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.
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.
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...
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 [...]
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.
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.
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!
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 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
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.