Slashdot Mirror
Set PHASRs On Stun
brianber writes to tell us NewScientist is reporting that the US Government has unveiled a new weapon in their non-lethal arsenal. The Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response (PHASR) laser rifle has many potential applications such as temporarily blinding a suspect who drives through a roadblock. So far, however, the DoD has declined to comment on the specific details of how it works.
Not only that. Driving blind has a high probability of lethality.
I'm just wondering how many times you can saftly "temporarily" blind someone with a laser.
Because what you really want to do to the speeding 3-ton SUV is blind the driver... yup, definitely makes things safer for everyone.
I'm just going to not RTFA: If I found out that this suggested use was actually in the documentation rather than a stupid comment of an article submitter, I'd lose the last remaining scraps of faith I had in the existence of intelligent life in the universe.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
"(PHASR) laser"
/me is confused.
So now it's a Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radation?
Could somebody please explain to me how blinding the driver of a moving vehicle can be considered a "non-lethal weapon"?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
It's Less-Lethal, not Non-Lethal
There is truth in humor.
All this military spending in name of "national security"....meh I couldn't care less about national security. The harder it becomes to take over America, the harder it becomes for us to exercise our rights and overthrow our current form of government, should we see fit. I'd rather live my life and chance dying than be dead my whole life without a chance to live as a free man.
"...the US Government has unveiled a new weapon in their non-lethal arsenal."
There is no such thing as non-lethal weapon. What's non-lethal to you may be lethal to a person with a lesser tolerance to the stimuli, existing health condition and many other factors.
Non-lethal weapons do not exist.
why doesn't the geneva convention just ban all pain inducing weapons straight out? that right there would prevent lots of war.
No, it would just prevent Geneva conventions.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
how many non lethal devices does the government need in its arsenal?
Just one, but it has to work. Most of them don't.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Also, is it such a good idea to blind someone driving a moving vehicle. Couldn't that increase the potential for damage somewhat?
You have a constitutionally protected right to be wrong, and I the right to ignore you.
When they can control a protesting crowd by incapacitating everyone in it, they have another tool of control that won't bring the backlash of actually killing people. I'd almost prefer that their only option was a lethal one.
oh yeah, real smart. Anyone who drives through a road block is probably going fast. Mix that in with the fact that you're dealing with a multi ton object. Instant blindness to whomever is driving.. yeah good move If you don't understand that well enough here is another example: A person intent on causing harm is blinded.. he has a gun. Does he A: Sit there like a fool? or B: Spray as much ammo around as possible? Don't make me answer that for you
I fail to see how that's a problem for the US Dept. of Defense.
Senator McCain just led a passage of a bill that would expressly condemn torture and lifts language from the Geneva Conventions. Guess what the White House reaction has been... Cheney is now working hard behind the scenes to make sure that it dies when in the House or during committee, and Bush has vowed to veto any such bill. The official stance is that such language would "hinder the US's ability to defend itself."
Given recent news reports of the US using white phosphorus on civilians and napalm when taking Falluja, it's doubtful that Geneva conventions were even considered when this prototype was developed.
It's a good thing that America stands for freedom, democracy, and human rights, otherwise I'd be worried...
Blinding someone driving at high speed through a roadblock... oh yeah, that sounds non-lethal.
mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.
Looking at it that way the Geneva conventions would prohibit the use of flashbangs. I'm very confident the mutually agreed definition of "maiming weapons" among the signatories does not include temporary sensory depravation etc. and even more certain that most people would agree that non-lethal warfare is better than lethal warfare.
Continuing your thought one has to ask what weapon can't conceivably be used for maiming rather than killing? I know of no such weapon only which has such a "boolean value"-like use, not even weapons of mass destruction.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Or Mirrors..
If someone comes at you with one of these things, make sure you're wearing reflective clothing, or have a reflective vehicle.
Chances are the assailants with do as much blinding of themselves as you.
You're right. The US/NATO are one of the most consistently morally upright military forces during wartime; I have no argument with that. I'm also convinced that if say, China/Russia had invaded, we'd be seeing much more brutality and inhumane treatment stories.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that the US declares itself as a "City Upon a Hill," a force for freedom and democracy in the world - a perfectly noble and admirable goal, but one that invites criticism. A country that claims it fights for freedom, democracy, and human rights must hold itself up to the highest standard if it's to maintain moral authority in war. The reason America is criticized so harshly and is watched so closely is that few other countries in the world claim to invade other countries partially on the basis of bringing freedom and equality there. (Whether that was the original intent is irrelevant - the Administration has publicly shifted towards this new rationale). You cannot espouse the rule of law and human rights to other countries if you yourself fail to live up to that standard.
A leader cannot make excuses for immoral behavior, only rectify the mistakes and never let them occur again.
Americans still claim to be the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave", even after demonstrating to the entire world that they are neither.
Hilarious, disgusting and terrifying all at once.
The same reason chemical weapons were banned. Contrary to modern scare tactics, chemical weapons are notoriously *ineffective* killers. In WWI (which had the most widespread use of chemical weapons in human history), several tonnes of chemical munitions were produced for every fatality that they caused. What they do, however (in addition to breaking lines), is maim. Societies got back from that war a bunch of people who were damaged and broken. Chemical weapons were initially championed for the same reason US is pushing things like this blinding weaponry - they were supposed to be a more humane way of fighting wars, by making your foe no longer able to be an effective combattant (in fact, chlorine gas accomplished this often through blinding) while not being as likely to take their life. However, after seing people return from the war burned, blinded, etc - many decided that this wasn't more humane at all, and pushed for a ban.
Naturally, if a person is only temporarily blinded, it's not the same situation. However, there are ample reasons to doubt how "temporary" this will be. Even if they have a laser range finder that adjusts output power, reflection, eyewear, and even things like car windshields can greatly distort the intensity delivered - and even a pulse that causes "temporary blindness" is going to be awfully bad for the retina.
He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.
Once you realize you are looking at a "Psychological Operation" elements of this story like the needless futuristic styling in the posed photograph, the issue of the story to the press before it is decided how the thing will be aimed, and coupling the bogodevice to the very specific usage scenario for it, make more sense. Betcha $10 there's nothing inside that pretty Quake-style weapon casing.
Because what you really want to do to the speeding 3-ton SUV is blind the driver... yup, definitely makes things safer for everyone.
This is especially the case if the driver is a professional soccer mom, ferrying her manicured offspring to the local mall. Her sunglasses will shield her from the glare, and what filters through will only cause her already strained mind to finally snap. In her rage, she will plough over the road blocks and escaping marines in her three ton death mobile, hunched over the steering wheel, hands circling wildly screaming; "Won't Anyone Please Think Of The Children!! How Am I Supposed Get Them To Soccer Practice With All The Porno On TV, Violet Video Games, And Now US Soldier FLASHING Me On The Roads!! I Have A God Given Right To Do Whatever I Want In My Car!!!"
May the Maths Be with you!
This government doesn't have to justify anything.
We are signatories to the Geneva convention but The President approves the use of torture and his VP argues against 90 senators who say he is wrong.
We have a president who daily in 2000 swore an oath to have the most ethical administration in history but several in his inner circle now stand accused of TREASON, one is indicted for lying in this matter.
We have a president who claims to protect us against terrorists but cannot handle a storm that gives a full week of advanced warning.
The emporer wears no clothes.
Such an emporer, by Intelligent Design, justifies nothing.
I'd also say that one exposure to this laser would be all someone would get. After that, hia ass is sitting in a secret CIA prison for a good long while. Either that, or he's dead from crashing into a roadblock or from getting shot in the face "for good measure".
Funny how people argue that this weapon *may* damage the eyes, when the current alternative to the situations described (LOTS OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS) are pretty much guaranteed to kill.
The reasoning behind the article was photograhic evidence of burned civilians. I'm not saying civilians were not caught in the crossfire, because I really don't know, and neither do you. I am saying that civilians were not targeted by American soldiers. I'm also saying that the enemies we are fighting in Iraq make a habbit of intentionally targeting civilians, mainly because they are less armed than the military.
So, who do you think burned the civilians found after all action in Falluja? The US Military, who goes out of their way to avoid targeting civilians, or the terrorists (sorry, you probably call them "Freedom Fighters") who intentionally target markets, schools and mosques?
Is it possible to oppose the war and NOT want Saddam Hussein back in power?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
That's idiotic.
Go stand in front of a car sometime and try and figure out how you'd like to shoot the tires, especially if it was driving towards you at high speed. They're not exactly a huge target to begin with, plus they'd be turned end-on, and all but the very bottom is covered by the front fender in most vehicles. Now imagine trying to shoot them and only them, using a machine gun, probably mounted on another vehicle (putting it ~6' up in the air) so there's a downward angle, and you'll realize it's highly impractical. Furthermore, it would really suck to waste your last chance at stopping a car by shooting at its tires, only to realize the instant before whatever large amount of explosive that it's carrying detonates, that it had run-flats.
This whole "shoot the tires" idea is pure Hollywood. If you're putting bullets into a car, chances are the situation has already degraded past the point where non-lethal force is appropriate anyway. Most of the time if you're trying to stop a car, you don't even aim for the driver, you'd be aiming for the engine block, which is unfortunately mounted in front of the driver. Cracking the block pretty much guarantees a quick disable of the vehicle, and is conveniently located "center mass" so it's not difficult to hit.
Think about the real world practicality of your suggestions in the future. There's a reason soldiers aren't trained to aim for the tires when somebody is trying to ram a roadblock, and it's not because they get a sick thrill out of shooting people.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I mean, i can just as easily blind an enemy combatant by poking him in the eye with a stick as i can with an assault rifle.
Sure, but you can't use that stick from 300 meters away. And you can't use that stick on an entire platoon of guys popping out of a ditch, trying - right now - with lots of weapons, to kill you.
why doesn't the geneva convention just ban all pain inducing weapons straight out? that right there would prevent lots of war.
You're thinking largely about the past, here. The Geneva convention only applies (and then, loosely) to those that actually sign onto it, and substantially adhere to it. Remember those video tapes we found in Afghanistan, where the parts of some of the local training camps had been used to test nerve gas weapons on dogs and goats? The guys thinking of using that stuff, mostly on civilians in what we now think of as terrorist attacks, are not signees to the Geneva Convention(s). The "wars" we're facing (not counting some absurd lashing out by North Korea, or the Chinese deciding to gobble up Taiwan by force) will almost never again be between facing-off uniformed combatants. It's just not like that any more.
So, we can "ban" pain-related weapons all day long, but just like gun control for civilians, it only has meaning to those that adhere to the agreement - and since there always have been, and always will be people who don't give a rat's ass about such agreements/laws, the people that agree to them end up at a disadvantage.
That said, I don't find that a weapon which induces temporary pain (say, on someone who is about to hurl a molotov cocktail through some poor shopkeeper's window because he's mad at the world) is nearly as bad as the use of lethal or maiming force from conventional weapons. A headache that lasts an hour isn't nearly as bad as permanent damage to a limb or major organ. And if that's all that's needed to dispurse a bunch of Parisians burning public transportation vehicles, etc., then that's a far better alternative to slinging lead.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I hope they rotate frequencies on their lasers; otherwise the Borg will adapt and wear sunglasses to block that frequency.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
Call me cynical, but I think the prohibitions on chemical weapons have a lot more to do with countries that think themselves pretty good at 'conventional war' not wanting to allow anything in that changes the rules and might put them at a disadvantage. Consider the parties that came up with the Geneva Convention and what it prohibits: all of them are what could potentially be disruptive technologies. Chemical (and later, biological) weapons are not only ugly in an aesthetic/"honorable war" sense, but they could allow a country which lacks conventional military capabilities to compete with a major power. Thus the major powers have a vested interest in keeping them from being developed, especially if there is domestic pressure for them not to use them themselves.
It's clearer when you consider how biological and nerve weapons are treated versus nuclear ones. Both have the capability of being WMDs, but nuclear ones were more or less tolerated for a long time because they were perceived as difficult for less industrialized countries to build. As it's become less of a technical challenge to construct them, we've seen the major powers start beating the nonproliferation/disarmament drum -- and there was a period in the 80s with "Star Wars," when it looked like nuclear missles were going to be supplanted by an even newer and harder to build type of weapons system.
IMO, the prohibitions against chemical weapons were partly the last gasp of a 19th century idea of war as an honorable and manly activity, to which the concept of invisible, impersonal death by airborne chemicals was abhorrent; but mainly it was the superpowers who had the most to lose from a new and disruptive form of warfare trying to nip a new technology in the bud, and keep war focused on what they were proven to be good at.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
if you think through the probable results of introducing weapons like this into a place like Iraq, I think you'll find their value to be questionable
But not all conflicts are like Iraq. You've also got places like Somalia (remember the downed chopper there?) where you've got militant-armed local punks who deliberately stand in the middle of crowds of civilians knowing that our troops will resist shooting at them. Or picture, say, a French embassy that's being surrounded with the same sort of stuff that's happening in Paris right now. Or a rescue operation... where you don't want to have to kill people in a semi-hostile village setting, but you want them all to stand well back from where you're putting down an aircraft. If you limit your choices to "lethal force" and "no other option," you either have to be overrun or start killing people that you don't intend to kill.
Just because a stunning laser or skin heater won't help with an IED-placing foreign fighter hitting convoys in Irag doesn't mean the tool shouldn't be available to those troops who do have to deal with more typical rioters or embassy-throngers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's a bit naive. Some people seem think that non-leathal weapons will simply replace leathal weapons. But the truth is, the less leathal something is, the more likely it is to be used (and abused).
The real reason they used chemical weapons is because they maimed more than they killed. Kill a soldier, and all you need is two guys and a shovel to take care of him. But maim him, and you need food, medical care, medical supplies, and you'll continue to need them for quite some time. It's a nasty kind of logistical warfare, designed to cripple your enemies infrastructure.
It's the same sort of reason Anthrax is the bioweapon of choice...Not all that fatal, but the people who get infected with it require a lot of care. Ebola and other hemmoragic fevers, on the other hand, are back to the two guys and the shovel.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.