Slashdot Mirror
Weapons of War Now Include Lightning Guns
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post is running a lengthy article today about Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems, an Indiana-based company that says its developed a nonlethal weapon that shoots lightning bolts. This article is an in-depth look at a company that's stirred up some controversy on Slashdot in the past. From the article: 'Lightning guns, heat rays, weapons that can make you hear the voice of God. This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.'"
I wonder how good the accuracy is. If a "bad" guy and a "good" guy are in close combat how do they make sure that the bolt strikes the "bad" guy and is not instead attracted to the metal gun being held by the "good" guy?
It seems to me that lightning wouldn't necessarily go where you want it to, but instead would go where it wants to...
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
Unreal Tournament 2004 is now becoming not so unreal, apparently.
Supposedly "safe" Taser guns can kill people, and we're supposed to believe that they've perfected a non-lethal lightening bolt?
Why on earth are private companies (I won't even get started on governments) still developing weapons? This is incredibly sick.
Besides for profit, there's one great reason: Non-Lethal Weapons.
Sure we could just stick with the landmines, bio-weapons, and nuclear arms that are already developed, but I think we can do better. Don't you?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.
Because we all know how effective giant lightning bolts are at seeking out a terrorist in a populated urban area...
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
id Software has done it again... bringing the gunz to the REAL front!
U.S.A! U.S.A!
When are we getting the sonic tanks from Dune? ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I smell a new type of X-Games Competition.
Nice Tesla Coil there. Now stop wasting my tax money on this BS.
As far as I can tell this guy just has some lasers and Tesla coils and "artist's renderings" of terrorists being struck down by sparks.
There's a fundamental problem yet to be addressed. It's extremely difficult to incapacitate someone without risking their life.
His vision of "Zapping the hostages with the kidnappers and sorting it out later" is scary!
That's the real risk of less-lethal weapons, they lend themselves to overuse.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
weapons that can make you hear the voice of God
I demand to know who used this on our fearless leader, Mr. Bush.
The war on terror has now turned to Quake 3 deathmatch!!!!!!!!!!!
I was thinking about joining the army. I mean, its just like fps, but with better graphics. But what if I get lag out there??? I'm dead!!! I heard there isn't even respawn points in RL!" -fps-doug
I got nothin'
are the frickin' sharks?!
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Why are private companies still developing weapons? That's an easy question - because it's profitable. In a capitalist society, there doesn't need to be any other reason.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I can't believe it hasn't been said yet. Shame on you all. =) /obscure?
Embedded journalists have been trying to report that soldiers have been using IDDQD and IDKFA since April 2004, The Pentagon alleges that if the terrorists ever found out these codes it would "ruin the game", and has subsequently been stripping press reports of this information.
There is truth in humor.
Actually, it turns out that they are the same God, and all of those wars were mistakes. Sorry about that, folks.
There are designed to be used on you.
It's a Bagel.
"And for the last time, stop playing with yourself!" "It is God."
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Yes.
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.
"... 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
None of these are real reasons.
The real reason, is that the US needs to modernize. We need to take our military to the Xtreme.
This is only one in a number of changes that was obviously necessary to convert our military from a well disciplined fighting force into an Xtreme force.
Here are some of the others:
-The US army is changing it's name to "Rmee Xtreme!"
-War on Terror renamed to "Ultra-mega xtreme terror elimitation"
-Soldiers must now practice one-liners to go along when throwing grenades.
-Army camo replaced with "Xtreme metallic green"
-Soldiers are issued new, cooler names upon enlistment. For example, "Joe Smith" would become "Goe sMitH Xtreme!"
-Grenades are now going to be called "Ultra Xtreme Blastilators"
-There will be a new branch of the military: "X-treme Fighting Ninja Monkies"
-Periods (.) will be replaced with exclaimation points (!) on all official documents.
And, of course, all the weaponry will be replaced with new, Xtreme! weaponry, such as the one listed here.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
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.
Said parking lot would also be self-lighting (at least for several years).
Time to burn some mod points. I wonder how low the liberal whiners here can mod me down.
S I G H.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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.
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:
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:
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).