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.'"

Comments

Aiming accuracy...

[magicsquid]

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...

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Accuracy = use the right weapon for the particular target. Obviously, not all weapons are viable on all targets. If they were, Bahgdad would be a smooth, glassy, parking lot by now.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[timeOday]

Well, gee, since it's so "nonlethal," why not just strike everybody down and figure it out later?

People advertise nonlethal weapons as safer, compared to lethal weapons. I'll believe that argument when patrol cops give up their guns in favor of nonlethal alternatives. In practice, what happens is people get gassed or shocked in circumstances that previously would have called for deployment of a megaphone or fire hose.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[Bonhamme Richard]

The military has a few "nonlethal" weapons in use already, mostly rubber bullets/foam tipped bullets. The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations. If you're trying to give out food at an aid station in Afganistan, and suddenly the crowd turns ugly, opening fire with nonletahl rounds restores order without causing loss of life.

The lightning gun's lack of accuracy could actually be an aid in that sort of situation. It becomes a sort of non lethal shotgun, stopping several people each time it's fired. The article said that they had a general ability to aim it (based on ionizing air in a certain direction.) As long as it shocks the roiting crowd instead of the other soilders, this sort of weapon can but used for crowd control.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[Jeremi]

OK who would bomb the US if the US had done that? Umm nobody

Or, just as likely, somebody -- but we'd never know who, because the bomb would be imported in a lead-lined box, inside one of the many cargo containers that still don't get inspected. All we'd know is that one day, (major US city) existed, and the next day, it didn't.

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.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[ScentCone]

Seriously, the American military has a big problem with friendly fire. Just ask the Canadians, British or whomever else the Americans have ever gone to war/battle with.

No, the Americans have a big problem with doing the vast majority of the fighting, equipping, logistics, and, of course, shooting. When you're doing almost all of the work, more of what goes wrong in the chaos of combat (and even in the complexity of live fire exercises) is going to be laid at the feet of the people carrying/flying/driving/shooting the most weapons. Every single injury or death of this type is a tragedy, but the number that are avoided through the use of the US's stunningly effective (by historical standards) command and control systems is not to be trivialized. It's terrible when an ally dies fighting with the US, and it's just as terrible when we shoot up one of our own. But what we have now is better stats, embedded reporters, and an changed ethic about a lot of this. Can you imagine how much of this happened (on all sides) during the Vietnam, or World wars?

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[MMaestro]

Do you have any idea how much water pressure a fire hose gives off? Fire hoses are not just oversized garden hoses, they have the range and power to rival most small caliber handguns. (Have you ever seen or heard of a single man holding, controlling and aiming a single fire hose?) At close range, you could EASILY kill someone with a fire hose (if not from drowning, then from the tearing of the skin and subsequent bleeding that follows.)

As for patrol cops handing in guns in exchange for non-lethal/less-lethan alternatives, that'll happen when gun/weapon makers create an multipurpose weapon to suit their needs. Tasers are too short ranged, useless against armored targets and can range from useless against enraged subjects to potentially lethal if used against someone with a weak heart. Pepper spray/guns suffer from the same problem, poor accuracy over long ranges, useless against gas masks and ineffective/potentially lethal depending on subject. Sound and laser-based weapons are too experimental to be fielded. Beanbag guns can only really be used if the target is not behind cover, have seriously varying effects on a case-by-case situation and can cause internal damage if too many shots in the same general area.

It isn't that police don't want less lethal weaponery, its simply a matter of the current stage is too experimental. (Pepper spray is useless if I'm charging you with a knife in a small room. A taser won't work if I'm trying to run you over. Most people who work out at the gym will be able to take a couple beanbag hits and will be able to attack. So on and so on.)

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[Ironsides]

Or, just as likely, somebody -- but we'd never know who, because the bomb would be imported in a lead-lined box, inside one of the many cargo containers that still don't get inspected

Different sources of uranium leave different signatures, even after having gone through a nuclear explosion. Extensive testing was done with this during the cold war to enusre that if someone attacked the US, we could retaliate at the correct party resposible.

So even if someone took the precautions outlined above by you, once it has exploded we could trace the source of the uranium/plutonium back to the original source and have a good idea of who created the bomb in the first place.

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.

It's called posturing. Just about every animal does it. Posture big enough and your enemies will leave you alone. The USA and USSR did this all through the cold war. If you don't, you can get runover or get suckerpunched if no one thinks you have backbone enough to retaliate (Pearl harbor/WWII for starters).

That said, being completely peaceful will get you run over. Start by looking at Tibet.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[suitepotato]

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.

The predatory nature of the human species is well proven by its own history, its own accounting of same, and its various works of self-analysis and introspection. Show weakness, capitulate before threatening goons with a grudge, and they will never let you see the end up it until your are gone or you get some backbone and utterly wipe them out. We didn't stop at the outskirts of Germany, Italy, and Japan in WWII and say, "see, we can stop you". We kept on going until the enemy force was finished off as a coherent institution which could bring continuing immediate threat.

If we were bullying the rest of the world, we'd re-enact slavery, conquer half the world and wipe out the other half. I don't call treaty negotiations, pushing traditionally undemocratic nations to join the rest of modern humanity and enact participatory representative democracy, and stomping on recidivist terrorist fanatics who given a choice will bomb small children into chunky salsa over attacking regular military forces in stand-up battle the hallmarks of bullying.

which God?

[dankelley]

Mine, or the one worshipped by evil people?

Non-Lethal?

[Forthan Red]

Supposedly "safe" Taser guns can kill people, and we're supposed to believe that they've perfected a non-lethal lightening bolt?

Re:Non-Lethal?

[winwar]

"Sure, a Taser, on the rare occasion, can kill someone, but its a much more efficient alternative to a gun."

Then by definition it isn't "non-lethal", now is it? These weapons are often sold to the public on the premise that they are totally harmless, which isn't true. I just want truth in advertising-"not as lethal", "virtually non-lethal", etc. But then, the makers wouldn't sell as many, would they :) There is a definite place for these weapons-I just don't wan't them misrepresented.

Re:Why? Why?

[Eightyford]

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?

Yeah

[GigsVT]

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.

Re:Yeah

[demachina]

When you hear the term "non-lethal" next to "weapon" they may be claiming its to fight terrorism because its an easy way to get the U.S. government to throw money your way, but its more likely its going end up actually used for crowd control. You know all of those annoying protests at WTO and G-8 summits.

That was clearly what the DOD's Humvee mounted heat ray technology was for.

Its one of the more disturbing sides of the U.S. government these days, they seem to be spending way to much time thinking about, and spending money, on how to suppress dissent, institute martial law and protect themselves from their own unhappy population.

Re:Why? Why?

[Bogtha]

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.

Terrorists, pfft

[Devar]

There are designed to be used on you.

Re:Weapons of war.

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Whom are we supposed to be fighting?

While I can appreciate a noble desire by people to wonder why weapons are needed, you do need to understand that weapons exist both as a means to inflict force as well as a means to psychologically affect a potential enemy.

The U.S and (former) U.S.S.R. nuclear arsenals are a perfect example of this idea. If only one country had possessed such a devastating arsenal, it could use it with impunity, thus constituting a an effective deterrence against any other party initiating hostilities. With both parties having the same weaponry, neither side can start anything without a devastating reprisal and are thus mutually deterred.

So, you see, the weapons themselves don't have to actually be used in order to be effective. The very fact that they could be used can deter someone who is considering attacking us or our international interests. Indeed, the lack of such weapons can actually encourage belligerent activity against us and our interests since any such belligerent party might feel they could "get away with it."

Finally, the more effectively our weaponry is, the less likely we'll ever need to use it. For that reason if no other, we should be glad research in these areas is continuing. The fact that this "lightning gun" is intended to be non-lethal is another great idea. It would alway be preferrable to "stun" a target than exercise lethal force. A stunned person will live if you make a mistake. Non-lethal weaponry, if perfected, could eventually eliminate the very concept of civilian casualties. And that is a very good thing to have in your arsenal no matter which "side" you are on.

Re:How The Fuck Is This Insightful??

[YrWrstNtmr]

Has everyone here really lost their minds, or have all the adults left?

Yes.

Re:Why? Why?

[Mostly a lurker]

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.

To profitable, I would add legal.

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.

Re:How does this help fight the so-called WOT?

[intnsred]

The US didn't lose that war. We pulled out.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we lost the Vietnam war -- big time.

Sure, like Iraq, the US could hold a piece of ground when it wanted to and had semi-control of most of the cities. But the people there hated the US (with the exception of the quislings we bought and some French-speaking Vietnamese Catholics).

The US fought to keep Vietnam under our thumb and the Vietnamese fought for their own independence. In the course of that fighting the US gov't committed obscene atrocities and for years lied through its teeth to its own people. Those lies caused huge problems in the US, as some people actually want to believe that stuff written in famous US documents about this being a gov't "of, for and by the people".

The Vietnames won their independence. We lost. Accept reality.

And for Iraq? the US isn't losing that war either. As a matter of fact, as soon as thier government is stable and they can defend themselves, we are pulling out.

Whew! If what we see in Iraq today is "winning" the war, I would really hate to see "losing" it.

There will never be a stable US puppet gov't in Iraq -- not unless the US starts killing millions of Iraqis instead of "only" tens of thousands. But hey, the US military has used so much depleted uranium (DU) in Iraq, maybe that plan is already underway... :-(

And if the US gov't is so honest and honorable about eventually leaving Iraq -- like Bush and his fellow liars claim -- why are we busy building multiple permanent military bases in Iraq? And why won't the US gov't and military publicly state that we will not retain military bases in Iraq?

(Answers for slow thinkers: 'Cause there's lots of oil under the ground there! :-)