Slashdot Mirror
Weapons of War Now Include Lightning Guns
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post is running a lengthy article today about Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems, an Indiana-based company that says its developed a nonlethal weapon that shoots lightning bolts. This article is an in-depth look at a company that's stirred up some controversy on Slashdot in the past. From the article: 'Lightning guns, heat rays, weapons that can make you hear the voice of God. This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.'"
I wonder how good the accuracy is. If a "bad" guy and a "good" guy are in close combat how do they make sure that the bolt strikes the "bad" guy and is not instead attracted to the metal gun being held by the "good" guy?
It seems to me that lightning wouldn't necessarily go where you want it to, but instead would go where it wants to...
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
first post!
because with the current American administration you get paid very well for attacking people.
Mine, or the one worshipped by evil people?
Terrorist: alla! alalalalalallalalalal! .. .. (2 seconds later) BOOOM!
(lightning strikes)...
Unreal Tournament 2004 is now becoming not so unreal, apparently.
Supposedly "safe" Taser guns can kill people, and we're supposed to believe that they've perfected a non-lethal lightening bolt?
such as Medusa, an attempt to develop a weapon that uses low-power microwaves -- believed to cause an audible buzzing in subjects' heads -- to make people think God is speaking to them.
Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
GOD IS TALKING TO ME!!!!
What is he saying?!?!
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Why on earth are private companies (I won't even get started on governments) still developing weapons? This is incredibly sick.
Besides for profit, there's one great reason: Non-Lethal Weapons.
Sure we could just stick with the landmines, bio-weapons, and nuclear arms that are already developed, but I think we can do better. Don't you?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
We already have those. They're called religions. The forces of evil have been using them to control idiots with great sucess for thousands of years.
This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.
Because we all know how effective giant lightning bolts are at seeking out a terrorist in a populated urban area...
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Calm down they're non-lethal. Better that then sprey a crowd with bullets I'd say
id Software has done it again... bringing the gunz to the REAL front!
U.S.A! U.S.A!
When are we getting the sonic tanks from Dune? ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Because some people, under the name of seeing the light, are doing a major power grab while portraying themselfs as god fearing people.
Why the question?
Outstanding! Oooyah!
I smell a new type of X-Games Competition.
Yes, but what about that one man in the crowd with a heart problem?
Shotting crowd is _always_ going to kill or severely harm someone dispite as "non"-lethal the weapons may be.
The article mentions a "dazzler" laser which is designed to blind enemy combatants. Isn't this illegal under the Geneva Convention? I seem to recall a ban on weapons that blinded people.
got sig?
Nice Tesla Coil there. Now stop wasting my tax money on this BS.
As far as I can tell this guy just has some lasers and Tesla coils and "artist's renderings" of terrorists being struck down by sparks.
There's a fundamental problem yet to be addressed. It's extremely difficult to incapacitate someone without risking their life.
His vision of "Zapping the hostages with the kidnappers and sorting it out later" is scary!
That's the real risk of less-lethal weapons, they lend themselves to overuse.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Because it is just XXXXXXtreme... Everything that starts with X makes everything interesting and good.
weapons that can make you hear the voice of God
I demand to know who used this on our fearless leader, Mr. Bush.
Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!
The war on terror has now turned to Quake 3 deathmatch!!!!!!!!!!!
I was thinking about joining the army. I mean, its just like fps, but with better graphics. But what if I get lag out there??? I'm dead!!! I heard there isn't even respawn points in RL!" -fps-doug
I got nothin'
Because we dont want to loose the next war?
I thought that's what the original poster was afraid of, building weapons for loosing the next war.
Oh, wait, you meant "lose". Nevermind. It's amazing how a single letter in a common typo can so change the meaning of a sentence.
(Just in case you still don't understand: loose, v. tr., to let loose, release.)
are the frickin' sharks?!
I'm prone to typos.. and spell check? Never bother...
Yes, it should have been lose, not loose...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"weapons that can make you hear the voice of God."
/.ers:
Cue the hordes of
A. Saying there is no God.
B. Calling the article religious flamebait.
Because there is a NEED for weapons, and there will always be a need for weapons.
Force trumps law, love, and especially naive people like yourself.
Why are private companies still developing weapons? That's an easy question - because it's profitable. In a capitalist society, there doesn't need to be any other reason.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Private companies have been developing weapons for as long as human history. Why would anybody here think that should slow down or cease to exist?
You guys have really gone off the rails when you blame Bush for weapons technology continuing to improve. Has everyone here really lost their minds, or have all the adults left?
I can't believe it hasn't been said yet. Shame on you all. =) /obscure?
The lead engineer was named Zeus?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
well duh...if faithed based weapons worked we wouldn't need to make our own lightning bolts to strike down jihadists...
;P
"Bush claims mandate of heaven, launches lightning bolt attacks on baghdad"
Is any else as shocked as I am to hear this?
X-actly!
Embedded journalists have been trying to report that soldiers have been using IDDQD and IDKFA since April 2004, The Pentagon alleges that if the terrorists ever found out these codes it would "ruin the game", and has subsequently been stripping press reports of this information.
There is truth in humor.
I have to say, it's far beyond me when a person seeking "first post" posts as a reply to someone else's attempt at a first post. The inordinate lack of logic here is striking.
This proves that first-posters are certifiably insane.
This sig rocks the casbah.
the Great Satan can't outside the box.
Because the private sector is the most likely to develop an LTL (less-than-lethal) weapon that actually works. Should we leave it up to the military sector, the same that holds conventions to gage what's too much maiming and what's acceptable? The same branch of government that trains men to be the deadliest operatives on that planet?
Plain and simple truth, the private sector has been developing weapons since the US declared independance over 200 years ago. Matter of fact, the US military has not a single weapon in it's repertoire that wasn't developed in the private sector. Nor the federal law enforcement agencies, or even local law enforcement.
If your argument is about human nature, you'd be best to take it elsewhere, you will not win. Sure, humanity as a whole may decide to be pacifist, but the individual is the culprit in most crime.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
Since we're having a correction party here, may I point out that both you and your parent got "never mind" wrong. "Nevermind" is a fine Nirvana album though - maybe you were referencing it?
I quit!
Do we really need more weapons of war? I mean, in all seriousness. Doesn't the US spend as much on the military as most other nations' GNP combined? Whom are we supposed to be fighting?
The lightning was just a warning Kent.
---- Booth was a patriot ---- :D
Correction... IS a patriot (R).
Jho
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
wait, so your argument is that since we might possibly have a chance of injuring or killing one or more people, we should just injure and kill everyone? yay for logical conclusions
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
This is what happens when you ignore Nikola Tesla. I know this because I've played Command and Conquer.
as a reply to "maybe this is the first post," i find it to be genius.
There are designed to be used on you.
It's a Bagel.
I think the old proverb, "he who laughs last, laughs best" fits this situation most appropriately. We should all hope that that type of post is indeed intended as a sarcastic joke (one that aside from a small group of people, is only funny to the person who submitted it -- though I can imagine the minute of enjoyment that doing such a thing would bring).
A B A C A B B
Let them work on a safe way to attach the laser beams to their heads first.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"I feel a little bit like the German scientists of the Third Reich, who have no option but to do this research because that's what the government funds." "This nonlethal technology, I mean, aimed at electrocuting a crowd of protesters?" he said. "That's not really appetizing, I must say." Still it's easier then getting them all to shuffle on nylon carpet.
I've seen their equipment in person, and the tesla coil gun in it's largest form sounds like Thunder going off for minutes, and the little briefcase would be a great personal protective device, like a cattle prod but you dont have to touch them
It's really neat, picture a security zone in the airport where you can't walk through the lightning unless you pass the guards first.
...so I live in Soviet Russia now?
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
were one step closer to the gay bomb!
What do these weapons do to fight "terrorism"? They just make more terror. The only thing that fights terrorism is turning off the TV and talking to your neighbors face to face. Maybe take a leisurely trip to noplace special, just to talk with people who aren't like you. Guns don't do anything but make more terror and use up more money that could be spent building something people can use.
--
make install -not war
...still rather have a BFG, though.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
"And for the last time, stop playing with yourself!" "It is God."
No one seems to care, and we "pedants" apparently just have to live with the language rape^^^^evolution.
Have a nice shmurl.
This is what the government is wasting your money on instead of schools and submerging/covering religious symbols in human excrement.
Damn, you got me! In my defense, at least my little typo doesn't change the core meaning of my message.
Electrifying. Now I can finally achieve that headhunter rating I've been after. Any defense companies working on double damage and a translocator? That would be sweet!
This is not specific to the US military. The 'private sector' has been developing weapons since Og showed nGg!g how to hit Blorg over the head with a rock.
you beter include alot more then just some people and include more then "under the name of seeing the light" and "god fearing people".
Really. I can see were your insinuating but the fact is that they don't hold a monopoly on it. It is like syaing that international companies that screwed over an area (acording to some extreamist)are able to make US or UK policy and therefore thier civilians who have no say in the matter should die.
Of couse people tend to justify what they do by whatever means neccesary.
Well I was thinking about just not shotting them at all.
You know not harming our fellow man and all.
If only Og was incorporated. He would have patented the process of smashing skulls with a rock. Humanity may be violent, but lawyers put fear into all but the strongest or most foolish of men. It would have brought about an age of peace and enlightenment. People don't kill people, rocks kill people.
someone else that doesn't understand that the world is not black and white.
Some "errors" change meaning, some do not.
The English language is generally very flexible, and can deal with - and in fact (or infact if I feel like it) encourages creative use of words, or even the creation of new words (wording maybe? Or is that may be?) by combining existing words, or using common patterns of modification such as prefixes and suffixes to words that have not had them previously applied.
All of those things are perfectly acceptable in colloquial speech as they do not obfuscate or change the meaning, in fact they can enhance understandability in some cases.
Formal writing is different, but there's no one set of rules for that, and as such you have to be familiar with the approved style for the circumstances. Unless you have already agreed on a certain style in advance with someone, it is worthwhile (worth your while? worth the time it would take you?) calling them out on something simply because they are not conforming to your preferred style.
Using the wrong existing word however, is much more likely to be a definite error in all cases and can have a serious affect on meaning. It is a fallacy to compare loose vs lose with "never mind" vs "nevermind"
Advanced users are users too!
Doesn't the US military have the so-called terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere massively outgunned? Doesn't the US already have several different non-lethal means of breaking up crowds?
The people of Vietnam did not want US domination and neo-colonialization, and the US lost that war.
The people of Iraq do not want US domination and neo-colonialization of their country, and the US is losing that war.
Afghanistan is rapidly sliding downhill. After overthrowing a democratic gov't in Haiti, the Haitian people are still resisting the US/UN troops.
Does anyone see a pattern here?
All the high-tech gizmos in the world will not help the US to pacify a country when the people of that country hate you with a passion.
Some people will not support the foreign domination and US puppet governments that are placed on them -- all in the name of some noble cause like "freedom and democracy"; and even worse for the US imperialists, some of those people will fight to the death to protect their country. Lightning bolts or microwaves aren't about to turn them into quislings.
The Quad Damage development team has shown disappointing early results, but are confident of a breakthrough sometime soon.
to tell these idiots "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? /flamebait = AC
Months ago I was watching some show about nonlethal weapons inventors and I thought about how cool they were. Then I thought about the situations they'd be used in. Time and time again police and national guardsmen abuse nonlethal weapons all over the world to suppress peaceful demonstrations. In future protests, expect to see sonic weapons, foam, all sorts of things aimed at crowds.
Now where we do really need nonlethal weapons is in Iraq, where children under the age of fifteen commonly shoot at our guys there. Our guys have nothing else to defend themselves with but guns, and I've heard about how demoralizing it can be for our troops to be forced to kill children (let alone the moral issues, and the fact that we're creating new "insurgents" by killing family members). And it's not like our military does not have nonlethal weapons, it just won't arm our guys with them for the obvious lunkhead reasons.
Rest assured these high tech toys will not be used on armed combatants, but on peaceful protesters.
Certain other highly profitable ventures (for instance, drug running and people trafficking) do occur in capitalist (as well as non capitalist) societies, but involve risks to those involved because of their illegality. These risks act as a deterrent to most businessmen.
I would also add that there are capitalist societies where moral issues also enter the equation. While in the US it seems to be considered the duty of executives to maximise profits (insofar as possible without ending up in jail) this is not true, for instance, of Japan or Scandinavia. Personally, I prefer the more moral approach of those societies.
it doesn't neccesarily need to be a capolist society. any country who might fear an atack or think that the only good defense is a strong offense would be likley to develope more weapons. Hitler had private companies do his for a while so it isn't like the government is the only ones developing in comunist countries.
Robert McClain learned that chainmail is no match for a Taser. He tried to go medieval on Michigan cops. While holed up in his basement armed with a large mallet he uttered: "I'm gonna crush your fucking skulls, I have a thousand years of power."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
gah. And I just proved that it's always "worthwhile" to do a full proof read _before_ submitting.
I meant "it is _not_ worthwhile" in the second to last paragraph.
Advanced users are users too!
What they're trying to patent LSD now? sheesh
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I think you meant to say "Oh please, Mr. Businessman. Weapons are bad. My mommy says so"
The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was:
...
We got your Staff of ZOT! Will we get rich by selling it to the US military?
Sincerely, Extreme Alternative Defense Systems Ltd.
http://www.xtremeads.com/stunstrike.htm
And in response, thus spake the Oracle:
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
You need to hit the "6" key before you can use it..
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
... that it holds more than 40 rounds (bolts?).
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
is to horrible to fathom.
Could Google be building the PERPENDICULAR Internet?
If so, it would run crossways to everything the human race stands for.
We can't, we musnt'nt allow this to happen.
"Sig free in '03!"
Why is trying to stay alive sick? If someone is shooting at me I want a gun to fight back with. Better yet I want a better weapon then they have.
This is not sick, it is only simple human nature - the desire to stay alive.
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
"we should just injure and kill everyone? yay for logical conclusions"
The parent correctly pointed out that these weapons are not "non-lethal" as some would have us believe. The stupid conclusion is that the only alternative is to kill everyone. You sound like the idiot Bush.
...that there's more than corn in Indiana!
:-)
Wow. I had no idea a company like that operated in Indiana, of all places.
It also seems like countermeasures would be ridiculously easy. One chicken wire girdle and enough cable to reach the ground, and suddenly you're invincible. Crowbars or metal pickets (not to mention rifles) would probably also make excellent lightning rods.
see title.
Gravity Sucks
Has no one made the connection to Palpatine from Star Wars? Crikey, the lightning is even purple! "UNLIMITED POWWWEERR!!!"
If you want it to be possessive, it's just 'ITS.' But if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's 'I-T-apostrophe-S,' scalawag.
You never know when demon mutant zombies will attack! You will need A BFG9000
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
This reminds me SOOO much of the UV Nitrogen stun laser cum "phaser" gun that was all in vogue 18 months ago.... what a load of crap.
In my never too humble opinion what's hapenning is that some fast talking BS artist spins a tale to tech to a defense buddy/contact/flak who's more knowledgable about ProSprorts than science....and gets a million or so research grant to pursue the idea. Then of course a small chunk of the grant goes out to the spin machine flaks like the Wash Post (and eventually end up) here.
By te time the idea is proven to be BS (which any 2nd year college physics student could likely have told you ) then everything is covered up and forgotten so there are no embarrassing questions about what MORON allocated the funding in the first place.
Moller and his fantastic flying cars has been pulling that stunt on the government every 15 years and those f-tards never learn.
Am I ranting again?....
Oops..
One more thing - the original artical goes on to say that the company's big achievement to date is selling scay green laser pointers to the military as a defense weapon for $1100 a pop! Oh well...at least it keeps these a-holes out from selling junk bonds to grandmothers.
Am I ranting again?
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
OK could you stop now? A few typos don't stop the meaning from being transferred. Nitpicking smoothers the topic in useless drivel.
"... weapons that can make you hear the voice of God."
Hmm. I think entirely too many people hear the voice of god already. That's largely why we think we need weapons.
=brian
I believe what you meant to say is that "he who laughs last, thinks the slowest"
Nonlethals can be useful for
1. Hostage situations: instead of having to risk the hostages lives and negotiate with hostage takers you can take a minimal fatal risk right at the begining of the hostage crisis by shocking everyone in the premises unconscious, possibly saving the hostages, police, and even the criminals from a potentially deadly and psychologically scarring situation.
2. Attacks on a building, a giant lightning gun could shock people storming a building and knock them all unconcious, no assault rifle can take down 200 hundred guys storming an embasy like they did in saigon or terhan.
3. Preventing bad press, instead of a soldier or police officer entering a sitution where he is unsure of what is going on and feels endangered so he shoots someone, he merely blinds them or shocks them to the ground.
Nonlethals are not perfected yet, thats why we are still investing in them, but I would rather take my odds with a taser than a semi automatic pistol any day of the week. Complaining that people still could die misses the point, people are definitely going to die if they get shot with a M16.
...what's so special about Tesla coils?
I believe I understand what their real purpose is: Take low-frequency AC, and transform it to high-frequency AC. There's an LC circuit that you can think of as being like a swing, and the low-frequency signal "gives that swing a puch" every so many cycles. That's it, right? And you still need a high-voltage supply to begin with to feed the thing.
So what's the point? Why do we need high frequency AXC? We're not trying to hit people with radio waves; we're just trying to exceed air's breakdown voltage - right? Is there any advantage to high frequency AC over, say, taking a pointy metal rod (pointy because charge builds up on areas with small radii of curvature), and just raising it to a really large potential with a beefy DC power supply?
Any answers would be much appreciated.
I wrapped my manhood in foil, attached it to a Tesla coil and invited my girlfriend into the darkened bedroom for some Cosmic Sex. She got pretty hot when she saw "lightning" emanating from my Wonder Rod but lost her heat when a bolt singed her twat hair. So much for Thunder Love.
Uhhhh that's who has almost ALWAYS developed weapons in the United States. The practice has served us well.
Now that we have the lightning gun, we finally have a weapon we can use to effectively end the insurgence of shamblers that's followed Operation Iraqi Freedom. Maybe we can even find where Shub-Niggurath is hiding in Afghanistan!
Well I was thinking about just not shotting them at all.
You know not harming our fellow man and all.
Oh yes. Because, you know, angry rioting crowds are really friendly once you get to know them.
As Mao Zedong said, power is only in the barrel of a gun. You can argue political theory all you want, but when a fight breaks out in vivo, you've got to make sure that the side you agree with has the stronger weapon. And I'd prefer the power be in the barrel of a non-lethal gun - because it could also be wielded through the crowd's sticks and stones.
If you want to say that the mob is right, that's a different argument - and one that I would only accept partially, because most of the time violent protesters are mainly there for the fun of the protest, and only secondarily there to ask for a redress of grievances.
Nobody (well, nobody except some weirdos like China and so forth) is using weapons (non-lethal or not) against peaceful dissenters. And most of the recent major revolutions in which the good guys won were carried out peacefully.
I'm contemplating leaving my employer. What do they do? They're basically a privatized military. They have their own camouflage uniforms complete with the company logo on the arm, just like a sports team. Nice, huh?
As I recall from Quake III, the lightning gun is extremely lethal.
Am I the only one that sees the irony that the "War on Terror" is leading to an all new breed of terror weapns?
None of these are real reasons.
The real reason, is that the US needs to modernize. We need to take our military to the Xtreme.
This is only one in a number of changes that was obviously necessary to convert our military from a well disciplined fighting force into an Xtreme force.
Here are some of the others:
-The US army is changing it's name to "Rmee Xtreme!"
-War on Terror renamed to "Ultra-mega xtreme terror elimitation"
-Soldiers must now practice one-liners to go along when throwing grenades.
-Army camo replaced with "Xtreme metallic green"
-Soldiers are issued new, cooler names upon enlistment. For example, "Joe Smith" would become "Goe sMitH Xtreme!"
-Grenades are now going to be called "Ultra Xtreme Blastilators"
-There will be a new branch of the military: "X-treme Fighting Ninja Monkies"
-Periods (.) will be replaced with exclaimation points (!) on all official documents.
And, of course, all the weaponry will be replaced with new, Xtreme! weaponry, such as the one listed here.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
personally I'd prefer it if my government didn't use weapons on me at all. Ever heard of escalation? Oh wait, it was in that recent Batman movie, chances are you've heard the theory (at least the hollywoodized one liner version).
How we know is more important than what we know.
Live Action Role Playing video
:) )
(Warning: This site isn't recommended for younger audiences or people with a faint heart. Viewer discretion advised - don't say I didn't warn you...
Kent, stop touching yourself!
Yeah, that's what I like.
But until then, don't cross the streams.
Why?
It would be bad, real bad. Wrath of God bad.
Coming next from XADS: the railgun!
well lightning bolts are ok, but I prefer area of effect spells like fireball... unless you're talking chain lightning... oooh goody! goody!
In my defense, at least my little typo doesn't change the core meaning of my message.
:: Puts down the Nevermind lyric booklet. :: Oh, that wasn't a song reference?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I'm sorry did I miss that class? TFA didn't specify a voltage for the lightning or power output, but, if you are calling it lightning then one might well assume you are speacking in the 100s of thousands of volts and possbile some considerable current to project a bolt 10-15 feet, not to mention the goal of 30 feet. Yes, I once knew a man who took 100,000 volts with considerable current and "lived", if you could call his life afterwards living. While they may have tested this on the US Olympic team and not killed anyone, I am skeptical as to how "non-lethal" such a weapon really is. Charged plasma can be unpredictible. Scotty break out those phasers and make sure they are on stun.
Hey, I'll take some of that! And could you Super-Size it too?
Some degree of accuracy eh? :-D Reading the article, I find the guy manages to inadvertently zap himself with a lightning gun that has a useful range of about four feet. If he's dead set on using electricity, a projectile that releases an electric charge on impact sounds like a better idea to me. But hey, it only cost the US taxpayer a million bucks or so to find out lightning sucks as a weapon. IMHO that ranks right up there with the cow fart studies.
How many of them are part of a uniformed army? None. Yup they really follow it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Hey! You know that's not true! Stop trolling! Everybody knows the military pays shit.
really scared. There used to be a time where lots of funding went towards non military venues like space exploration. Now it seems that all funding of any kind is military.
Pol Pot, ... atheists all.
Josef Stalin,
Genghis Khan,
Mao Zedong
O'l Adam answers your question. What it boils down to, is to prevent war, the defence capability of a country has to be commensurate with its wealth, in order to make an attack by a neighbour unproffitable. Get his book from Project Gutenberg and educate yourself a little.
Oh well, what the hell...
..until someone loses a core brain function.
Everything is potentially lethal. Even carrots. And who says they don't cause severe and/or permanent damage?
Is this the most bang on post of the entire article here or what? Yes, the answer is yes. WTF is so special about a damn hand held tesla coil and a common green (frequency doubled Nd:YVO) handheld laser pointer with a diverging lens on the end? Because that is literally all he's got it sounds like. Answer, not a fucking thing! Damn is it this easy to become a scam artist these days? I need a career change.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
What crowd, where, why? A crowd of protesters? A crowd of citizens from nation A who don't cotton to foreigners from nation B coming over and killing them? Which crowd needs "spraying" anyway?
Oh ya, I forgot, the crowd that is there to use up the weapons that make the profits for a handul of scuzzy international arms merchants and their political front men. Them crowds.
Of course, spray away! Profits!!!!
Said parking lot would also be self-lighting (at least for several years).
Time to burn some mod points. I wonder how low the liberal whiners here can mod me down.
S I G H.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
This article is an in-depth look at a company that's stirred up some controversy on Slashdot in the past.
They should save this quote for any future dupes.
That has something to be said for my reflective tinfoil hat...
Oh well, what the hell...
> Oh yes. Because, you know, angry rioting crowds are really friendly once you get to know them.
t m .
Well lets start of with this, few sane people go around killing as a part of a riot. That is unless you have really pissed them off.
What about getting rid of the cause of the anger?
Or even if they go to the rioting stage, why not ask them to sit down a talk about how you can improve things?
Yes at times shotting them might be the only thing you can do to stop greater suffering, but that cop/army personal might think "Hey, why not zap them with the nonlethal lighting gun" as the first thing to do rather then the last.
>Nobody (well, nobody except some weirdos like China and so forth) is using weapons (non-lethal or not) against peaceful dissenters.
Well on this last thing you said the US police have done such things a quick google for 'police rubber bullets' came up with this http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.h
http://bulletproofme.com/Quick_Answers.shtml#13
Though you did say "high-quality" but I can't find anything saying it's illegal.
The same branch of government that trains men to be the deadliest operatives on that planet?
You mean the US government trains the SAS? ohh I think your mistake I think you meant to say "The same branch of government that trains men to be the friendly fire prone operatives on that planet?"
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
they are non-lethal, just like water is non-lethal but in some circumstances water can drown you, except these weapons are even more non-lethal than water is.
the only alternative is to kill everyone? i said injure or kill everyone idiot, illiterate Bush. i don't know why you called me an idiot Bush but right back at ya
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
fuel rod guns? Redeemers?
What about getting rid of the cause of the anger?
What, so every time an angry mob protests about something, the government has to submit? That's effectively running a country by mob rule, whoever gets the most violent protestors wins.
Or even if they go to the rioting stage, why not ask them to sit down a talk about how you can improve things?
Yeah that'll work. Ten thousand rioters throwing chairs at the police, a policeman picks up a microphone and says "Can you please all sit down..."
Your second mistake is assuming that protestors have legitimate grievances that they're primarily interested in solving peacefully. 90% of them are just along for the ride, they get caught up in the buzz, it's a day out for them, nothing else. The other 10% aren't interested in listening to anyone.
The expo is a testament to the entrepreneurial spirit of America, but it's also a vision of its future: a nation mired in barriers and locks, fitted out with all-seeing sensors and closed-circuit television, where terrorism, as one company's slogan goes, "is reduced to a minor inconvenience."
Didn't John Kerry get lambasted for saying something very similar to that?
et tu brute?
Why the redundancy? Does a Bush of the non-idiot variety exist?
Isn't "hearing the voice of God" one of the primary causes of terrorist acts? It's hard to imagine the September 11th hijackers took the job because of the good dental plan...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Sane people. In a riot.
Think about what you just posted there, and get back to us...With both parties having the same weaponry
i totally agree, but are you aware that lately no other country or group have the weapon potantial US has. There is no more balance to stop use of weapon arsenals, and guess what, as a result US policy has been overly aggressive lately. Not just number of armed conflicts but even the tone of diplomacy US uses shows signs of this loss of balance. You may say "we are not using nukes", but have you seen a tank remnant shot with uranium shells from an abrams? You can see if you dare to get close, for no one approaches those to remove debris!!! They are still waiting where they are shot
Thank you. Now if only we could get serialdogma to quit typing "shotting," and start typing "shooting" instead.
Yes.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Yes it is true somepeople would think "Hey a protest, just think of who I could harm there", but I would rather think (a most of the time do) they where in small numbers compared to the ones there with the intent to make there voice heard with out going around hurting others.
I tend to belive we only hear about "bloodshed" protests as it sells more papers then "advid peace campaners have sit-in outside army base".
About the mob rule, yes I might be an "naive, idealistic" fool, however i tend to belive that most people (and hence most crowds/protests/riots) care more about the colective( socity might be a better word...) then themselfs.
It would be odd to see our soldiers jumping and getting headshots. Lets hope that hacking doesn't become a problem.
All these are, well not read the article as lagged but I know the tech. Is basicly a taser but instead of having to fire probes orf wire they use a laser that ionisers the air to conduct the electricity.
Bout time realy it actualy got commerciolised into a useful product.
Let's hope the Jarheads know not to fire it underwater - at least until the defence contractors develop the Pentagram of Protection.
dude.
someone, find a pic of emperor palpatine.
man. man oh man can we pwnz0r now.
Absolutely. Urban crowd control is the optimum environment for nonlethal weapons. The US military is serious about using nonlethal systems where practical, but they do recognize their limitations.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's new compared to conventional weapons. The problem most non-lethal technology is the fact that it's: a) Easier and cheaper to simply kill someone b) Bigger logistics footprint with non-lethal technology c) More energy required for effective non-lethals There is a demand for them, but the technology must first overcome engineering, legal, and support issues. As for the XADS, it seems nothing more than a fancy Van De Graaff http://science.howstuffworks.com/vdg.htm
In that instance it did change it considerably.
It was a short message, hinging on one word, and the typo changed the meaning of the post:
intent: there's a war coming, and we don't want to lose it
what was written: we don't want to instigate a new war.
Regarding these lightning guns and dazzlers, there's a good reason that nonlethal weapons exist, at least in the TSA's case. I've heard of a study done by the TSA that in a hijacking situation, it was judged to be quite traumatic for the passengers to see an air marshal rip out an attacker's throat, break his neck, or gouge out his eyes. Those are pretty much the exact words my friend quoted from the study.
Instead, it was judged to be easier on the passengers for the air marshal to point a blinking light at the guy and then bonk him nicely over the head while he's blinded.
This has the potential to be a big market.
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
So its a new weapon, eh? I'm pretty confident that this has been around for quite some time.. tesla coils and the like have been around since the early to mid 1900's.. Nope, not new so much...
Said it's better to be feared than loved.
Or as Putin said after Beslan, "we were weak and the weak get beaten."
Given our massive strategic nuclear arsenal and the lack of superpower friends for bin Laden, Pakistan, and Iran, you'd be better off arguing we should have nuked Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan to make people afraid of us.
A nuked American City because we appear WEAK will be disastrous. WE certainly WOULD use our strategic nukes. Threatening people ALWAYS works when enemies believe the threat and would rather avoid it. Or you can try and make binnie Love You. Good luck with that.
This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.
Lets hear it for profitting from death and destruction!
Am I really the only one here who's wondering when they'll come out with the Blame Gun?
If you just took anything I said seriously, read it again.
Of course american military pays shit. Why waste your own citizens when you can make one nation eliminate another with their thunderbolts?
Your post lacks cromulence.
Anybody up for a round of Red Alert?
Um, Nazi Germany wasn't a communist country.
Well I think you guys should start worrying about the likely or actual existing problems[0] rather than worry about someone shooting nukes at you.
;)...
It'll be totally stupid to shoot stuff at the US. If leaders of my country ever even publicly talk about that, I would give medals to the first person to kill them. Which is why practically _nobody_ outside of the US and UK thought that Saddam would shoot stuff at US/UK despite what Bush or Blair said. "Minutes away etc", WMD, all bullshit.
Anyway, if you only had one nuke and you wanted to hurt the US real bad, there are other options to sneaking nukes into the US (even though it shouldn't be too difficult[1]). You could sneak the nukes into some other country and nuke a sensitive target[2], and make it look like the US did it.
After all if the US is stupid enough to have nuked Iraq, the irrational people (the target audience) wouldn't find it hard enough to believe the US was responsible for nuking some other sensitive target[2] soon after.
BTW just poisoning the water supplies could be easier to do, especially if you have suicidal volunteers.
[0] The US is willing to spend billions to select the leaders of Iraq, but somehow can't find the resources to get a decent voting system to pick its own leaders (the leaders of arguably the most powerful nation in the world). Perhaps the voting system is already working well for the leaders, but is it working well for the sheeple? The US Gov has lied so much about the Iraq war and billions have gone "missing" (search: iraq billions audit)... All sorts of dubious US laws are being created. There's so much important stuff you guys should worry and do more about, but I suppose your media doesn't help. I mean why is some drug company being sued for USD200+million just because some guy might have died because of a drug, when nobody seems to be that worried whether millions of people could have been affected by mercury in vaccines. Maybe all that mercury made too many US citizens stupid
[1] Tons of drugs and immigrants get through the US borders all the time.
[2] If you can't figure out what targets I might be referring to, I'm sure not going to tell you.
It was bollocks. Citizens of both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. lived in fear that somone or something would f*ck up and they'd all be wiped off the face of the planet.
We should be trying to learn from our mistakes, not just repeating the facts that surrounded them.
Maybe it has to do with the general attacks on our environment these days ...
Or maybe we should just be happy with the lightning guns, and hope they don't come up with any other bright ideas.
Seriously, how much does the US really care about accuracy? Consider that in the "war on their terrorism" since 9-11 we no longer use intelligent surgical methodologies to apprehend and prosecute those who seek to harm us. Instead we use "shock and awe" with impunity against everyone and anyone who happens to be in the strike zone.
Our attack against Afghanistan killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the first weeks of bombing. Many more were injured, blinded, and maimed. And who gives a fuck? It was cost-effective.
Likewise, we've imprisoned thousands of "enemy combatants" without levying any charges and withhold all due process, and we know that likely a majority of them were simply handed over for those nice juicy ransoms we offered for Al Qaidas. And hundreds of these un-charged suspects have been beaten to death in our custody. And who gives a fuck? After all, you and me are just fine. I got a beer, got the computer, and a whole new TV season is right around the corner. Life is good!
Not only can't we hit the target, lately we can't even hit the right country. (Must be something in my eye... Ah, there it is, a giant plank of lies stuck in there.)
Now you'd think that when you're attacking a country like Iraq purely to fulfill the elite agenda of hawkish industrialists - especially when you know there is no ethical justification - you'd make some effort not to harm too many civilians. But no, we kill tens of thousands of civilians there too, and then through plain old inaction, willful ignorance, and ineptitude we allow a hundred thousand more to die - mostly children, just like the prior sanctions. And isn't it nice, nobody cares! Apparently it's cost-effective to be indiscriminate and to close your eyes to the collateral damage.
And then consider the use of depleted uranium for its singular density and ability to bore through inches of plate steel. Neato! We value those properties, and don't care a fig for the long-term collateral effects to those kooky ululating foreign civilians and our own soldiers alike. We really don't give a flying fuck about the negatives, because we can just pretend they don't exist.
I would love to believe that non-lethals are the future, and that we really do care about collateral damage, but I know better. The system favors sloppy non-surgical strikes, and there is no sense of accountability in this divided and conquered post-postmodern world where We The People can just pretend it away, and our "authority" figures encourage us to do so.
And here come the bunker buster nukes! You think they're just making them for fun? Indeed, we will use them, and do even more collateral damage.
Really, collateral damage is practically a tradition with the USA. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the first rush of the drug. We love killing innocent people in our shocking and awful campaigns. It makes our collective nut-sack tingle - especially when we get away with it.
Do I exaggerate?
-- thinkyhead software and media
Private companies have always been responsible for developing weapons. The government just pays them to do it. As to why weapons are developed at all, it's generally being able to defend oneself. Security is the second-greatest human desire, right after sustenance.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
This gives an entirely new meaning to the word "Blitzkrieg."
You know, when the Pentagon starts buying weapons systems from a company called "Xtreme" anything, it's time to reboot reality.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
I don't. The entirety of western culture is basically a single message: "Don't trust a morality designed by a commmittee." And Japan is known for some brutally capitalistic business practices, bud, while most of Scandanavia is denoted by a staunch refusal to let anyone make individual descisions about the distribution of their money and the risks they are willing to take. Just my .02$
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The guy's website is at www.xtremeads.com.
There is a video there with a shot of the suitcase that shoots lightning talked about in the article.
If you look around the rest of the site, you'll basically just see artist's drawings of their ideas.
Isn't the ability to shoot lightning bolts exclusively reserved to the Dark Side, the evil Lords of the Sith? The Jedi use "force push"!
Keep in mind that all of these new weapons will be used on the domestic population- aka Americans. This will not be used on terrorists as it is not a deterrent against people willing to die.
.50 caliber shells do the job twice as fast and twice as deadly.
Marine's will not jump out of helicopters with lightening guns and sticky goop anymore than terrorists will start asking for forgiveness when you spray mace in their eyes.
These non-lethal weapons are meant to be used on you dear citizen. Don't be so excited about technology for it's own sake. There is no purpose here as a deterrent in terror or any other kind of war when
Non-Lethat weapons are potentially more dangerous than lethal weapons. With Lethal Weapons authorities have to get their duck in a row before opening fire. With Non-Lethal Weapons oppression is much easier because there is no body-count for the media (and us) to get excited about the next day.
And then the $1000 blinding green laser, most certainly just a repackaged $50 oem cost Asian manufacture green laser pointer of the kind that showed up in the news when they were aimed at aircraft cockpits. Nice profit margin.
And delivering weapons in a Burger King parking lot because it's too much trouble to get cleared to deliver it? Bogo-Meter off the scale. The military does NOT take delivery that way except in a TV series. And he would have had to get a security clearance FIRST before producing the 'weapons'. This guy's story smells like a low-rent hustler hyping things.
- Yes sir! ...Uhm, I mean, Dude! Sweet, Dude!!!
- I didn't here You, soldier!!
-
- That's better.!
Water non-lethal? except in some circomstances? ... unless you put bullets in it and point it at them and pull the trigger.
well in that case a handgun is non-lethal
Unless you do those things it's non-lethal.
The same then applies to a stun gun, it's non-lethal, unless it hits someone with a heart condition or the person falls and hits there head,
rubber bullets are non-lethal untill they hit some one in the cest or head.
I hate the phrase less-lethal, but it realy does make more sense than non-lethal.
nothing is worse than that microwave pain gun that was in newscientist a while ago.
It's just causes unbareable pain, it won't cause damage if you get out of the way of the beam.
unless you have metal objects in your pockets, then you get point discharge, or they power setting is too high. or you're stuck in a mob and cant get out of the way...
Great. This guy who said "power is only in the barrel of a gun" lived this sentence to the fullest. He was responsible for the death of about 60 Million of his own people.
You propagate that for Amerika?
The argument above runs:
/.ers deserve a coherent argument?
'Weapons can produce peace. For example, the weapons balance between the US and USSR ensured peace.
So we must develop new and more effective weapons, better than any possible enemies, to ensure peace.'
Can anyone else see the blind logical fallacy? How can anyone have a mind which can say:
"If only one country had possessed such a devastating arsenal, it could use it with impunity..."
and then, four sentences later:
"Finally, the more effectively our weaponry is, the less likely we'll ever need to use it. (sic)"
It's not the political attitude I'm complaining about here, it's the incompetent brain. Don't
When a bullet can arrange a face-to-face introduction?
(sorry, sorry, couldn't resist)
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Nobody (well, nobody except some weirdos like China and so forth) is using weapons (non-lethal or not) against peaceful dissenters. And most of the recent major revolutions in which the good guys won were carried out peacefully.t m
o f_1989
I beg to differ on both counts. Clobbering peaceful protesters happens in western countries too, one example was a police raid after the G8 summit in Genoa a few years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1460036.s
Considering revolutions, sometimes force is necessary. The Romanian Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_
for instance was quite bloody. And while it can be debated if the new governmen counted as "good guys", getting rid of Ceausescu was probably worth it.
C - the footgun of programming languages
It's a resonant transformer, aka a Tesla coil.
(google for it)
FRA: STFU GTFO
Huh! And ThinkGeek sells those green lasers for about 1/11th of this guy's price
Let me follow your argument here. You're saying that the reason why US soldiers are causing the most friendly fire is because US soldiers are doing the most of the fighting. Right?
Let's imagine a situation where 90% of the allied troops are US and 10% are other allied (UK or other). Sounds familiar? Let's assume (your argument) that each nationality has the same probability of firing on friends and that this probability is independant on the nationality of the friend.
Then, there should be roughly the same number of US on allied casualties than the other way around. And the number of US on US casualties should be 9 times the number of US on allied (or allied on US). Think about it, there are 9 times more US shooters but also 9 times more US targets.
Now, it's very difficult to get official stats, so I'll have to rely on a general feeling from reading the media. Regarding Iraq for example, I'm under the impression that US on UK casualties far outnumber UK on US casualties. And before you invoke the "liberal media" defense, please reread your post. You don't seem to challenge the fact that the US does most of the friendly fire on allies, you try to explain it away with the number argument. And I think I proved that this argument does not hold.
The bottom line is that it's more dangerous for a non-US soldier to be deployed close to US units than close to other NATO units. The doctrine in the US army seems to be "if not absolutely sure that it's an ally, shoot" and many allies are not perfectly up to date with US authentication codes.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Yes, because a rioting mob will always agree to "sit down and talk" when the police show up...
Cry me a river, liberal?
Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
The risks don't act as enough of a deterrent that there is any town (or school, or prison) in America where you can't find marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, and ecstacy. It's true that 'most businessmen' don't sell drugs, but that's only because the market for all other goods combined is larger than the market for drugs.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
BS. The military usually outsources the production of weapons, but a lot of the research is performed by DARPA. And the nuclear weapons in our arsenal are almost 100% government science and engineering (though they do outsource parts manufacturing). The parent post is almost the opposite of reality; try this one: the US military has not a single weapon in it's repertoire that was developed entirely in the private sector.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
That's the problem with too many Americans (and yes, I am one myself, keep that in mind when you flame me): they think that waving their dicks around and threatening/bullying the rest of the world will make us safer, when in fact it does the opposite.
I think lots of people on the Left want to think that the only reason that people hate and attack the USA is because of the USA's "bad behavior". Keep in mind that this action gives ammunition to the rabid Right-wing war hawks who call you the "blame America first crowd", but that's a side point to what I'm trying to state.
If the USA stopped "threatening/bullying", as you imply it should do, then it would be the only country on the planet that does NOT "threaten" or "bully". What one person may call "threatening" or "bullying" is what another person would simply call "looking out for one's interests" -- which is the very essence of diplomacy. Every nation is competing and standing up for their own interests, regardless of the spin that we want to put on it and pretend that everyone is "cooperating". Is China cooperating with Taiwan and Tibet? Is North Korea cooperating with anyone?
Diplomacy happens no matter what you and I may desire. (Hehe, "Diplomacy happens.") Some diplomatic decisions happens to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property, and that precisely what I decry.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Tesla's patent has expired.
US will make hell break loose to use it.
Be or ben't
developing non-lethal weapons only encourages more death and destruction.
Clear, Dark Skies
those thugs are "agent provocateurs" deliberately planted
You mean *some* of those thugs are agent provocateurs. Governments are certainly not clean in this regard -- they want an excuse to disperse an unruly and highly-disliked crowd of punks as quickly as possible. Suppose the rationale is to give the cops "reason" to use brute force before something "worse" happens? Given how much I dislike anarchist punk kids, I kind of sympathize with it. Given how much I dislike right-wing pseudo-military abusive cops, I am kind of repulsed by it. It's not a black-and-white moral issue, unfortunately.
That said, my brother made a documentary about the protests of the G-8 summit in Georgia which will be entitled "Criminalizing Dissent" (and is part of his thesis for his masters degree in film). He revealed to me that he followed a "peace protestor" who, when interviewed, declared that violence, property destruction, and other forms of "direct action" (what pleasant spin that is!) is something that was *NOT* in-line with his beliefs and he does not condone it.
Later, my brother got additional footage of the exact same individual talking to some anarchists in which he instructed them to break and steal things if they had the opportunity to do so.
I think that thugs are a subset of anarchists.
I also don't like Bush, never liked him, and never voted for him, so please resist the temptation to apply black-and-white thinking to me.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Think about it, there are 9 times more US shooters but also 9 times more US targets.
So, the Brits expend nine times as much ammo as the US does to hit all those targets? You fail.
You're missing a key point: touting a weapon as "not lethal", "less than lethal", or even worse, "non-lethal" is actually rather irresponsible. A pocketknife, a police baton, a bucket of water: all these can easily kill people.
If people are given "non-lethal" weapons, weapons that can and do occasionally kill someone, the people are much more apt to use such weapons instead of taking more appropriate action, such as threatening to, as an example, prepare to use universally recognized lethal force. There is also the problem of the victims of "non-lethal" weaponry actually believing such weapons are harmless, and therefore not taking them seriously, disregarding instructions, provoking the attacker to use the "non-lethal" weapon, etc., etc.
So, if people are more apt to use "non-lethal" weapons, and use them more often, the danger inherant in these weapons will end up harming a larger number of people, as by definition, the folks did not feel justified in the use of lethal force.
Because obviously people will confuse audible buzzing with the voice of God when nothing intelligble is spoken.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Sure we could just stick with the landmines, bio-weapons, and nuclear arms that are already developed, but I think we can do better. Don't you?
Bio-weapons and chemical weapons have never had postive long term effects for your side. The wind changes and your troops start to die by your nasties. We could go the over kill route on land mines... We could just litter a place with nuclear land mines. (Land mines designed to vaporize several blocks.) I wouldn't want to live near that area though or even think about disarming them.
Stunners are long over due. We need helicopter mounted stunners that will reliably knock out 90%-95% of people within several blocks. (Death of the remaining population would be acceptable terms.) This would change "warfare." While our guys would be concerned about "safely" picking up knocked out enemies, the "Bad Guys" would be shooting lethal weapons at us, which would make us fully justified when the time comes for using lethal force on them.
Warfare has gotten alot more civilized. Our troops don't rape, loot, and burn down their towns/cities now days. It will be a "new" different day when soldiers don't have to kill other soldiers.
I'll quote from here instead: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/prisonerwar.htm
Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
I can see your point in this. A literal interpretation of the article means that the requirements in (2) can be circumvented by waving your hands and saying: "I'm a part of the armed forces", in effect invalidating (2) completely. (As an aside, I'm not sure if Al-Quida did this.)
So, even if your interpretation seems closer to the text, I'd wager a guess that the writers simply found it evident that all armed forces would satisfy the requirements in (2). The convention was written right after WWII, in which most saboteurs, infiltrators and spies where shot. I do not believe many countries would have signed the convention if it meant outlawing the execution of spies in times of war.
If my memory serves me (I should stress that I am not a lawyer nor particularily knowledgable of this subject), the conventions do not in other ways than this article deal with the grey area between a soldier and a civilian. Your claim that everyone who's not a soldier is a civilian, even if they carry weapons and shoot at soldiers, does strike me as surprising. Could you find a citation for this?
During WWII, a lot of fighting had been in the grey zone between soldier and civilian. It cannot have been an oversight that these are not covered, more likely it's a deliberate attempt to force people to either satisfy the article, or stay completely out of the conflict.
I agree with the last part of your post, about the insurgents. Those you listed deserve the full protection of the Geneva Conventions.
Hmm... Completely unfounded claims, people throwing money around like it's going out of style, CEOs that are better at marketing than engineering, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah...
The market won't be grossly distorted, because there is only one customer for these companies (even if it is a really big customer) and that's not much of a market but I can still see that we are going to be flushing a lot of tax payer money down the toilet in the near future.
Not to mention the recent Music vs. Assault-Rifles in Utah.
While I'm somewhat wary of non-lethal weapons because of the potentially negative side effects, I agree that the ability to disable enemies in a non-lethal way is a good thing. However I would like to point out that your helicopter scenario isn't that nice. In a densely populated city you might have 100,000 people in those few blocks. If your weapon knocked out 90%-95% of the people and killed the rest, you've just killed 5,000 to 10,000 people... I'm not sure that's as "acceptable" as you put it. As it is, our lethal weapons like "smart bombs" have much smaller collateral damage effects, typically on the order of a dozen innocents if I remember correctly.
That's why it's best to go with single target or small radius 'non-lethal' weapons. That way you minimize the chances of harming or killing innocent people. The idea is to disable the enemies trying to kill you, not fry the brains of a large portion of the populace.
Non Lethal Weapon + Flash Suits + Anti Gravity Chamber
I guess we're amost there.
Is Mao Zedong related to Mao Tse-Tung?
Registered Linux User #404114 [url=http://www.punkoiska.com][img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4379/posbannercf5.g
Another Weapon to protect the Millionaires and Billionaires,when the Havenots finally figured out who is responsible for the Masses of Havenots,and start getting after these Thieves,french revolution style.
Do I exaggerate?
Grossly.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
...be shipped into the US.
...
Just get it into the harbor of NYC or LA or Houston or
There's no need to even bother with clearing customs. Hell, you might even *want* to make it conspicuous. Just booby-trap the container and let the gov detect the radiation. For example, set it up with a GPS that arms the device when it get's close to the big city. Then you call the gov and say that if you try to move it away, out to sea, it will blow itself. Also, if you don't do what we want you to do, we will blow it where it sits...
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?
Because most people who view themselves as harsh and realistic are actually just being rude and irksome.
I can't remember where I read it, but I saw something once about how young people tend to think that a certain weary cynicism is a sign of sophistication, while in reality, it's often the exact opposite.
--saint
it was for a while before the war. lets put things inot context.
Wouldn't be really surprising. With the US steadily and systematically portraying Iran as "the world's biggest supporter of terror", Bush saying that "all options are on the table", the media instilling this image of Iran as the new big enemy, it is not unforeseeable that the public opinion in this country will be tolerant of some sort of a "surgical" nuclear strike on Iran.
Consider this: while Iran is *totally* complying with all of IAEA inspections (and even more), the UN will not declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, John Bolton, walks out of UN (he is very well suited for this), the US declares UN obsolete, inefficient and greedy, and since the public doesn't want to send more troops, the US proceeds to blow up nuclear facilities in Iran from the air. These will not be full blown nuclear explosions, but considering the scope of environmental damage, they might as well be. However, if they do use the real nukes, I wouldn't be too surprised. Probably launch them from Israel to rub it in too.
All this would be more or less within the PNAC plans drafted back in the eighties.
And more to the topic. Does it sound off or what!? The guy in the article says smth like: "I am an Arab, I know how they think". This is the guy developing weapons. Are we now in business of developing anti-arab weapons? I am disgusted.
And this is ndifferent form any other country how? If you look at it with the same perscpetive, every other country does the same. Here is a hint, most of this puppetr government president stuff is in your head. it explains why you cannot understand the actions being taken and why they don't agree with you philosphy. Instead of trying to convince them other wise, we just say they are pupets to the people who manage to convince them.
I find your response replete with rhetoric and besmirched by values that I do not share.
Most countries only very rarely openly threaten or bully.
How would you prove this? What qualifies as "very rarely"?
There is little point in making disinterested bystanders into enemies by engaging in oafish behavior.
What qualifies as "oafish behavior"?
Foreign policy sometimes involves some empty posturing, but that is usually for internal consumption (in which case it is not diplomacy).
What is the difference between "foreign policy for internal consumption only" and "propaganda"?
Countries that feel invulnerable, like the US, tend to engage more in empty posturing than small and vulnerable countries.
First, if you can back it up (with, for example, the most effective and well-trained military in the world not to mention the world's largest nuclear arsenal), then is it really "empty" posturing? Second, doesn't posturing, empty or not, have more to do with the ability to destroy anyone you please than it does with any perceived feeling of invulnerability? Third, how does the USA "feel" invulnerable, or "feel" anything for that matter?
Cooperation is a great way achieving shared foreign policy goals.
Much like how the Stalin cooperated with Hitler to divide Poland?
In my dictionary cooperation does not involve any self-sacrifice.
Doesn't the nature of compromise involve giving up on some of your goals in order to find agreement?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Next they need to invent quad damage.
Great. This guy who said "power is only in the barrel of a gun" lived this sentence to the fullest. He was responsible for the death of about 60 Million of his own people.
You propagate that for Amerika?
No. Read what I said carefully. I suggest that we use the barrel of non-lethal, non-injuring, temporarily stunning weapons to enforce power -- as opposed to real guns, rubber bullets, unchecked riots, and so forth.
And the only thing that saying "Amerika" proves is that you're an idiot who can't spell.
You're trying to sound smart, aren't you?
Well, it didn't work. Learn the new system and get over it.
Kim Du Toit:
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
03:34pm: Cry Havoc: Taking Off The Gloves
It's time we cleared the air about all this "code of conduct" and "rules of war" nonsense.
For many years back when I still lived there, the South African Army was engaged in counter-insurgency warfare (read: anti-terrorist activity) in both South Africa itself, and in Southwest Africa (now Namibia).
The people we were fighting were an amalgam of SWAPO (South West African People's Organization--the current neo-Marxist ruling junta) and the African National Congress (ANC--the sainted Nelson Mandela's likewise Marxist organization).
Their modus operandi was quite simple: infiltrate the country from over the border, then start a campaign of terror against the local population. This campaign of terror took several forms, but the main ones were: the planting of landmines in the roads (mostly dirt roads, so not difficult); planting of bombs in population centers (supermarkets, shopping malls etc, but NOT military installations); and terrorizing of the local population (killing individuals or random groups of suspected "sympathizers" in towns and villages).
As you can see from this, these "freedom fighters" operated under no rules of engagement--they fired RPG-7 rockets at hospitals, civilian airliners, and buses. They executed (okay, murdered) not only local leaders, but in many cases their entire families as well. They stayed well away from our Army installations, of course, because the Army could and did fight back.
The SA Army's modus operandi was simple: intercept and ambush these "flying columns". On a few occasions, some of our patrols were in turn ambushed. The SWAPO/ANC took prisoners, then tortured and killed them, in public, in a village that they needed to frighten into submission. One of our patrols once found the body of one of our kids, who had been tied to a tree and, after having had his fingers, toes and genitals cut off, burned alive. He was twenty years old, and left a wife and a newborn baby son at home.
After this, the units based in this sector took no prisoners either. They killed without mercy, took ears as souvenirs, tied terrorist corpses to the backs of trucks and dragged them through the bush till only a bloody piece of frayed rope was left, and the only reason any one of the bastards was spared was so that he could go back to his Commie buddies and warn them what would happen if they ventured across the river. In other words, the Army used counter-terror tactics against terrorists.
Did this cause an escalation of the conflict, and the "terms of engagement" to change? No. It caused the number of incursions to drop precipitously in that sector. But I don't want to talk about this any more, because it's old news, and last year's terrorists are now Nobel prize-winners.
Let's talk about the here and now, and what all this means to us.
As Americans, we are basically a decent, generous people. Unfortunately, there are times when we have to suspend our values, because our enemies will not only interpret this as a sign of weakness and pusillanimity, but will also turn those values against us. Terrorists spared in this conflict will inevitably be used as bargaining or blackmail chips, and when released will go back to waging war against us. The concept of personal honor, of "parole", is without meaning to them.
One of the problems we face with terrorists is that they will use any weapon against us, no matter how abhorrent it may appear to civilized people. Thus we see 8- and 10-year-old kids used as shields in anti-Israeli riots, behind which the terrorist marksmen calmly select their targets among Israeli soldiers. All people are enlisted to further their war aims--women will carry plastique hidden in their vaginas, teenagers are used as suicide bombers, families will hide firearms inside baby strollers, ambulances will be used to carry weapons. Nothing is sacred.
In the face of this unspeakable behavior, I find the oh-so civil
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
No it is simply a matter of jurisdiction. The Conventions simply state that of you are a sole man with a gun taking pot-shots at the occupying troops and you manages to kill someone you are then simply a murderer under the civilian law and to be tried accordingly. If you are a citizen turned spy you get to be tried as a spy under existing treason laws of the country you are in etc.
If there is a raid on a house in Afghanistan and some folks are picked up (with or without AQ connections) and turned over to the US, you are saying that the applicable law is civil law in Afghanistan. But they don't get any human rights protections this way. US law should apply once the US accepts custody.
Oh, indeed we could. The Iraqi resistance could be crushed in day or two if the US really were as bad as the Chomskyites say we are. The problem is that most of the rest of Iraq would be crushed along with them.
And I'm not even talking about nuclear weapons. We have conventional weapons that could wipe small cities from the face of the earth. We don't use them, because we are in fact good guys.
Excruciatingly scrupulous rules of engagement should not be mistaken for weakness or overextension of our military.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
I agree with the grandparent - I think the US waves its dick *too* much. But you raise the point, perhaps Tibet didn't wave its enough. Then we have the Swiss: armed and (it is at least perceived) dangerous, yet content to not invade anyone or do too much dick-waving. So are they the happy medium?
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Quote: Asked about the Kryptonian symbols, he'd say only, "I'm Superman." But today he wasn't saving the world, just trying to protect it as part of an Army task force buying equipment for troops in Iraq.
Hm, why is it that the Washington Post can keep a straight face without anyone raising an eyebrow, and when i do it, I'm sarcastic.
Anyway, given the situation I should try to rationalize it. Another word for 'world' is 'terra'. 'Terrorists' is derived from that, and means those who attack the world. Or is it 'those who fight for a territorium' , the jusy is still out on that.
The momerator of my other post was a moron. (This post is flamebait but I don't care - the moderation was stupid.)
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
I recently read somewhere about one of a few such products currently in development (sorry, can't give you links, I'm on my handheld right now. I bet you'd see it on defensetech.org though). It seemed like a really neat idea - take the shot out of a shotgun cartridge and put a piezoelectric generator in it. The force of the impact itself generates the electricity which is then discharged via contact into the victim. This effectively allows you to turn any existing shotgun into an electric-stun weapon that requires no batteries, wires, or conduits leading to the target from the wielder.
Just thought you'd like ta know.
Somehow if you really knew these 'Og', 'nGg!g' and 'Blorg' characters I would think you would have a older Slashdot ID! ....like maybe.....3?
If your weapon knocked out 90%-95% of the people and killed the rest, you've just killed 5,000 to 10,000 people... I'm not sure that's as "acceptable" as you put it. As it is, our lethal weapons like "smart bombs" have much smaller collateral damage effects, typically on the order of a dozen innocents if I remember correctly.
I wasn't really thinking of using it in cities. I was thinking of helicopters flying over "rebel held" country side with troops directly after them. Of course, it really all comes down to how fast can your guys inprison the other guys before they wake up. (Assumes that they do.) I agree I wouldn't want something dropped on a city of 5-10 million. It would only make your problems worse. Say it knocked out all of the cities people for 8-24 hours. Unless you have a heck of an army, you will not be able to inprison a good fraction of those millions. If it has a 5%-10% death rate on use, you may have just killed all the old people, some kids, and a genetic miniority that just happens to overreact to the stun. So after they 24 hours are over, you have a city of 5-10 million minus your 10 percent really angry at you. O.K. You could fly over protesting areas until everyone is imune or dead from lack of food, but I still think that is the wrong use long term. I'd agree that targeted strikes would work good with this. Instead of killing your victims, just hold them in prison...
Oh yeah, here's a different point of view on that reuters cameraman link from alertnet. I think he does a decent job of explaining it:
Nicedoggie.net
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Technical people do not need to limit themselves to thinking up new whiz-bang gadgets to fight terrorism. In fact, this type of approach only extends the conflict.
All we have to do is look at the way we buy into projects. Look at the way terrorist recruiters use the very same phenomena to get bombers into action. And then apply the latest breakthrough science to break the buy-in process.
I have studied buy-in as a management tool for about a decade. There is a surprising large amount of information available, but you have to search for it. Most technical people simply have a gut feel for buy-in and run with that. An effective procedure to generate buy-in is available and it provides clear incite into how the process works. Once you know how it works; you know how to stop it.
A number of recent breakthroughs in the science of the human brain and in advanced mathematics can be directly applied to the process of buy-in and look very exciting. These involve huge instruments that use incredibly powerful magnetic fields to generate copious amounts of data which is then turned into pretty pictures (fMRI). This approach should prove very attractive to this group.
I have a paper on this concept on the Web (Google "Disempower Terrorist Riley"). I would very much like to correspond with technical people in Great Britain on the application of new science to the problem there. Time is critical, but the complex technical arguments we need to develop are not amenable to discussion by two idiots yelling at each other on cable TV, or even mindless drivel on the Internet.
Thanks,
> Isn't this illegal under the Geneva Convention?
> I seem to recall a ban on weapons that blinded people.
And your point is?
Yes, let's. The Nazis came to power on a strong anti-communist platform. Their early theme could be characterized as "protect Germany from the evil Bolsheviks!" Before long, this turned into "protect Germany from the evil Jews and their lackeys the Bolsheviks!"
The only time that any part of Germany was ever under a Communist government -- and only in name -- was after the war, when the Soviet Union subjugated the east.