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...

[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...

[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?

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.

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?

[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...

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? ;)

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

[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

[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]

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).

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?

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.

Terrorists, pfft

[Devar]

There are designed to be used on you.

Voice of God

[isny]

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

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.

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: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.

... 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

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.

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: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! :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obviously, ...

[quarkscat]

Tesla's patent has expired.