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.

Comments

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't -all- weapons have the potential to maim or blind?

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.

why doesn't the geneva convention just ban all pain inducing weapons straight out? that right there would prevent lots of war.

Re:And the defence is...

[Technician]

It's a laser rifle, and it halts them with a bright flash ;-)

Stop by your local welding supply store and pick up an arc welders helment with the fast response LCD lens. If it's a green laser, pick up a pair of laser safety goggles from your industrial safety supply.

Sometimes not telling how it works is an advantage. You need to be a step ahead, not fill the public in on the details. Remember the riots of the 1960's. Many rioters came with gas masks. Teargas was just part of the scene.

Lets not tell them what to expect ahead of time, just like the cruise ship with the sonic defense. That was a suprise and as such it was effective. Now the cat's out of the bag. Next attack may come with motorcycle helments with proper hearing protection...

Why warn them ahead of time?

Sounds like things aren't going as planned

[core plexus]

FTA: "Neil Davison, another expert at Bradford University, says the situation in Iraq may encourage the US to push for the development of less-than-lethal laser weapons."

Innovation, or desperation?

Re:Sounds like things aren't going as planned

[Dun Malg]

Innovation, or desperation?

Desperation would imply that current methods are ineffective. As certain italian secret agents have discovered, the current method of "shoot first, and a lot" is quite effective. This is more of an innovation, as it gives reckless friendlies with no better escape plan than "drive towards the americans, at night, very fast" at least SOME chance of survival.

Re:Sounds like things aren't going as planned

[TapeCutter]

It it just me or does it seem like Iraq and Palestine territories are a testing ground for riot control and city "cleansing"?

Personaly I would like to see all violence removed from politics including the death penalty, ie: "the hippie dream", unfortunately violence is just part of our nature (ref: Clockwork Orange).

A good example of the need to quell civil unrest is the current rioting in France. OTOH: A good reason to limit the power to quell civil unrest is given by the French revolution. I can't see everyone simply accepting a non-violent talk fest anytime soon. What I can see, is that it makes little difference to people on the ground as to who's bomb it was that turned thier family into mincemeat.

Going back to France, the goverment needs to do two things. Assert authority, address the grievances. If it does the first and fails to do the second the whole thing will blow up in a more severe and organised manner at a later date.

ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[artifex2004]

They're most important for enemy combatants.

Have you seen this?
We're napalming civilians, now. But we didn't sign the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, so it's okay.

Re:How is that a problem for America?

[Wyatt Earp]

There was a good piece in the Atlantic I read last night about Torture and it's place in fighting terrorism.

The Dark Art Of Interrogation By Mark Bowden in the Oct 2003 Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden

It closes with the following, which I agree with.

"The Bush Administration has adopted exactly the right posture on the matter. Candor and consistency
are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is
rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly
practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it
generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international
agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods
work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone.
If interrogators step over the line from coercion to outright torture, they should be held personally
responsible. But no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be."

Re:over the top

[Anonymous Coward]

(Anonymous because my usual name is taken, dont feel like trying for now)

I have lived on military bases, and one thing they have not put in the news, is that if they get past the first barricade at the gate. They have another barricade just a bit farther in that is the road itself. It is a hydraulic lift that actually pushes the road up a good 3 to 4 feet. I have seen the test video's done on these and they can stop a Semi-Truck going around 30 miles an hour. That does not sound very fast, but the barricades at the front of the gates tend to be made ina swerve pattern, and it is impossible not to be slowed down by them (at my current base they are solid steel poles dug down a good 3 feet into the ground with concrete holding them in place. Anything that hits them and keeps going will be slowed down to a crawl. And then with the blindness and the road spring, it will actually make for a good defense as far as defences can go without getting extreme.

Better than white phosphorous at least

[Anonymous Coward]

heh at least it's better than using white phosphorous: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/ar ticle325560.ece
this stuff caramelizes the skin burning it off down to the bone and you thought Sadam was the bad guy. btw Mark 77 napalm... right yeah... and this couldn't be done with armed men why? I thought chemical weapons were the big bad of Sadam? for shame America... FOR SHAME.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the citizens are armed, the government can be overthrown.

Ok, then please tell us why your country had to "help" Iraq. They were (and probably still are) one of the most armed people in the world.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[mforbes]

When I was in the US Coast Guard's basic training, we were taught that we'd probably never have to draw our weapons (except against a paper target) in the duration of our career (much like cops, I guess). However, we were also told that if we ever did have to, several things would have to follow:

1. We'd have to shoot, since that's the only legitimate reason for elevating the level of violence to the point of pulling the gun the first place.
2. We'd empty every last round in the magazine at the target
3. When in court defending our actions, if asked why we shot (8, 15, however many) rounds at the target, we could reply "it was all I had".

I have since gained a friend who used to work in security for a nuclear power plant, who tells me that their training is different than what I received: they fire two shots for each target, one for the head & one for the chest, then move on to the next target. Then again, they're also trained to be much better shots than we were, since all we were going through was basic training.

Humane? Not in either case, since both roles have the objective of killing the person who is trying to kill you ("If someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back!"). Effective? Beats me, I never had to pull a weapon, and my friend (who no longer works security due to a minor disability brought on a few years ago) never did either. I never even had to use a threatening tone of voice in the line of duty, let alone escalate it from there.

Re:You're right

[Harry Coin]

Any violations of the Geneva convention (assuming guilty before convicted here of course as the media does) are jumped upon by our media and dealt with sternly by the military brass.

Except that the POTUS has declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the non-uniformed enemy combatants that we're currently fighting, and had the US Attorney General make a legal argument to bolster that position. Since there is no state signatory to the Geneva Convention backing the insurgency, he may be correct. I personally feel, having been in the military, that we should hold ourselves to the higher standard, regardless.