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...

[nasor]

This has been around for a while. These "electricity shooting" weapons usually use ultra-violet lasers to ionize a column of air to the target, which acts as a conducting pathway for the electricity. So yes, you can actually aim it with some degree of accuracy.

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...

[Ranma21]

People modded this UP? Dude, minutes after Baghdad was made a "smooth, glassy, parking lot", you own home towns would have been rendered likewise. Please remember that OTHER people collectively own many more nukes that you do, and they would not tolerate such use. Pipe dreams for Rednecks, I think.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[joelanders]

People advertise nonlethal weapons as safer, compared to lethal weapons.
no comment necessary...

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, the French have nothing to do with it. As for this 'Insult the French' thing, you're simply falling prey to the 'Fox News' mentality to 'insult those who don't agree with you,' rather than ask yourself, "hmm, a loyal and great ally is questioning the need for this war, perhaps I should at least think it through and base our consideration to invade Iraq on FACTS rather than speculation..."

The French were a vital part of the revolutionary war to free THIS country (I write this from NYC) as the French supported the revolution and the French trappers here in North America helped our fledgling government with knowledge of terrain and conditions... Not to mention giving us the symbol of our country, the Statue of Liberty, as a gift... Somebody please remind Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove that this globe is interactive...

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...

[pj_rutledge]

As a member of an allied military the thought of serving with Americans terrifies me. In Afghanistan we have had more soldiers killed by Americans than by Afghans. I've talked to an America Officer who said during a sand storm in Iraq his platoon spent the entire night shooting because they couldn't see what was in front of them. These kind of actions are inexcusable. Just the opinion of myself and many other professional soldiers.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[halber_mensch]

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).

Posturing only works if the two animals are similar. A lion, for instance, will posture itself to fend off other big cats from its territory, but can't use posturing to fend off a bacteria or virus infection that kills it from the inside. A similar thing can be said about terrorism - because terrorist cells, like parasites and viruses, attack from the inside by abusing the infrastructure of the target to acheive its means. Terrorist cells are too small to be dealt with in conventional military means, and conventional tactics (posturing e.g.) have little or no effect. I doubt very much, for example, that an RPG-toting terrorist that's happy to die in order to kill a few Americans or British or Spanish or what-have-you would fear a gun that will shoot lighting and maybe stun him if he gets within 12 feet of it.

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.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[chialea]

> It should, seeing how you're Canadian and would have to grow a set of balls before going into combat.

Eh? Canada has a military, and a rather good one too, I'm told. They're not in Iraq because they already sent their entire block of deployable troops to Afghanistan. Remember them?

Lea

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[ScentCone]

they are fighting back

"They?" You mean, of course, guys like Zarqawi? You know, the Jordanian head-remover and his boys, most of whom are not from Iraq, but are from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Fighting back? Is that what they call blowing up markets, driving car bombs into crowds of kids, shooting politicians working on the constitution, and loading up houses on the Syrian boarder with fake Iraqi police cars and ambulence full of Iranian-made exposives?

You'll recall the millions of people in that country that participated in the recent election, and will be doing the same when they act to democratically ratify their new constitution. This despite the daily killings of Iraqi civilians by other Muslims operating under the influence (and with cash channeled through) swell fellows like Zarqawi. His most recent public communications are a reminder of what he's all about: a pan-Arab caliphate, a la the Taliban, ruling (as the first stop!) the entire Middle East. His take on democracy? "Evil" and "un-Islamic."

To the extent that ordinary Iraqis are backing democracy, he's trying to scare them away from it by killing them, as capriciously as possible. To the extent that places like Egypt are recognizing the parliment and transitional government in Iraq? They too are having their civilians bombed, killing and injuring hundreds just in one recent event. Which part of that Jordanian "resistance" fighter's creed is it that you think most of the people in Iraq are likely to support? How many more shops or sidewalks, or gatherings of kids do you think he'll have to blow up in order for a typical resident of Baghdad to suddenly realize that his view of the world is the rational one? How many Iraqis do you think will love that foreign, wahabiist perspective only after he... what, kills the guy from their neighborhood that they just elected to represent them in parliment?

The only "resistence" in Iraq is that offered up by pissed off Sunni tribe-mates of S.H. who lost their ethnic minority thugocracy and cash meal ticket, and the resistence of the most extreme fundamentalist jihaddis who are traveling into Iraq expressly to get in the way of democratic evolution and a more open society, lest that evil cultural development show up in even more places. They really didn't like what just happend in Lebannon, so there's even more pressure to make sure that Syria, Iran, and others don't get polluted by expectations of democracy, a free press, and elected officials that serve at the pleasure of the the votors.

If you're so worried about the feelings of a small, Tikrit-based Sunni minority because of their sense that they've been invaded, where were you on that same group's war against Iran, or invasion of Kuwait? You know, the episode following which Hussein agreed not to do things like shoot at the planes enforcing the no-fly zone he agreed to? Of course, he continued shooting at them several times a week for years, even as he cheated his own people out of the food he was supposed to be buying them with the oil he was selling in order to (as it turns out) build more palaces, empower his soccer-team-torturing, drug-addled, woman-raping, psycopathic, murderous sons, and continue to pointlessly regroup his military for even more conflict.

If you're one of those that saw, in Hussein's brutal, mass murdering dictatorship, some cheery, idyllic, "why can't we all just get along" wonderland, then it makes sense that you'd find anyone trying to kill Zarqawi and prevent another Taliban-like infestation as somehow the bad guys.

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[glesga_kiss]

"They?" You mean, of course, guys like Zarqawi?

"one is non-Iraqi, therefore more are". Nice reasoning. Pity the facts don't back up that point-of-view.

Fighting back? Is that what they call blowing up markets, driving car bombs into crowds of kids, shooting politicians working on the constitution, and loading up houses on the Syrian boarder with fake Iraqi police cars and ambulence full of Iranian-made exposives?

Yup. Viva la Resistance. Go read a history book, resistance movements don't wear uniforms and line up to die in front of the enemy. I'm not condoning their actions, just pointing out HISTORY that predicted it. They are disrupting the police, the government, national resources and the occupiers. Textbook resistance. What, were you expecting roses?

As for kids, bah, the US has killed far more children in this war. "Smart bombs" is 100% double-speak, you have been conditioned to not consider your own innocent casualties. Mostly becase it's bad for ratings and ratings is god to TV news.

You'll recall the millions of people in that country that participated in the recent election, and will be doing the same when they act to democratically ratify their new constitution.

"they voted, therefore they are on our side", nice reasoning again. The vote turnout has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether they agree with your invasion. They are just getting on with life in whatever way possible. Besides, there is so much inner hatred between the different ethnic groups, the election will be utterly worthless as it's even more bi-partisan than your self-delusion of a "democracy". Americans don't even know what democracy looks like; here's a hint, it isn't a two horse race where the horses are all members of the same secret societies.

His take on democracy? "Evil" and "un-Islamic."

Our take on Islam? "Evil" and "unamerican". Oh, they have a different view from me, I must impose mine on theirs. That's text-book facism, go look it up.

How many more shops or sidewalks, or gatherings of kids do you think he'll have to blow up in order for a typical resident of Baghdad to suddenly realize that his view of the world is the rational one?

Won't ever happen, because their views are so predisposed to US dropping bombs on them. See how you felt on 9-11? That's how they feel every day! The anti-US sentiment is growing there, not decreasing, regardless of how horrific the insurgent attacks are. Yours are more common and bigger.

Please understand I am not defending their actions, merely rationalising them. Understanding the problem helps, and if you understood it, you would not be for more war. It's a cycle of violence, and you guys just took a massive step backwards. Iraq alone will fuel anti-US sentiment for at least 50 years amoung many communities. You could stike every terrorist dead this instant but this action guarantees several generations more will be willing to follow.

They don't want to "destroy us". They want us to stop kicking off coups in their countries. As you have done on numerous occasions. Stop doing that and they will stop hating you. They have all said that publicly, yet never once have our media reported the text of these speaches etc. This is except for some of the most extreme nutballs who want to kill us all. However, they are inconsequential and have no power; just like most Christians who would like to see all arabs dead are in the minority. Our media will hapilly show a man with a hook for an hand bitching about "death to the west", but they won't show the ones on our side who say the same shit right back. We get presented with the image of the nutball as though it is the norm. It's not, Bin Laden etc are all from the "get out of my country and I'll go away" camp. His beef? Your troops in Saudi, which are there to protect the unpolular, brutal and undemocratic dictatorship leadership of which you and your president are oh-so-good-friends with. From personal experience, I'd bet there m

Re:Aiming accuracy...

[Scroatzilla]

>> being completely peaceful will get you run over

"Completely" peaceful would mean that there are no @ssholes to run you over. I believe that is the point of the saying "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." War is not a necessary evil of civilization; it is a game played by people who rely on a submissive populace to fight for them so that they can get and retain power.

which God?

[dankelley]

Mine, or the one worshipped by evil people?

Re:which God?

[brilinux]

Actually, it turns out that they are the same God, and all of those wars were mistakes. Sorry about that, folks.

Re:which God?

[Money for Nothin']

'sokay, it's just a flesh wound...

Re:which God?

[shri]

I'm betting it is the one that said something about the other cheek. ;)

UT2004

[GXFragger]

Unreal Tournament 2004 is now becoming not so unreal, apparently.

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?

[Sephiriz]

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

Similarly, this "non-lethal" lightning bolt is probably far from perfect, but its probably a better alternative. What I don't understand is why we need a lightning bolt when we already have the taser.

Re:Non-Lethal?

[sumdumass]

An d the alternative is to either kill everyone or let them violate whatever sanction held dear.

I would guess that if a non-lethal weapon is non-leathal 90% of the possible scenarios, It would be ok to use it as a non lethal weapon.

If a woman is being raped and beat then reaches for a stun gun wich ends up killing here attacker instead of imobilising him, is that all that bad? I won't lose and sleep over it.

Re:Non-Lethal?

[mikemsd]

Taser's are not considered non-lethal. They are considered Less-than-lethal. Plus there has not been one death that yet that has been directly linked back to a Taser being deployed. Most of the deaths that have occured have also had high levels of drugs in their system and it wasn't clear if it was the drugs or the taser that did the damage.

Re:Non-Lethal?

[Halfbaked Plan]

If a woman is being raped and beat then reaches for a stun gun wich ends up killing here attacker instead of imobilising him, is that all that bad? I won't lose and sleep over it.

The more likely outcome is that the assailant uses a stun gun to 'subdue' the woman, intending to rape her. It instead kills her. Assailant moves on to another victim (unless he's sicker than we assume).

No 'defensive' weapon can't be turned around to make it an offensive weapon.

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?

Certainly

[mfh]

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...

Re:Why? Why?

[AC-x]

Calm down they're non-lethal. Better that then sprey a crowd with bullets I'd say

Well...

[Sottilde]

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?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

When are we getting the sonic tanks from Dune? ;)

Re:Why? Why?

[Yaa 101]

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?

BIG Fun

[Cash202]

Mmmm, nonlethal game of lightning tag.

I smell a new type of X-Games Competition.

"dazzler" laser

[b0lt]

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.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[GigsVT]

It only outlaws lasers explicitly designed to damage sight or cause permanent blindness.

Temporary blinding.. while it's questionable if such is very possible without risk of permanant injury, isn't forbidden.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Okay, firstly, fuck the karma. I ain't ACing this.

Secondly, you're an idiot. If we decide to "fuck the rules" and so do they, we both become suicidal nutters with bombs on our nuts. It's by sticking to the rules (AKA don't torture people, hello Bush). That we stay ABOVE their level.

When we start using the same tactics as they do (not to mention Bush is also happy to force Christianity into other peoples lives even if they don't want it), we become the "evil".

A lot of innocent people got their homes blown up and lost family members on both sides. You're bullshit just shows how stupid you are.

A human life is a human life, if it's okay for US to do anything, it's okay for THEM to do anything. A free life is not free if you have to be searched and risk your life every time you leave your house, which is how it is right now in Iraq.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[intnsred]

Korea and Vietnam were really a case of helping another nation defend itself.

Let's be serious. After the Japanese were defeated, a Korean gov't rose to power in Seoul. It was only a matter of days after US troops arrived that they overthrew that gov't -- it was too leftist for the US' tastes.

The US then put in a puppet dictator, Syngman Rhee -- a guy who lived in the US and who had lived in the US for 40 years. Once in power, Rhee -- with US backing -- started to undermine the northern gov't. Before the "attack" by the north, there were battalion-sized battles going on along the 38th parallel and fighters were dogfighting daily.

Please, the Korean war was nowhere near the black-and-white issue that whitewashed US history and propaganda makes it out to be. That's reflected even today. A Gallup/Chosun Ilbo poll conducted this summer found that fully 2/3 of South Koreans of military age would side with the north in the event of a war between the United States and North Korea.

In the case of Vietnam, no qualifications have to be made. The US was just dead, tyrannically wrong in that war.

During the Eisenhower administration, when the Vietnamese kicked the French out, the peace agreement temporarily divided the country until free and fair elections were to be held.

But the US refused to hold any elections. Why?

Well, declassified CIA documents show that the CIA reported to the US gov't that any fair election would be easily won by the Vietnamese national hero -- their version of George Washington -- Ho Chi Minh. The US could not hold elections because they knew that the US puppets would lose any fair election hands down.

Let's be clear: the Vietnam war was not in any way related to "democracy" -- the US refused to hold elections and backed South Vietnamese dictators. Similarly, the only "freedom" the South Vietnamese enjoyed was the "freedom" of capitalism, as dictated by the US.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Get your facts right. The people in camp X-ray were not wearing military fatigues. They are NOT covered by the geneva convention.

Of course they are. Geneva conventions (plural) cover all classes of participants in warfare, one of them is "non-uniformed" combatants (GC3) or alternatively civilians (GC4). There is no possibility of anyone in a war not to be covered by one of the Conventions. The "unlawful combatant" bullshit is wholly invented by the Bush Administration.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[JhohannaVH]

Hooo RAH. You said it a bit better than I did. I know I can be a bit militant... but damn. I fve family and friend currently fighting for lives there, theirs, ours, the Iraqis... etc. And they WANTED to do it! They *wanted* to go back! How many times do I have to say it: OUR SOLDIERS BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING!!!!!!!!

Asshats! Quit listening to Al Franken and Janeane Garafolo! Quit listening to the liberal media that has only to serve its BOARD!! And listen to our soldiers in uniform, our boots on the ground goddamnit!!! Listen to the mothers with 2, 3, and 4 sons going back for their 3rd tour because they are SAVING THE LIVES OF IRAQIS. Judge the acts that are being committed with a clear heart and soul, and you will know that we are only making the world a better place.

It terrifies me how short-sighted all of you are. But then... you don't plan on having children, so you could care less about three generations from now. I DO!! What scares me even more is that it's the screwed up hippy generation that believes they are the righteous that are trying to gain power now today in our Senate. And they won't have anyone to balance them because they infect our education culture!

God, I'm so scared to be a patriotic republican American today... I'm actually fearful to state what *I* believe because the crazy mofo's on the left would as soon shoot me as listen to me. And that's not gonna help anything! I fear for our future as a free country.

Lucractius - we as the ones that know what we need to do, we gotta stand up against these privacy invading laws. As Rep. as I am, I fight every one of the laws that would infringe on any of our Constitutional rights. For we wouldn't be American without those rights we are guaranteed. By all means, RACIALLY PROFILE!!! I don't have a name that sounds even remotely arab, I don't look remotely Arab, and I don't have a Koran!! It SUCKS that the world is made of different races, but it's a FACT. It's also a fact that Arabs/Middle Eastern peoples bombed New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Seattle (attempted), London, Morroco, Riyadh, Madrid, Bali, I could go on forever. WHEN WILL YOU ALL SEE THAT THIS IS A WORLD PROBLEM!?!??! We must stand as one, or we will DIE AS ONE!!

Jho - Watching her karma go from good to shit in an hour flat. Thanks ID10Ts. It's a mere example of sacrificing for what you believe in.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[JhohannaVH]

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever BEEN there? It's a palace compared to where they come from! Jesus H. Christ. I cannot believe you guys actually believe everything you read. Muwahahaha. Hell, in our US Prisons, they aren't allowed to practice their own religion, but they are at Gitmo? And *I* paid for their prayer rugs, beads, and Korans.

And you want sexual abuse? I have been the victim of sexual abuse for 24 years of my 32 on this planet, and no one EVER tried to save me. Yeah, one of their own. I had to get out myself. So if a menstruating woman interrogating one of these fuckers is sexual abuse, I'll take that over being raped by family members for 20 years ANY FUCKING DAY OF MY LIFE!

Jho

Re:"dazzler" laser

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Except the part about how the Geneva Convention is a reciprical agreement between signatory states and those who abide by it, neither of which can be said to apply to any of the pieces of shit at gitmo.

All those "pieces of shit" are there as the result of combat in either Afganistan (a war) or Iraq (a war) or a "War on Terror". Geneva conventions bind any signatory, regardless if they are fighting a country which was not one.

Folks like you piss and whine whenever US troops scare someone with a damn dog or make them sweat a little under the interrogation light, but you're awfully fucking quiet when the same type of folks we hold prisoner in gitmo blow up an iraqi police station, or kill a few newly elected iraqi officials in broad daylight.

Look, idiot, let me explain it in a way your peanut brain can absorb: this is becasue if you do the same as they do, you become the same pieces filthy shit they are. Get it? Now, I fully understand that it is the objective of some, like you, to become as imbecillic, vicious, murderous and bigoted as the Al-Queida crew, but some of us still hold to these "quaint" notions of civilization and that supposedly civilized nations are to be held to a higher standard then a band of blood-thirsty thugs.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Geneva Conventions applies to armies of nations, not rogue terrorist cells. Why not? Because terrorists act as civilians, they strike specifically at civilians, there is [b]no[/b] possibility that terrorists follow any rules of 'war'. This is not something the Bush Administration invented.

In which case the US is not at war and they are merely criminals to be tried in accrodance with international law standards. You cannot have it both ways! Either they are para-military caught during military operations or they are criminal suspects. What the Bush Administration has done is to invent a whole new category of "no-rights-whatsover-because-we-say-so" oponents. This is only giving factual ammunition to those who had long claimed the US to be a hypocritical warmonger whose oh-so-pious regard for law extends only as far as its interests.

The Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, the members of both houses of Congress, all know and say this is perfectly legal.

No, but they do they know on which side their bread is buttered and we are talking about some inconsequential brown people of whom a number are actual terrorists so who cares. Its not like they are going to get a TV campaign going during elections or something that would actually hurt these members of Congress.

But a little fool on the Internet, living in Hyper-reality, has no explanation as to [i]how[/i] the Bush Administration is, in his view, doing something illegal.

Explanation is really simple, dimwit: none of the Geneva Conventions allow for this, they don't even mention an "unlawful combatant" as a valid class of prisoners. And they apply to all signatories regardless if they are fighting a non-signarory, as long as they are at "war". Its dead simple. And if you are not at "war" then they are criminal suspects and suject to internationally accepted laws, including access to a lawyer etc.

There is one possibility you and your liberal blogs have not considered: that it is perfectly legal and proper to do so (after all, terrorists don't attend conventions).

Proper? Proper?! You mean to sink to the level of murderous, beheding, torturing, child-killing thugs because you are fighting them is proper?! In that case you have not only already lost that fight but you will be counted among those very barbarous enemies of civilization, democracy, law and freedom. And that would be proper indeed.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[IgnoramusMaximus]

who violate the rules of war lose their POW status and can be tried by a "competant tribunal".

And that is to be arbitrarily determined by the very enemy who captured them?! You gotta be kidding. If that were true, no soldier ever would qualify as a POW as soon as some officer in the invading army decided that he "violated the rules of war". As per GC3 4.A.1, the POW status is awarded with no exceptions to: "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" which would cover all Taliban foot soldiers (an army of Taliban-controlled Afganistan) and all Iraqi "insurgents" who were members of the Saddam's Ba'ath army. Note that the additional conditions are placed in 4.A.2 only on "other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements".

If you were to take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, the Chech partisans who assassinated the Reinhard Heidrich - the German Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia would be terrorists and the Germans would be entitled to do with them as they please. I do not even want to consider looking into the the dark sewers of relative morality such an opinion could only dwell in.

The Numremberg trials were possible because the actions of the German leadership were so at odds with civilized conduct that all of the members of the Alliance agreed upon and came up with a protocol to deal with them. The Geneva Conventions are a result of that agreement as they were signed after the Nuremburg trials.

While the Geneva conventions prohibit the trial of POWs for the act of making war, they can be tried, by US military tribunal, for violations of rules of war. We are perfectly within our rights, under international law, to execute these people if they are judged to be war criminals.

NO! If they are "violating the rules of war" that determination is to be made by the court in Hague not by the US! You can't appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. The test to determine if they are "violating rules of war" is designed so that you cannot fudge it yourself, to your own ends. Only after the international courts decide that these people were indeed violating the rules, can you try them in (international or under international supervision) military tribunals. Until then they are POWs.

Re:"dazzler" laser

[IgnoramusMaximus]

a guy who blows up a polling station full of civilians is not.

In which case he is a criminal to be tried for mass murder by the courts in his country. As far as the Occupying Power is concerned he falls under the Fourth Convention.

The preamble of first convention of 1949:

Yes, technically the Conventions originated in 1929 but they were nearly completely revised at the end of WWII as a result of the Nazi experiences.

The US didn't sign the treaty that would recognize the permanent international war crimes court in the Hague.

Which is only another point against the US.

As far as I'm aware the US is bound by the following verbage in the same treaty quoted above ... before its own courts

Yes but not military tribunals. "Own courts" here refers to regular civilian courts with all the due process that entails. Witness the following section of Article 146:

"In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949."

but most importantly examine the whole provision of "Protecting Power" (i.e. 3rd party to oversee the trials) which exists solely for the purpose of curbing arbitrary judgments, see Aticle 9 and so on.

Again, the standard is "competant tribunal", not civilian courts, and certainly not international courts. I'll admit there's certainly room for reasonable people to disagree about what that means

The term "competent tribunal" does not even appear in GC4 you quoted. The term appears in GC3 in Article 5 as

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".

Note that it applies only to the determination of status of the combatant. Following which the other provisions kick in: civilian criminal = civlilian court, POW = internment till hostilities cease, War Criminal = a trial in front of a regular court for war crimes (under the supervision of a Protecting Power) or in Hague if you are sane and do not wish to credibly accused of rigging the trial (see Milosevicz and crew).

Re:"dazzler" laser

[IgnoramusMaximus]

so calling people dimwits because they aren't experts will get us nowhere.

You should note that I only responded to ad-hominem attacks in kind.

According to this [wikipedia] article 2 of the third geneva convention states: That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "

Wikipedia lies. Please do not quote Wikipedia on anything political because it is utterly unreliable as a source and its data depends on whose political bias happens to be dominant at the moment in the "edit wars".

The actual GC3 text is:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Which is quite different (i.e. no opt-out clause). The question is rather academic as both Afghanistan and Iraq were signatories. However consider this: if the Wikipedia interpretation were true it would allow one to start acting arbitrarily barbaric in respect to captured soldiers just because you are fighting someone who does not subscribe to the Conventions. In this line of reasoning, one could argue you are entitled to set up gas chambers for the members of Al-Queida just because they are not officially a party to the Geneva Conventions and are not following their rules. But US still must adhere. Such is the burden of the defender of Liberty. Either you believe in it or you are just an obnoxious opportunistic pretender. No other options exist for the US.

What you can argue (and which is the point of view I hold) is that Al-Queida is not an armed force of a Power but a criminal organization to be dealt with via criminal courts the very same way you deal with the Mafia or some of the european leftist rebels of the 1980s and similar social malcontents. They cannot be considered a nation or any other sort of Power which the GC3 would apply to in a war-like scenario, because you simply cannot be at war with them (GC4 still applying to those found in Iraq/Afghanistan). Thus Gitmo is simply illegal as the US is not at war with Al-Queida. In the context of Iraq and Afghanistan the Conventions apply as usual and the US has to stingently follow the rules.

GC3 explicitly states you only get protection if you wear uniform, so why should one demand protection if you don't wear uniform?

The article 4.A.1 makes no such distinction:

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.

It makes no note of uniform. These additional provisions apply to a different category described in 4.A.2. Also note that if you do not fall under GC3 then by default you are covered by GC4. The "insurgents" are then either POWs (if they were in Saddam's army and still believe they are in it), armed resistance under 4.A.2 (all they need is command structure, some basic rules of engagement, a head-band and a weapon worn in the open - see the battle for Falluja) or they are war criminals (that is POWs until their trial in a civilian court or in Hague under the supervision of a Protecting Power) or civilian criminals in which case they get tried in their own country (that would be all those Al-Queida foreign idiots who blow up schools if they are not deemed to fall under 4.A.2).

Re:"dazzler" laser

[dfenstrate]

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

What were you saying?

Now, when you're done eating your humble pie over that, we can discuss how truly committed you are to being civilized if you rapidly degrade into middle-school name calling:

idiot, your peanut brain
  imbecillic, vicious, murderous and bigoted

We can also discuss how human scum may or maynot be receptive to the kinder, gentler ways we prefer, and how we may have to adopt more brutal methods when dealing with these particular types if it is the only effective means of supressing and defeating such types.

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.

I see

[Guy LeDouche]

weapons that can make you hear the voice of God

I demand to know who used this on our fearless leader, Mr. Bush.

Deathmatch!!!

[StarvingSE]

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

Re:Why? Why?

[Osty]

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.)

But where I ask you....

[rune2]

are the frickin' sharks?!

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.

"Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!"

[blankoboy]

I can't believe it hasn't been said yet. Shame on you all. =) /obscure?

Let me guess

[HangingChad]

The lead engineer was named Zeus?

shock and awe!

[erroneus]

Is any else as shocked as I am to hear this?

Prior Art

[hobotron]

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.

Weapons of war.

[Isldeur]

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?

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.

Terrorists, pfft

[Devar]

There are designed to be used on you.

Cool...

[RiffRafff]

...still rather have a BFG, though.

Voice of God

[isny]

"And for the last time, stop playing with yourself!" "It is God."

Re:Why? Why?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Plain and simple truth, the private sector has been developing weapons since the US declared independance over 200 years ago.

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.

Re:Why? Why?

[serialdogma]

Well I was thinking about just not shotting them at all.
You know not harming our fellow man and all.

Re:How The Fuck Is This Insightful??

[YrWrstNtmr]

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

Yes.

How does this help fight the so-called WOT?

[intnsred]

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.

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

[intnsred]

haiti. that wasn't a US thign either.

So, the US sending weapons to the Dominican Republic, where those weapons were diverted to former Haitian death squads does not have US fingerprints on it?

President Aristide being refused additional bodyguards from the US mercenary contractor at a critical time doesn't hint that the US gov't might be involved?

The US bodyguards which Aristide had in Haiti who mysteriously "disappeared" right about the time the US Marines showed up are only a concincidence, huh?

The US Marines forcing Aristide out of his home and onto a US Air Force transport and taking him to a destination that the US gov't refused to tell him -- that was somehow not a "US thing"?

The US has invaded Haiti numerous times and at various times has militarily occupied the country for years. The US gov't supported and backed brutal dictatorships in Haiti. The latest incident is unusual only in that the US conned the French and Canadians -- shame on them -- to go along with the coup, and then later semi-successfully dumped the whole mess onto the UN.

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! :-)

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

[demachina]

"Most of the people of South Vietnam did not want to be taken over by the North... or at the most live in a communist country. (It was a civil war.)"

Most of the Vietnamese people were sick of foreign domination after a century of brutal colonial occupation by the French that began in 1883, and which in many cases pushed the Vietnamese in to virtual slavery to colonial masters. When the French abandoned the place the U.S. stepped in and picked up the colonial baton.

The U.S. proceeded to install a wildly silly and unpopular dictator named Ngo Dinh Diem, who'd been living in exile in New Jersey. Like every dictator the U.S. installed after World War II, Diem's one redeeming quality was he was a staunch anticommunist. The U.S. didn't care what these dictators were for, they just had to be anticommunist and willing to arrest, torture or kill anyone suspected of being a leftists.

Diem's government was a mass of nepotism, cronyism, and corruption. The South Vietnamese army was the basket case it was because the officers were promoted based on connections, not ability. It was universally known Diem was a U.S. puppet so when he invited in U.S. troops it was basically the U.S. inviting itself in to the conflict. Many Vietnamese hated him with a passion which is why the Viet Cong had no problem garnering recruits and support from the South Vietnamese people. If an insurgency has support from a significant percentage of the population its nearly impossible to beat.

The U.S. lost Vietnam because the U.S. framed the choice as one between the nationalist forces of Ho Chi Mien and the likes of Diem.

Ho Chi Mien opted for Communism because the Soviet Union was the only place that would support them in throwing off colonial occupation. The North Vietnamese were first and foremost fighting a ware based on nationalism not Communism. I'm sure lots of Vietnamese didn't want Communism but many of them preferred it over Diem and French/U.S. domination.

It would be interesting to have seen what would have happened in Vietnam if instead of installing a puppet dictator, the South Vietnamese despised if, the U.S. had helped the U.S. to free elections, nationalism and independence and if they voted to unify with the North and for Socialism so be it.

Vietnam was just the biggest and bloodiest round of this exact same sad saga that happened in dozens of countries as the U.S. and U.S.S.R fought there proxy wars at the expense of the rest of the world. The U.S. would have a lot better standing in the world if it hadn't opted for oppressive anti communist dictators time after time.

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

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

"A country can't resist U.S. Imperialism if none of its citizens are ALIVE."

Excellent point my tin pot African warlord friend. I also think some of the specialized non-lethal weapons could be used for certain situations.

For instance I always have some loathsome loud protestors out the front of my palace screaming about grain supplies and water restrictions and I could just zap them with my mouth freezing ray. Then I'd address them with "Tell me, Zakawooni Tribe, what good is a protest when you are unable to speak, eat or drink?"

The newborn babies of the tribes would also be unable to eat their candy and thus making it all the more easier for my jackbooted thugs to steal from them. No crying either, which emboldens my withering black heart!

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

[siggy_lxvi]

The people of Vietnam did not want US domination and neo-colonialization, and the US lost that war. We lost Vietnam for 2 reasons: We placed political contraints on warriors. They were not allowed to cut off supply routes through supposedly-neutral Laos and Cambodia. Our military leadership started out fighting the wrong kind of war. They assumed that it was a conventional war in which winning the territory was more important than counterinsurgency tactics. This is a lesson our military has learnt extremely well. And don't think I'm merely referring you to someone who is wholly on my side of this issue. COL Hackworth's articles on military.com were highly critical of the way this particular war is being fought. For a primer on what the Vietnam war was like, I would like to refer you to two books by the late COL David H. Hackworth: About Face and Steel, My Soldiers' Hearts. The people of Iraq do not want US domination and neo-colonialization of their country, and the US is losing that war. I'd like to know what makes you think that we're losing the war in Iraq. Deaths? 1800 or so. Compared to the 2500 deaths from the D-day invasion alone, this is hardly a costly war as lives go. Equipment? Equipment is cheap and keeps Americans working. I'm not going to argue with you on our intentions in the war, since you've obviously drunk the Kool-Aid there, but I'm really interested in hearing why you think that we're loxing.

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

[pswayze]

"I'm really interested in hearing why you think that we're loxing."

Heavy marketing by bagel producers?

New weapons for protest suppresion

[centipetalforce]

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.

Re:New weapons for protest suppresion

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Rest assured these high tech toys will not be used on armed combatants, but on peaceful protesters.

Yeah, those G8 protesters out there burning cars, smashing storefronts, and generally destroying everything in sight are just...so...peaceful, aren't they?

There was a time when a protest was something arranged around non-violent confrontation. Today, protests are just another excuse for hooligans to do what they do best: destroy things for the fun of it.

Ghandi had it right: if you want an effective protest, violence is the last thing you should encourage or tolerate. It gives your opponents all the ammunition they need to increase the level of control, force, and invasiveness on those who are protesting. These freaks who are out there slinging rocks and Molotov cocktails are not protesters, they're thugs.

Re:New weapons for protest suppresion

[advocate_one]

These freaks who are out there slinging rocks and Molotov cocktails are not protesters, they're thugs.

those thugs are "agent provocateurs" deliberately planted to give the authorities the opportunity to claim that the protest isn't peacefull. What do think the real fuss is about over that server seizure then??? the servers were hosting photos of undercover policemen... evidence of the agent provocatuer policy

Then, on Oct. 1, the FBI paid a visit to an Indymedia representative in Seattle on behalf of the Swiss government. The Swiss were upset that IMC had published pictures of undercover agents posing as anti-globalization protesters.

Re:New weapons for protest suppresion

[Shoggoth of Maul]

"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."

Care to elaborate on those obvious lunkhead reasons?

Fielding less-than-lethal weapons is not something to be done lightly. The fact that soldiers will be less familiar with them would immediately make them less effective, so you'd have to at least delay employing them except with new units who have trained with them. How many months is that, bureaucracy included?

Sustaining them in operation can be a hassle too. As has been pointed out, the less-lethal quality of these weapons lends them to freer use, which is not always good. Not to mention the ammo can be, well, wierd. It's not fun to try and differentiate pepper rounds from beanbag rounds from shotgun shells when your adrenaline is pumping, you've got tunnel vision, and your fine motor skills are so shot to hell you couldn't tie your enemy to a telephone pole if you wanted to. Bullets, on the other hand, are cheap to make.

Also, as weapons become less and less lethal their effectiveness seems to become a matter of their being used correctly, which will never happen all the time in the stress of a combat situation (which crowd control can become easily once someone throws a rock or bottle). In other words, they're more likely to fail to stop an attacker than just aiming a three round burst at the center of the body. The soldier just may be aware that his weapons were made by the lowest bidder.

Human beings can be killed by some very slight trauma, but can also survive surprising amounts of abuse. Police officers keep a healthy distance from knifers even when they have their guns on him. Why? Because even a lethally wounded man can take from 10 seconds to two minutes or therabouts to die (Yeah, those drawn out war movie scenes where the Sargeant is dying are more accurate than you might think). In 10 seconds a knifer can close a hefty distance, much less two minutes.

Obviously, less lethal weapons are not a magic bullet (mod me down if you can't forgive the pun). Only good training and understanding of the weapon and the dynamics in which it is employed can achieve those results.

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.

I Have a Thousand Years of Power

[Ranger]

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."

Re:Classic

[renehollan]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," er religious epiphany, er, no, magic.

I Call BS.... Big Money War Economy BS...

[TechnoGrl]

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?

... the voice of God

[surfcow]

"... 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

Nonlethals are better because

[marcybots]

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.

Re:Why? Why?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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.

Re:Whoa, hold on...

[NiceGeek]

Not quite but we're getting there.

Re:Can anyone please explain...

[aXis100]

There's no point just having voltage - You need current to flow.

High frequency AC can utilise all sort of parasitic effects to create an effective path - very small inductances and capacitance (like skin, shoes etc) can be utilised.

The glass plasma balls at the toy shop use high frequency to this effect. It wouldnt work with DC.

Non-lethal, because it's profitable, blah, blah...

[fireboy1919]

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.

lightning bolt! lightning bolt!

[db10]

well lightning bolts are ok, but I prefer area of effect spells like fireball... unless you're talking chain lightning... oooh goody! goody!

Since when is lightning "non-lethal"?

[celtic_hackr]

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.

The guy zapped himself.

[MacDork]

So yes, you can actually aim it with some degree of accuracy.

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.

Re:2nd Amendment, the right to own BFG9000

[Meagermanx]

You can't even own high-quality body armor, legally. So I can protect myself with a revolver, rifles, shotguns, but not body armor? Great...

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations

[HermanAB]

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.

It's all fun and games..

[aerthling]

..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?

You forgot

[DaveAtFraud]

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.

Bring it on

[HermanAB]

That has something to be said for my reflective tinfoil hat...

Re:Why? Why?

[drsquare]

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.

Voice of God Gun considered harmful

[Jeremi]

weapons that can make you hear the voice of God.

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...

Re:War on Terra'

[What me a Coward]

Don't take this the wrong way but if you had studied history you would know that the terrorists would still be trying to kill us even if we all dropped our weapons and tried to play nice with them.

    One of the first edicts of islam is that muslims must fight non muslims till they either a) become muslims b) submit to muslim rule and pay muslim taxes (Muslims aren't suposed to tax other muslims so the only way they had of collecting taxes was through non muslims) or c) die fighting the muslim armies.

    For the first century christian europe did nothing against the muslim forces attacking christian europe taking christian lands and booty and killing christians. Not fighting didn't convince the muslim forces to stop lay down their weapons nor to be friends (that's when the crusades begain after over a century of muslim attacks and pillaging). Islam's laws as laid out by mohammad make this impossible unless you propose we all either convert to islam which is impossible because it would conflict with another of mohammads edicts which as previously stated muslims can't tax other muslims. So in order for islams tax base society to continue their would have to be non muslims to subjugate and tax or fight and pillage from otherwise their governmental system would collapse and they would be forced to violate mohammads edict of not taxing muslims.

      Bottom line islam needs to get money like it does now off of oil from other non muslims to keep their government going or to fight non muslims for spoils or to rule and tax non muslims. It's a system designed to promote violence to other religions and to keep themselves going off of the suffering of others that can't hope to end it even by all of us converting to islam because they can't allow us all to become islamic without destroying their own society in the proccess.

    So turning off the tv and going out to talk to your neighbor while a good idea and benificail in the long run towards getting along with most people providing they wanna get along with you to begin with. But it will do nothing to stop terrorism not as long as their are thoughs out their who are intent on not getting along or causing terror to get what they want or need through whatever means avalible to them.

    As for the guns they are also used to defend as well as to attack and yes ultimatly to kill but in a time when men are killing men and the only thing they had to defend themselves with were guns, swords, spears, knives, arrows etc.. it was what had to be used because non lethal means weren't avalible to them. Yes their were also plenty of examples where thoughs supposedly defending became as bad as their attackers or started out as bad as them their were also thoughs who just wanted to live peacefully but couldnt and had to fight to protect themselves. Rest assurd though that even if we replace our lethals with non lethals their will still be others out their who don't share the same views about the lives of others who will continue to develop and perfect new ways of killing to allow them to continue killing us to achieve their goals whatever they may be.

    Sowing swords into plowshares is a great idea something to strive for but unless everybody wants it it's an unobtainable goal, And clearly from looking at history and looking at whats happening now it's still just as unobtainable as it has ever been even without the TV.

    Is it any wonder then why people hide themselves in fantasy worlds rather than going out to talk to their neighbors? It's just plain safer and gives them something to distract and make them forget for a time the things they can do nothing about.

    And thats the sadest thing of all.

Accuracy isn't the point

[Infonaut]

The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations.

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.

Re:Accuracy isn't the point

[jtcm]

>> "nonlethal" weapons

> The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations.

"Nonlethal" is a misnomer for many of these weapons.

The problem inherent to these less-then-lethal weapons is that the police or the military will be more inclined to use them in situations that may not call for such use of force.

Crowd control situations are particularly problematic. I live not far from Boston, and was appalled at the way the Boston police handled the celebratory crowds after last year's Red Sox World Series win. A young woman was shot and killed by a "nonlethal" pepper-spray bullet. From the article:

"The Boston Police Department "accepts full responsibility" for the death of a 21-year-old college student killed by a police projectile fired to disperse crowds celebrating the Boston Red Sox victory over the New York Yankees."...
... "However, video from the scene where Snelgrove was struck showed the crowd in a joyous mood, slapping high fives and chanting celebratory Red Sox slogans. There were no signs of near-riotous conditions in that immediate vicinity although the area was crowded, and dozens of people near her stopped celebrating when they realized the severity of her injury and they tried to get help."

"Nonlethal" _isn't_...and those using these weapons must understand that they're not playing with Nerf guns.

Non-Lethal Technology is New

[curteck]

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

Some thoughts...

[jlseagull]

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.

Re:How The Fuck Is This Insightful??

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

"and with the youth of our nations these days getting smarter and more aware of whats going on in the world around them...it's only natural for them to get very pissed off "

I disagree. I was recently reading a psychology journal that talked about the psychological profile of suicide bombers and how ideology spreads across social networks. While there is no overall fit for an extremist personality the journal did note that the most extreme fundamentalist views were often held by people between the early teens and young twenties.

It seems that young people are predisposed to pick up ideas based on their social networks (or memes if you will) and take an extreme, unquestioning point of view from that idea. Not suprising when you consider kids strive for identity through their peers and will assimilate whatever ideas their peer's social networks have.

More aware? Maybe. Smarter? Probably not.

Re:Let the record show

[aristotle-dude]

Well, you could add to that list various dictators behind the Iron curtain including Nicolai Chauchescu, the various leaders of the Soviet Union besides Stalin. Don't forget the various leaders of China, Vietnam and other Communist countries not to mention the secret police in those countries.

Don't forget that hardline Communism existed for "decades" and millions of people died in prison camps and executions.

Wars are cause by "people", not religions, ideologies, politics. People are inherently evil and cruel but some people do make an effort to overcome that nature in an attempt to better themselves.

Wow, Tesla Tanks!

[haxor.dk]

Anybody up for a round of Red Alert?

You should worry about other stuff.

[TheLink]

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.

Video of lightning suitcase/lazers

[pdjohe]

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.

Re:Why? Why?

[Walt Dismal]

The company in the Post article looks like pure carnival sideshow promotion. It's like a used car salesman with a high school education and no idea of real physics seeing sci-fi movies then trying hire people to implement these weapons concepts. A Tesla coil in a briefcase with a 4-foot spark range? Useless; not scalable to a useful range in a handheld weapon; the energy would arc back to the guy holding the weapon. This is obvious to anyone who's built any Tesla coils of moderate size.

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.

Why make them hear the "voice of G-d"

[Llywelyn]

When a bullet can arrange a face-to-face introduction?

(sorry, sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:Why? Why?

[Lonewolf666]

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 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.st m

Considering revolutions, sometimes force is necessary. The Romanian Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_o f_1989
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.

"threatening/bullying" == "diplomacy"

[Loundry]

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.

Obviously, ...

[quarkscat]

Tesla's patent has expired.

Bullshit

[Loundry]

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.

FYI

[LiberalApplication]

...a projectile that releases an electric charge on impact sounds like a better idea to me

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.

Re:Why? Why?

[Narchie Troll]

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.