Doom, and Half Life, and Counter Strike, and Halo, and Unreal...

    --
    Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  11. Re:Wouldn't this be foiled by Boricle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I suspect that what happens then is that they use the "less-lethal" tool first - anyone left standing, or with shiny foil face masks are then categorised as "combatants" and "more-lethal" tools are then used.

    The trick will be to incorporate the foil into some unobtusive clothing, dress up like a woman in head-to-toe covering (otherwise it will look strange if you are in full head covering). Or maybe a member of the Klan with some sun-glasses on. That'd be unobtrusive (not). Any kind of full body covering will do. Cow costume..., Scuba gear, ummm....

    Of course the fact that you are not running away screaming might still be a bit of a clue.

    Probably won't do much for improvised explosives though.

    ...which reminds me, I must remember to wrap my passport in foil..

  12. Re:Right... I'm sure that's it by arodland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government, as an institution, is supposed to exist to solve (or at least mitigate) the people's problems.

    The average person, when placed in a position of power, wishes to use that power to improve his own situation. Such a person, in a government position finds that the best way to increase his personal power is to increase the size and importance of his domain of power -- which, as we've seen, is based upon "solving" some problem that the people have.

    The best method they've found so far is to create the problem with one hand while solving it with the other. Move more responsibility from the people to the government, and justify more work. Create more complications and loopholes in the tax codes, and work harder to bust tax evaders. Make more things illegal, and make law enforcement look good. It's a justification to do more, to take more of your money for your own good. It is evil. It's a million acts of small, petty evil in the guises of kindness and service.

    As to the bit about the Republicans -- it's been said before that the US is run by two parties: the party of Evil and the party of Stupidity. I agree with that assessment, but I think that the roles change day-to-day. Neither one is any better than the other.

  13. Re:Totally Inappropriate Slashdot Article by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah! tell me about Quake, and Doom, and Half Life, and Counter Strike, and Halo, and Unreal...

    We geeks are also pretty good at distinguishing fantasy from reality.

    Besides, Counter Strike is the only game you list that has any basis of fact, all the others are in totally fictional environments.

    The whole point of violence in games, particularly with kids, is you don't stop them playing these games because they are just fun pure and simple. It's bad parents that use PS2s and XBoxes as "babysitters", leave their kids on them for hours on end and don't spend time with them balancing out in-game violence with real-life love and attention.

    So let's have none of this "game violence" BS...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  14. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a hint for you:

    Those $1,000,000 per laser guided bombs have absolutely nothing to do with 'avoiding killing innocents'. They're about making sure that bomb hits the target it's aimed at, so's not to have to drop a dozen $100,000 ones. That avoidance of 'collateral damage' is just polite lip-service given to mollify the easily led on the home front. I mean, look at how uppity they got with My Lai... better put a PR spin on that, pronto.

    And the reason you're hated is that the innocents die anyways. Lighting up schoolbusses and torturing people in the same prisions and chambers that saddam used to use might be a giveaway to why that may be.

    It's strange that you have a realist perspective as to war and its outcomes, yet are so completely suckered in by the idea that your 'representatives' in-country give a fuck about any hajji that happens to wander in front of his scope. Here's a hint: Individual soldiers *may* have some qualms, after the fact, about gunning down unarmed prisoners and children and so on, but the forces in general couldn't give a rats ass. ... and why should they? It's not like the dirty little ragheads are actually HUMAN or anything, right?

  15. Iam certain by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ..it is possible to devise a genuinely non-lethal weapon. The problem is, I doubt anyone would buy it if such a thing really existed. In order to be truly non-lethal, it would need to operate on some principle other than extreme shock or total immobilization.


    I'm surprised they haven't deployed water cannons over there - those would seem to be infinitely less lethal than machine-guns or even this microwave laser they're proposing. However, given the heatwaves and lack of electricity for cooling, there's a danger people would riot just to cool down.


    Of course, a lot of the dissaffection is as a result of a lack of amenities in an extremely unforgiving climate. On that basis, it would probably be much more cost-effective simply to give every household their own generator and supply them with fuel until the power situation has been stabilized. Probably kill a whole lot fewer people, too. Might even win a few friends.


    For the safer parts of the country, they could even run a water delivery service. Drop off a 20 or 50 gallon tank in the morning at the front door, picking up the empties in the process. No different than what a million milkmen do every day in England - except the getting shot at part, and the size of the bottles.


    That wouldn't eliminate problems, but it would reduce a LOT of the tension. And if you reduce the tension, you reduce the risk of riots and other violent protest. Containment is better done by meeting legitimate complaints, rather than suppressing them. Suppressing them only risks building the tension up more, which increases the risk of massive confrontation.


    Things are bad enough, over there, why go out of our way to make things worse, when it is cheaper, easier and quicker (not to mention more ethical) NOT to?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  16. Re:Totally Inappropriate Slashdot Article by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we geeks are pretty much pacifists and don't care about this stuff.

    You misspelled apathetic.

    Seriously, this attitude is why crappy patents and laws like the DMCA are passed uncontested. It's all very nice living with blinkers on your eyes, ignoring the real world, but don't go crying when that world rudely intrudes on your own life.

    If you really were a pacifist, then you should be extremely interested in the ways states have of hurting dissenters, since this thing could be used against you or your fellow humans (but not while you're locked in your bedroom playing Everquest)
    Not to mention that inhumane weaponry like this is the best propaganda tool for those opposing war.

  17. Technology to Defeat The Corporate Police State? by torpor · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Okay, so this crowd control of the lower classes is one thing.

    But where are the tech research projects to defeat the techno-millitant industrial corporate police? Do you really think the world is safe breeding such corporations, capable of producing devices like this for the purpose of MASS CONTROL?

    Weapons-manufacturers are the ones who create wars to sell their products. The U.S. Gov't has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted to keep its despotic fingers out of the mass-control pie. Why should we be 'grateful' that 'non-lethal weapons' are now being created out of electronics, when electronics have been governing the masses for decades now?

    Show me a hand-held device that defeats television. Show me a device which will de-fuse a rabid neo-con. Show me a tool that can be used to bring religions together in peace.

    Too many times I've seen Defense-industry nazi's get their rocks off on their latest weapons designs. I think its about time the people of the world revolted against the weapon makers ..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  18. This reaction surprises me by drewpc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm currently serving in the Marine Corps and the reaction I've heard here on slashdot is surprising. It seems that no one at all has chimed in saying "hey, maybe this is a good thing".

    I was at the Force Protection Equipment Demonstation this year where I talked to some of the Marines at the Joint Non-Lethal Warfighting Lab about this exact product. We as Marines are looking at this tool as a lifesaver (literally). If we can roll through a place like Fallujah and use this tool to incapacitate the bad guys in front of us, then that saves their lives and puts less risk on our Marines. We want to and are doing everything we can to improve our non-lethal and less-than-lethal capabilities so that we have more options when we're faced with an enemy.

    More importantly, the general vibe that I got from these responses is that you all think that we're a bunch of indiscriminent killers! Guess what...we're not! We don't want to kill if we don't have to. However, when someone is pointing a gun at us, we're not going to sit there and wait them out. For example, we have Marines coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan who are messed up psychologically because they had to shoot a kid who was shooting at them. They had no choice. They did the right thing, but now they're fucked up in the head. The only reason they're fucked up though is because they believe that it's morally wrong to shoot a child. But when that child puts themselves into a situation where they become a combatant, the only response we have right now is to shoot them.

    Back to this less-than-lethal ray gun, if that Marine could've incapacitated that child instead of killing him, then the Marine can go home knowing that he completed his mission and didn't have to shoot a child, and that child can go home alive.

    I'm really dissapointed in this crowd. I've been a slashdot reader for the last 8 years and I've been pretty impressed with most of the comments up until now. Have a little faith in the people serving on the front lines. We're professionals, just like you try to be at work. We care about honor, courage, commitment, etc. Frankly, if I can use this ray gun to help make my Marines safer and bring them home to my families, then as a commander, I'm all for it.

    --
    -- Get your free Mini Mac http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=14209873
    1. Re:This reaction surprises me by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is a great post, and I appreciate your sharing your views. I do not often hear from people "on the ground". You make good points and I believe you when you say that the US military is professional. You guys do an important job that I, frankly, would not want to do. But I am concerned that not every person is as professional as you are. I am also concerned that things can get out of hand and that many situations are quite open to interpretation.

      If someone is pointing a gun at you, you probably do have to shoot them. Not too much interpretation there. But governments around the world, including the US govt., have a history of misusing power and classifying protesters as "rioters" or worse. We have seen many examples of police and soldiers overreacting to situations. Kent State and all that kind of stuff. Although, perhaps this microwave thingy would have helped in that situation.

      Basically, I hold our men and women in uniform in high regard, but I don't trust our civilian leadership one bit. And I know how clashes between citizens and the authorities can get out of control. Anyway, thanks again for your perspective. And thanks for doing the job you do. I hope, in the future, our government has better reasons for sending people like you into harm's way.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  19. slashdot - predictable by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Browsing at 4: 33 comments, universally bemoaning the near-fascist oppression of the Evil Bush & Co., as well as the obligatory comments about how we shouldn't be in Iraq.

    1) Do you people understand what a Riot IS? This is not a bunch of grungy stoners standing around peacably smoking hemp before they are brutalized by the jackbooted police thugs. I've BEEN in a riot, and they are characterized by VIOLENCE. Violence and damage to property, as well as against other people standing around. Many posters have said something about the indiscriminate use of these weapons. Hey dumbass: the point of RIOT CONTROL cops is not to beat your sorry ass down (as much as you may deserve it) it's to DISPERSE the rioters, because people are far less likely to be (rioting) assholes when not protected by the anonymity of the herd around them. If you're a spectator, you're part of the fscking problem. For all the sympathy we're supposed to have for 'innocent bystanders' accidentally caught in this weapon's area of effect, I don't see a SINGLE post suggesting sympathy for the people whose businesses, cars, property, and yes, even LIVES are threatened/damaged/ruined by the rioters.
    But then again, why should they get sympathy? They're working a job, running a local business, making a living, supporting a family...you know, all those things that the "anti-globalization protestors" (really fancy way of saying unemployed vandals) are supposedly "protecting"...

    2) It's great we're in Iraq, we're accomplishing good things in the majority of the country where the psychotic terrorists aren't an everyday event. And yes, it's JUST as irrelevant for me to make that point as it is to make yours that "we shouldn't be there".

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:slashdot - predictable by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "For all the sympathy we're supposed to have for 'innocent bystanders' accidentally caught in this weapon's area of effect, I don't see a SINGLE post suggesting sympathy for the people whose businesses, cars, property, and yes, even LIVES are threatened/damaged/ruined by the rioters."

      This is a good point, and a view that is probably underrepresented here. The act of rioting does not deserve a defense. I don't condone violence in response to a problem. But it is useful to ask why a riot happens. Sometimes it is as you say; a group of unemployed vandals or a pack of boneheaded sports fans after a Superbowl win.

      In the case of Iraq though, I think a lot of the rioting is a result of our negligence and mismanagement. That is why so many here have the reaction they do. The US military never established order. There has been looting, rioting, and lawlessness in Iraq from the moment we toppled the government there. We had a responsibility to establish law and order and we didn't do it. Now, as a result of this and the fact that clean water and electricity are in short supply, we have rioting. In response to this, we are developing new weapons, but having very little honest discussion of why the riots are happening.

      I agree with you that riot control is necessary in the short term. But more important in the short, medium, and long term is to understand why people are so upset that they riot.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  20. feel like they're being burned alive by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In what way does this device make them 'feel' they are being burned alive rather than actually burning them alive? This isn't pepper spray that triggers pain sensors without associated damage. This thing makes people feel like they are burning because it is in fact cooking them!

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  21. I believe the fear is.... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a result of looking what this could turn in to. Sure, most of us might not ever be in a riot, but I can easily see myself being involved in a peaceful protest (in the future) where our government has simply gone too far in taking our rights away. Then, while the protest is entirely peaceful, there are so many of us that the authorities simply stop caring, or even worse, plan to ignore the masses. Weapons like these make it all the more difficult for us to overthrow the governing body, should the majority find it inadequate and not sufficiently capable of fair ruling.

    Its getting easier and easier for the gov't to supress, rather than acknowledge, the problem at hand, whatever it be; and we are the ones giving ground.

    Don't get me wrong, I think stopping violent riots is a good thing. Using this would most likely save more lives than it would take; however this is teatering on the "cruel and unusual" line. I know thats for punishment, but I think the idea ought still apply for contol of the masses. Inducing nausea is simply not humane. Nor is making a person's skin feel like it's on fire. Each law inforcement officer should be subjected to the effects of each weapon they will be using before they are given conrol....say 5 seconds....enough to keep in mind the power they are wielding. Pay them a bit more, I don't care; just make sure they are as sparing as possible in the "non-lethal" weapon's use.