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

Can't blind on purpose

[ReformedExCon]

Geneva conventions bar the use of maiming weapons, and one that would blind the enemy combatant is right out.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[yamum]

Isn't the Geneva Convention only for war? Use within a country would bypass this rule, no?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Hard_Rock_2]

From TFA " But the device will require close scrutiny to ensure compliance with a United Nations protocol on blinding laser weapons." "Laser weapons capable of blinding enemies have been developed in the past but were banned under a 1995 UN convention called the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. The wording of this protocol, however, does not prohibit lasers that temporarily dazzle a foe."

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[drivekiller]

Not only that. Driving blind has a high probability of lethality.

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:Can't blind on purpose

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I'm just wondering how many times you can saftly "temporarily" blind someone with a laser.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Geneva conventions bar the use of maiming weapons, and one that would blind the enemy combatant is right out.

Since when has the US ever obeyed the Geneva convention?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SeaFox]

Good point.

So I guess the only use for a maiming laser device would be for maiming fellow Americans...

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Fallingcow]

Exactly.

That's why we can use tear gas to disperse rioters.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ozmanjusri]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[aaron_ds]

Just once. Don't look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ozmanjusri]

I'm just wondering how many times you can saftly "temporarily" blind someone with a laser.

Well, the fine print warning on the back of the rifle does say

"Do not stare at the rampaging laser rifle firing militia with your remaining good eye"

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[druschc01]

Boy, driving blind in the middle of a dessert... Or having 500 rounds of .50 cal tear through my car... Decisions, decisions....

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SupremeTaco]

Also, is it such a good idea to blind someone driving a moving vehicle. Couldn't that increase the potential for damage somewhat?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[donaldm]

I suppose we can call this the use of "non-lethal force", however this type of action opens the flood gates for litigation.

Some things the military/police have to consider when using force to incapacitate a person who is threatening you or a another persons life and cannot be calmed (try to define this??) down.

You cannot stab a person with a rusty bayonet, however a clean one is ok.

It is illegal to fire a 0.222 bullet with a cross tip (dum-dum) but there is no problem if you use a 50 cal machine gun.

The use of a tazer can kill a person with a heart issue, but its ok to fire bullets at him.

Now the latest. If you blind a person with your laser weapon you will most likely face litigation, so you better make sure the selection switch is changed from "stun/blind" to "crispy".

I am sure most people can add to this.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Flendon]

We do unless our opponents stop following it first.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ksheff]

I think I read somewhere that 50 cal machine guns aren't supposed to be used directly against ground troops, but you can use it against vehicles. But 50 cal sniper rifles are OK. Who comes up with this???

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[BrokenStructure]

it only temporarily blinds them... I'm pretty sure maiming necessitates permanent damage.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Wyatt Earp]

I think thats an urban legend as you can see tons of references to the use of .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns used against infantry from Vietnam on with large caliber guns being used all the time in urban combat in fights like Fallujah now.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[AnonymousBystander]

I don't get it, why would 'Blinding Laser Weapons' be banned? There are tons of more dangerous weapons out there.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Blaaguuu]

meh... a lot of good the Geneva Conventions do... according to them you cant shoot a 50 cal. weapon at a human target... but equipment is fine, so go ahead and shoot at their weapon, ammo, belt, shirt, etc... if the person also happens to get hit, oh well.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Valcoramizer]

I don't see the logic in blinding somebody while they are driving. I assume there will be med. teams standing by next to these or something.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ReformedExCon]

I must have been absent the day they taught us that shining lasers into our eyes was safe.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Rei]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Young Master Ploppy]

Geneva conventions bar the use of maiming weapons, and one that would blind the enemy combatant is right out.

OK, lemme see if I've got this straight:

• firing high-speed lumps of metal into or through someones body is fine,
• blowing them into lots of tiny fleshy pieces is OK
• setting them on fire is no problem......
• using a large knife to hack them to pieces is OK

but none of those are "intentionally maiming" ?

*sigh* sometimes you have to wonder where and how the line gets drawn...

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[zootm]

I believe the implication is that it's better than shooting them.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[packeteer]

Imagine if the rules of war said it was ok to use maiming and blinding weapons. The air would be filled with gas designed to ruins a persons breathing. The sky would be full of lasers to blind people. Biological weapon containing bombs would be dropped on military bases non-stop... AND all the same shooting and bombing would go on. The difference is that having more maiming weapons wont lead to less bullets and bombs. It just adds another edge to combat to make it deadlier for both sides without actually making any side better off against their opponent. This is why most countries follow the Geneva convention. The winners dont want to all be one legged and blind when they declare "victory".

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Mad_Rain]

The wording of this protocol, however, does not prohibit lasers that temporarily dazzle a foe.

That word, "dazzle"... damn, could they have picked a better word?

"Dude, so there I was, driving home the bar, had a few drinks, and I'm driving up to a sobriety checkpoint, when suddenly WHAM! it was like a Pink Floyd show went off in my head! I just hit the brakes, and turned up 'Comfortably Numb' on the CD player...it was dazzling"

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Jesus_666]

Probably the most famous person who was blinded by a chemical weapon in WWI was Adolf Hitler. Might have contributed to his nastiness...

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Jesus_666]

Argh, I forgot a word... He was temporarily blinded.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ForemastJack]

Good point; to avoid increasing the potential for damage, let's stick to the current procedure of shooting the driver.

I kid! I kid because I love!

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

I understand the desire for less maimed or crippled soldiers coming back from war... but how did they address the argument that by banning certain types of non-lethal (but crippling) weapons, instead of Jimmy coming home from the War without a leg and blind in one eye and with a permanent cough, he just wouldn't come home at all? Which would you prefer?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[cbiltcliffe]

So shoot the @#$%ing tires!! Unless that's where Al-Qaida is hiding their explosives, now.....

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[mrmeval]

Green lasers can temporarily blind like red ones. Because they can be more effective at lower power they are less likely to do permanent damage. You can use a hologram to spread a high power beam out, I would assume some sort of range finder (laser? :) ) could be used to reduce power from the laser to the suspect to the proper range.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[idonthack]

Modify what you said, and then you've got what they're doing now.

Also, is it such a good idea to [blow someone's head off while they're] driving a moving vehicle. Couldn't that increase the potential for damage somewhat?

At least when they're blind they can hit the breaks (maybe even steer to the side of the road), and there's less risk of killing someone else in the car (think of the children! ;)) when you miss.
---
"I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with the release of MS-DOS." -- Larry DeLuca
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

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:Can't blind on purpose

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Kadin2048]

I think they mean permanent blindness, this was obviously referring to temporary blindness.

CN/CS tear gas "blinds" you for a certain amount of time, by making your eyes sting and water, but isn't prohibited for riot control. I think it's one of those "lesser evil" things, especially when you consider that the alternative (being shot) does carry a risk of permanent blindness, secondary to death.

Also, at least last time I checked, the U.S. wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Convention, it just voluntarily follows it. If there was a big enough difference of opinion as to whether a certain weapon was allowed, and the U.S. military thought it would be useful to its troops and save friendly lives, there's not much to hold them to it. It's not like the U.S.'s current enemies are going to abide by it anyway, so it's more a feel-good, moral-high-ground policy than anything.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[baptiste]

A 1995 UN Convention bans the sale of devices which have as one of their purposes, the intent to blind people. See http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm So the whole war vs peace thing isn't really relevant. However, that convention seems easy to get around - if blinding someone is a SIDE effect - it seems like it would be allowed:

Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.

I just happened to be finishing up an excellent, if a little dated, book on Laser Weapons called 'Laser Weapons - The Dawn of a New Military Age' Its out of print, but if you can find it, I highly recommend it. Co-authored by a military Major General and a Biomedical Engineering professor specializing in eye injuries, etc.

One thing that is NOT in TFA, is this key fact about Low Energy Laser weapons:

It is not possible to only flash blind a person with a laser for a sufficient time in broad daylight without simultaneously causing permanent changes to his eyes. Temproary flash blinding by a laser is only possible when eyes are more or less adapted to darkness.

The key point here is that a laser weapon like this will only be 'safe' on the targets at night. During the day it won't work.

If you really want to poke around and see whats out there, both experimental and deployed, try some of these searches (and since most stuff related to laser weapons is still highly classified, take what you read with a grain of salt):

• HELEX
• LDS - Laser Dazzle Sight
• C-CLAW/RoadRunner
• StingRay
• Cameo Bluejay
• Coronet Prince
• DAZER
• COBRA

These are programs primarily from the late 1980's and 1990's, but it gives you an idea what they were looking at back then and some may still be in R&D today. Systems like Stingray and LDS were deployed at some point or came very close to it.

One thing most people don't realize is that High Energy Laser weapons (HEL) like proposed for SDI, etc, are VERY difficult to deploy and run into serious problems with atmospheric distortion and interference (lookup Laser Thermal Blooming on Google - its a neat effect) But Low Energy Laser (LEL) weapons can easily blind soldiers, destroy optics, and destory sensitive sensors on vehicles, aircraft, and missles, and aren't as severely impacted by the environment like HEL weapons are. Plus they are CHEAP to build and the technology is widely available - thus the weapons aren't limited to the G-8. If you think terrorists haven't considered using LELs you're kidding yourself. They may not have the dramatic effect - but imagine the psychological impact on a society (think DC Sniper) if numerous people started going blind just walking down the street. Why do you think the FAA freaked out so badly when people pointed handheld laser pointers at landing aircraft. I have a Class IIIa laser on my desk I bought for $50 - how hard would it

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[sco08y]

CN/CS tear gas "blinds" you for a certain amount of time, by making your eyes sting and water, but isn't prohibited for riot control.

The effect of CS gas is 99% psychological. The disorientation, the difficulty breathing (feels like you're drowning) and the burning in your eyes (you can still see just fine, though) and exposed skin fire up your flight instincts. Everyone is different in how they react to it. (I don't know about CN gas, from what I understand it's somewhat more dangerous.)


Also, at least last time I checked, the U.S. wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Convention, it just voluntarily follows it.

No, we're a signatory to it. We aren't a signatory to certain extensions to the Geneva Convention.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[drivekiller]

I don't know. Instant violent death might be preferable to being tortured in an american secret jail after being blinded and captured. I hope I don't ever have to experience either extreme. Seems to me that any device that is designed to inflict pain but not actually kill has great potential for habitual use in "controlled" circumstances. Call me cynical, I don't care.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[budgenator]

I'm sure the Idea is to put up a sign the says "Slow, military check point ahead" then a 100 m or so put up some speed bumps, then 50m or so place a chicane, then another 50m another chicane; that way anybody trying to blow through is definately up to something, so zap them with a litttle stand-off range. Usualy your more interested in the vehicles that try to evade the checkpoint all to gether.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[dlt074]

"LOTS OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS"

good point. i almost wonder if those trying to run a check point would choose the ones with these over the ones with AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. we may be setting ourselves up for more attempts(at running check points), and with that, more chances of people getting killed in the fog of war.

here's a thought. the only safe way to avoid possible eye damage, and the bullets that are almost sure to follow. DON'T RUN CHECK POINTS AND ROAD BLOCKS!

for those that are still confused the Geneva Convention does not apply to non military personnel. think of it as a reward to armies that play well with each other(with in the rules of war).

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Farfromlosin]

Have you checked since 1882?

from wikipedia

Clara Barton was instrumental in campaigning for the ratification of the First Geneva Convention by the United States; the U.S. signed in 1882.

Or do you have some other souce that disputes that?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Kadin2048]

That's fairly consistent with a civilian course I took on the use of lethal force in self-defense. In short, people who have actually analyzed self-defense shooting incidents have shown that you're better off killing the other person than wounding them, in terms of the legal aftermath.

It's not hard to believe though, since a dead criminal is just another statistic, while a live one is a "victim" that some scumbag lawyer can put up in front of a jury and use to wring a settlement out of you, especially if you hit them in the spine and caused any sort of permanent damage.

From a public relations standpoint, it's usually better to create bodies than it is to create cripples. The exception to this might be if creating a body also involves creating a marytr.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[mOdQuArK!]

imagine the psychological impact on a society (think DC Sniper) if numerous people started going blind just walking down the street.

All pedestrians would probably end up wearing welding goggles...

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[onepoint]

>>how hard would it be for a terrorist to get a Class IIIb or Class IV laser capable of causing eye or skin damage

Here you go, took me about 1 minute to find it, just requires some basic paperwork and you could have it on your desk in about 1 month or less. Yep it's class - IV

http://amazing1.com/burning-lasers.htm

Onepoint

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[dindi]

What about flashbang grenades? Be close enough and you get eye damage.
Special forces, Swat teams, maybe even the police is using them.

I do not mean it as flamebait, so do not comment on this part, but
recent events suggest that the US military (or at least part of their personnel) seems to take a nice steaming dump on international laws when it comes to the handling of POWs.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Kadin2048]

I stand corrected, I was confusing the Geneva Convention with the Hague Convention of 1898, which we were not a signatory to (although we were signatories to later versions of it).

However I stand by my point about temporary versus permanent blindness, prohibiting the latter of which was obviously the intent of the rule.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[poot_rootbeer]

Also, is it such a good idea to blind someone driving a moving vehicle. Couldn't that increase the potential for damage somewhat?

Given that someone who intentionally tries to drive through a roadblock probably intends to use their vehicle as a weapon anyway, I fail to see any point to using non-lethal force against them.

Innoceent people accidentally driving through checkpoints and being met with lethal force, as has sadly happened more than once during the Iraq occupation, is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don't think blinding the driver is a good solution.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[mOdQuArK!]

none of those are "intentionally maiming"

Those situations you have described are "intentional killing", not intentional maiming. That's the line the Geneva Conventions are trying to draw. If those tactics are unsuccessful at killing, then yes, usually maiming will result, but the goal is supposed to be a complete kill.

I believe that one of the goals of the Geneva Convention was to try and discourage the use of tactics which would cause huge numbers of disabled, who would end up being a major economic burden on any society (winners and losers) trying to rebuild after a war.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[hey!]

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

Well, I think the ban is a good idea, at least from a selfish US point of view.

I think that we've abundantly demonstrated that we don't need these things to fight and win a conventional war. What we don't have the chops for is counter-insurgency. And as attractive as the prospect of a technological quick fix is, 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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[budgenator]

Even with non-persistant nerve gases like tabun, soman and sarin it is difficult to maintain an ID50 (incapacitating Dose for 50%) concentration in the open air LD50 is almost impossible; the relative lack of fatalites in the Tokyo subways show that even in ideal conditions chemical weapons are ineffective except as a psycological weapon. Persistant Agents like mustard, nitrogen mustard and VX are arguably good for terrain denial, but considering that your makeing your country an international pariah, the cost of other equaly effective terrain denial devices, chemical weapons still aren't really appropriate. The initial use of chemical weapons is generaly for genocidial purposes, rather than military. Recently, initial use has a tendency to get you and your country placed on the short-list, just ask Saddam about it.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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).

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Oh come on! Do you really think use of this weapon will be limited to just those situations? That ain't the way it has ever worked, lethal or "non-lethal." What you can count on is that sooner or later, this weapon will be used in a situation where not using it would have been the better option. Since it is perceived as "non-lethal" it makes it that much easier for someone to justify using it, even when the consequences of that use turn out to be far worse.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[hey!]

Yeah, I understand. I'm not saying that they wouldn't be useful in some situations. While I'm skeptical of their usefulness in some of the scenarios you mention, I'd be willing to concede those points. Even so, we should think through any adoption of such weapons very, very thoroughly.

A few reasons I can think of not to be carelessly optimistic about this kind of technology.

* Non-lethal weapons often aren't reliably so (Victoria Snelgrove).
* Non-lethal weapons can cause fatalities (e.g. vehicle crashes, mob crushing) and the local court of opinion isn't going to be making any fine distinctions.
* Putting a non-lethal weapon into the hands of a solider who is trained to be an efficient killing machine doesn't convert that soldier into a policeman.
* Using these weapons in the wrong situation can have strategic and political effects that result in more danger and deaths.
* Political decision makers have a poor track record of understanding the kind of caveats listed above.

For now, I think that despite their obvious usefulness in certain restricted circumstances, the negatives outweigh the positives. And I wouldn't entirely discount the symbolic impact of the deployment and use of these weapons, particularly the careless deployment and use. No one factor should decide this, but the overall impact on US security and the security of US personnel.

I'd be all for them if a well thought out doctrine on their use was adopted first.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[clem9796]

It's funny we mention the whole being blinded thing because if, for example, you used it to defend against someone penetrating a road block i think blindness would be last on their list of things to worry about considering they'd be dead from a barrage of gun fire immediately following a laser to the eyes anyway.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Kadin2048]

Yeah, that's clearly not true.

You can use a 105mm howitzer against ground troops if you want (although I'm not sure the ammunition is manufactured or in service anymore, it was called the "Beehive round" and was a flechette device), it's just not really practical in a lot of instances.

The only reason I can think of to not use a .50 BMG against personnel is that 1) it's expensive, and just not necessary to use against another person, and 2) it has the potential to overpenetrate and cause unintentional civilian casualties.

There's no reason why you couldn't use it, I think it's more that soldiers are discouraged from swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, you might say.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Politburo]

Oh that's bullshit. We've all seen Scent of a Woman.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Mahou]

why the hell would we "bow" to the UN? there not supposed to be the kind of organization that wants anyone to "bow" to them. has the rest of the world really become just 'states' in the 'nation' of the UN or something? do you ask the UN if you can wipe your ass after you take a crap?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Artifakt]

Hitler had a bout of temporary blindness during duty in WW1. Later, on hearing news about the armistice and just what Germany had to accede to in the peace treaty, he had a second episode, lasting by some accounts only a little over 24 hours, by others possibly two days to two weeks. This second episode definitely sounds psycological or "histerical", whether there was any component of that in the first one or not.
There's even a theory that hypnosis possibly used in treating Hitler for this condition may have encouraged some sort of messianic complex and led to his latter activities in politics:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/hitlernuz.htm

(I offer this for whatever its worth. The site has several obvious philosophical or religious axes to grind, and as the text points out, the Gestapo possibly destroyed a lot of records that might help confirm or refute the hypothesis (so it's conveniently untestable, and very handy for anyone who wants to interpret it according to their own bias). Still it's an interesting idea).

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[sukotto]

The US government defines the people they are currently fighting as unlawful combatants and therefore the Geneva conventions do not apply and they can do whatever the hell they want.

I doubt it matters very much to them if they maim you before or after they disappear you. (Except that a reporter might witness it when it happens "before")

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[robertjw]

The wording of this protocol, however, does not prohibit lasers that temporarily dazzle a foe.

So what are they going to do? Use it to broadcast holograms of Jessica Simpson naked?

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[FurryFeet]

I just wanted to salute a fellow browncoat. Nice way to slip a reference in there :)

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Jorkapp]

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[winwar]

"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."

The problem with biological weapons is that they tend to come back at you. Banning them is more of a sanity measure-hopefully common sense will prevail before they are used. Not to mention they aren't terribly useful on combatants, at least in the short run.

Now if you are a terrorist.....

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

How about basic logic? You are capable of thinking for yourself, right?

There may be no formal studies, but I dare you to go out and ask any psychologist and see if they think that I'm right.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[ksheff]

I dug around a bit and you're correct. It's a myth that many people keep repeating so they can claim we're committing war crimes every time a .50 cal is fired. The source of it seems to vary from as far back as WWII up to the Carter Admin. I guess the myth survives due to the peacenik rants and the "if it sounds so stupid, it's probably not true, unless a govt agency is involved" attitude. Thanks.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

That's a fair point. You could also argue that this won't even replace lethal weapons, just complement them -- so not only will the target be temporarily blinded, it'll be harder for them to fight back or dodge when they're being shot at. In the "road checkpoint vs. suicide car-bomb" scenario, the end result using the PHASR would most likely be the same (dead driver) with less risk to the defending troops. In the end, who cares if you're (temporarily) blind if you're dead? Sure, any technological discovery can be abused. Does that mean we should stop researching better ways to incapacitate criminals or enemies instead of just killing them? Is tear gas used by riot police a safer technology than billy clubs? Tasers & rubber bullets vs. handguns & tackling to arrest someone who's waving a knife or gun around? The police offers that I personally know tell me they prefer to at least have the *option* to use a non-lethal device like a taser, rather than putting themselves, bystanders, and the suspect's lives in danger by firing their own gun, or using hand-to-hand combat. I think it just comes down to whether you believe that the majority of soldiers or police using a technology will use it for its intended purpose and won't abuse it just because it's non-lethal. I can tell you that there's still plenty of reports that a police offer needs to file to justify using a taser in a situation, compared to firing his handgun. And if you believe that people or those institutions have a natural tendancy towards abuse of power, well then I'd still rather have them armed with non-lethal weapons.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

How about this: You prove me wrong.

It's not that I can't write several paragraphs to explain why I'm right, it's just that I can't be bothered trying to explain my reasoning when it's obvious that most people have understood the small point I made.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Does that mean we should stop researching better ways to incapacitate criminals or enemies...

No. I'm just saying they shouldn't lie about the effects. I think this is a good thing. But if they give the impression that it's very safe, when it's not, then people who use it might get carried away because they think it's safer than it really is. That's all.

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[InterestingX]

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.

If those are their tactics, why waste the pinpoint accuracy of a laser on a non-lethal implementation?

If they have that much concern for their own civilians, the only choice for them should be "Original Recipe" or "Extra Crispy"

Re:Can't blind on purpose

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

How about this: You prove me wrong.

It's not that I can't write several paragraphs to explain why I'm right, it's just that I can't be bothered trying to explain my reasoning when it's obvious that most people have understood the small point I made.

There is such thing as basic logic unless you don't believe in science.

Is it just me..

[Daxster]

Or haven't they already told us how it works? It's a laser rifle, and it halts them with a bright flash ;-)
"Ow my eyes".

Re:Is it just me..

[Browncoat]

A low-cost solution would just be to mount a Maglite onto a rifle.

Re:Is it just me..

[hahiss]

The real question is why they need to spend all this money on lasers for this. Can't they go to the drug store and buy a whole bunch of disposable cameras with flashes and achieve the same effect?

Re:Is it just me..

[pnuema]

THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!

But will it be able to defend against...

[FF8Jake]

sharks with frickin lasers on their heads?

Re:But will it be able to defend against...

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Re:But will it be able to defend against...

[utexaspunk]

So THAT's why gangsters like lots of bling!

Re:But will it be able to defend against...

[mikael]

Especially, a whole load of "blind spot mirrors" around the windscreen. Or a "mini disco-ball" car ornament hanging from the roof.

Re:But will it be able to defend against...

[Chris Burke]

BLING - Bitch, Lasers Is Nothin to Gangstas

Re:But will it be able to defend against...

[Zemran]

I prefer the part about using against people that drive through road blocks....

Suspect drives fast through road block so you jump out in front of him to fire this into his face (I cannot see how it would work if fired from behind)... He cannot see to avoid you so even if he did care about your life so you are now roadkill...

Very good use that...

is it just me?

[zappepcs]

or does that PHASr look like it came directly from the set of Farscape?

So this is why Homeland Security is so worried about people blinding pilots?

Re:is it just me?

[Browncoat]

It really does look like a Peacekeeper rifle. Wow. At least it's not the rifle that looks like a potato cannon.

The bright side: at least it doesn't look like a remote control like the phasers on Star Trek did.

Re:is it just me?

[sTalking_Goat]

Now we really know why Farscape got cancelled.

They knew too much...

The next-gen infantry weapon will of course be built into large swords...

Nice acronym

[Guysmiley777]

I love acronyms that are stretched to fit a word. "Stimulation response"? It sounds like they're tickling a target's balls or something.

Re:Nice acronym

[cryptoz]

That's not an acronym. It's a backronym.

Re:Nice acronym

[putko]

Is it just me, or are "backronyms" a sign that the marketroids are running the show.

I hate them. They turn my stomach. They just make the people who push that crap sound idiotic.

And in this case, they are missing the 'e' in "phaser". So they are backronym creators who can't even spell.

Re:Nice acronym

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

And it works out nicely, too, since the weapon does make you go blind.

/ducks

Re:Nice acronym

[brunes69]

It is highly likely that the acronymn was specifically made to copy the one used in Star Trek.

Star Trek fueld the minds of many young scientists and is the inspiration behind ideas like the cell phone (especially the flip phone!), the PET scan, the PDA (PADD), etc.

And if you want some real fun, get yourself a real life tricorder.

Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblock

[Jim_Callahan]

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.

Re:Star trek paving the way yet again

[oztiks]

I mean BFG, Bio Force Gun .. (late afternoon for poor old me)

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?

nitpicking

[cryptoz]

"(PHASR) laser"

So now it's a Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radation?

/me is confused.

Re:nitpicking

[Kiffer]

Yeah?
well now it's a Laser-Laser-Dazer-Maser-Phaser-Raser-Shmaser Bobaser-Bananafanafofaser!

um just hope no one has the "Trap! Antimatter" card

Blinding the driver

[lorcha]

Could somebody please explain to me how blinding the driver of a moving vehicle can be considered a "non-lethal weapon"?

Re:Blinding the driver

[daraf]

Sure. Situation 1: Driver runs initial checkpoint. Checkpoint team attempts to fill car with bullets before car closes to effective suicide blast range. Situation 2: Driver runs initial checkpoint. Checkpoint team blinds driver. Driver is unable to navigate serpentine blast barriers and crashes. The (notional) probability of somebody dying in situation 2 is less than in situation 1.

Re:Blinding the driver

[DNS-and-BIND]

Could somebody please explain to me how you seem to be overly concerned with the welfare of a suicide bomber trying to run past an obstacle in order to explode in front of the hotel/HQ/school/legislature?

Re:Blinding the driver

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

So you agree that it's at best less-lethal, not non-lethal...

Laser guns from the future don't kill people, people using laser guns from the future to blind a driver so he crashes kill people!

Re:Blinding the driver

[mfrank]

Uh, pretty much anything that's going to incapacitate someone driving a vehicle is "less-lethal".

Re:Blinding the driver

[Ahaldra]

Weapons coined non-lethal are weapons that kill only 25% of the targeted victims.
There are countless videos on the net depicting non-lethal going wrong, but the whole point is that these weapons are only not lethal. (my favourite beeing the professional instructor from the taser manufacturer beeing hit by the taser, missing the matress and crushing his skull - talk about karma. You see one still can cripple someone for life with such a weapon.)
In your scenario only 3 out of 4 suv-drivers have to survive, injuries are not counted. Given the sheer mass of the vehicle my guess is this would be considered non-lethal, since surviving the crash is quite possible for the driver. (s/he may be blind and forced into a wheelchair but not dead)
For a more thorough read I highly recommend this article on non-lethal weapons.

PS: If you blind someone with a laser you always deal permanent damage, the question is only how much. and no, most sunglasses won't protect you.

Remember folks.

[hobotron]

It's Less-Lethal, not Non-Lethal

Re:Remember folks.

[Sycraft-fu]

Hard to find anything that's totally non-lethal if you get down to it. A pillow is lethal, if operated in a certian way.

I think the cutoff is mainly the design of the weapon.

A gun is designed to kill and thus a lethal weapon. It's not guarenteed to kill, of course, if you miss your target, or hit them in an extremity or an area they are wearing enough armour it won't work. However it is very often lethal and really, that's it's function, at least when fired at a person.

A taser is designed to incapacitate you and thus a non-lethal weapon. In all likelyhood, you'll be fine after a tasering. Plenty of people are tasered each year, in training as well as the field, and maybe one or two die. Generally it's also a case where it's not clear the taser was at fault. Like guy high on multiple drugs has heart attack. Well sure, maybe the taser did contribute, but I think the "lots of drugs" was a major factor too.

I guess you can play the semantics game if you like but, generally speaking, when you operate a non-lethal weapon correcly and as intented, nobody dies. When you operate a lethal weapon correctly and as intended, your target dies. PLaying the name-game doesn't really change anything.

Re:Remember folks.

[Threni]

> PLaying the name-game doesn't really change anything.

It changes people's perceptions of something as being `non-lethal` as in `doesn't kill` to `less-lethal` meaning `does kill (sometimes)`. It's a pretty important distinction to me.

Re:Remember folks.

[swillden]

generally speaking, when you operate a non-lethal weapon correcly and as intented, nobody dies. When you operate a lethal weapon correctly and as intended, your target dies.

Wrong.

You should write: When you operate a non-lethal weapon correctly and as intended usually nobody dies. When you operate a lethal weapon correctly and as intended, your target usually dies.

It's important to remember when applying violent force, that even if you do everything right, things can go wrong.

I agree that "less-lethal" is a better term than "non-lethal", although it may tend to bias the discussion the other way. Perhaps "rarely-lethal" or even "generally non-lethal" would be better. Whatever, it's important not to allow language to convince you that "non-lethal" weapons can be used indiscriminately.

Re:Remember folks.

[falcon5768]

not really when you consider the likelyhood of death is like 1 in hundreds of thousands. Problem is the one death is picked up by the media out to make a story and gets a lot more focus than it ever should be.

People die drinking a glass of water, but you dont readily consider water a lethal substance? Same as I wouldnt really consider excersizing lethal, but more people die from that than all the "non-lethal" weapons combined.

Re:Remember folks.

[glesga_kiss]

I think the cutoff is mainly the design of the weapon.

The cut-off is the marketing of the weapon. "non-lethal" is the arms industries equivalent of "leveraging synergy-driven for change in tomorrows world". Whatever sells more units. Market research indicates that some people aren't a huge fan of killing.

I guess you can play the semantics game if you like but, generally speaking, when you operate a non-lethal weapon correcly and as intented, nobody dies.

The only ones playing word games are the "non-lethal" camp. Pointing out this is not playing semantics, it's stating a fact. They are the ones using double-speak, not us.

Re:Remember folks.

[Moofie]

You gotta be careful with dihydrogen monoxide...that stuff's DANGEROUS!

Harder to revolt

[electrosoccertux]

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.

Re:Harder to revolt

[grogdamighty]

Tyranny of the people is not an effective form of government. Neither is a government effective when its chief goal is to be easily dismantled rather than being effective at serving its constituents.

Personally, I am glad that non-lethal countermeasures are being explored: it means less likelihood of international disputes (people are more willing to forgive you temporarily incapacitating rather than slaughtering the enemy in a skirmish) and greater likelihood that people will be able to live safer lives domestically. Not only will we be protected from criminals, but it is far better to have this available at a protest than to kill protestors. Yes, there's still the matter of allowing people their right to demonstrate, but that is far easier to work out when people aren't dying.

For an example of the alternative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Re:Harder to revolt

[electrosoccertux]

I believe my fear is that this will take away some of the reasons why public protesting has not been regulated most of the time...simply because the only real method of regulating it involved causing direct harm to someone. When there is no harm caused, but only discomfort, then there will much less reason to not regulate...hence it could become more difficult to protest without some form of governmental regulation. If we fuss and say they made is go come cause we all were blinded for 20 minutes, everyone else can say "Meh, you're not harmed, I don't care about what you're protesting about, so I'm not going to bother that your rights were infringed."

I'm thinking that when there are fewer repercussions for "regulating" then the government will get used to doing it, and then those harmless regulations will ever so slowly turn into more harmful ones.

Re:Harder to revolt

[ksheff]

so which would you rather have? temporary blindness caused by this or blasted by high pressure liquid manure?

Re:Harder to revolt

[Wyatt Earp]

You think that in a Nation-State with 200-300 million firearms in private ownership that if a movement rose up with enough support that the government couldn't be overthrown?

From causal conversations on the subject, I'd expect 33-45% of the soldiers and 50-75% of local law enforcement would stand on the side of the Citizens if it came down to an overthrowing the government situation.

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

Re:Harder to revolt

[kassemi]

I went on a tour of the local AFRL center (ABQ Kirtland) here about seven years ago and they demonstrated this technology. It's been in development long before everybody started complaining (rightfully, in my opinion), about the government's national security expenditure. Come to think of it, during the demonstration, they mentioned that the technology had already been in use during the Bosnia conflict (before Bush). Anybody have any further information on that one?

Aside from that, I'd like to see a revolution when the government possesses the technology that changed the world nearly 50 years ago. Scratch that as something I'd like to see.

Personally, I'll take a shot from this less than lethal device long before I willingly sit myself down on the outskirts of a nuclear detonation :)

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:Harder to revolt

[meadowsp]

So how bad does it have to get before you do it then? Where do you draw the line?

Re:Harder to revolt

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Ever since this war started, I've been hoping that once the Iraqi people were rescued from their tyranical dictator, and were enjoying freedom, they would come to the US and return the favor.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Boronx]

When the local gunnuts go around saying "If there's another terrorist attack, any towelheads within range better run for cover", makes me think ideas like yours are just pure fantasy.

Re:Harder to revolt

[hcob$]

Ehm... "overthrow"?? No no no no no no.... The idea behind the constitutuion was peaceful transferr of power. If the populace wants a new form of government, get all your senators and congressmen elected. Elect the proper president, then tell them to draft a new constitution. Overthrowing the US is something a pathetic loser does because he doesn't have the support of the US Citizenship to change our government peacibly.

Re:Harder to revolt

[swillden]

So how bad does it have to get before you do it then? Where do you draw the line?

Everyone has to draw their own line. For some people, even the government originally established by the constitution is over the line. For others, the line comes somewhere around the point where the government is taking their children to death camps. Most people are somewhere in between.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Moofie]

Have you actually heard somebody say that, to you?

Re:Harder to revolt

[Neoprofin]

The "right" to overthrow the government is not a constitutional right, a legal right, or any kind of recognized right for that matter. Trying to overthrow the governemnt or helping others do it is clearly defined in the constituation however as "treason". The Declaration of Independence states that you have the right to "alter or abolish" a government if it works against the interest of the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" but only for the purpose of instituting a better government more able to meeet the needs of the people.

Point being, no where in here does it suggest an armed overthrow of the governemnt. It says that if things aren't working out, change them. I don't think that the framers of the constituation had forgotten about that, and that's why they put into place a lovely system for changing the governance of our nation, as well as putting a specific line against doing it by force.

As a sibling poster said, change in America is about politics, not about war in the streets.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Neoprofin]

Overthrowing an opressive military dictatorship bent on maintianing it's stranglehold on power at all costs is a little harder than overthrowing a more generrally coroupt governemnt. Somehow I think America would tend to be the latter if it ever came down to it.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Boronx]

Yes. These are generally nice guys and I'm sure it's mostly talk, but it does indicate that should scenarios like you suggest come to pass, their heads will be so far up their asses they'll be worse than useless.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Moofie]

I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest any scenarios...

Anyhow. I'm guessing "all talk" would be a good assumption until things get substantially worse.

Which is entirely possible...

Re:Harder to revolt

[Boronx]

I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest any scenarios...

By "you", I of course mean the royal you that includes the Grandposter. The rumor that I was too lazy to check the names is nothing but a scurilous lie.

Re:Harder to revolt

[Moofie]

We shall accept your tribute in the form of large caliber firearms and expensive A/V equipment. We are pleased with your fealty.

Re:Harder to revolt

[aug24]

"It is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees."

Justin.

Re:Harder to revolt

[k8er]

Some things are important enough to die for. Poeple take notice when death or serious injury occur. Sometimes a cause can't be furthered until a statement is made that the cause is important enough to fight and even die for. It's just a sad fact of life. We wouldn't still talk about Kent State if all of the students had been temporarily blinded. Not only would people take less notice, but they would tend to side with the government, which puts down unrest without doing harm. The protesters would be shown in a bad light for being in a state of unrest.

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

[dogolopee]

It seems more like a responce to public pressure to not kill the enemy. If we would just let our troops do their job and use lethal force at their discretion (rather than the discretion of the media/public) maybe they would have been back by now. War is a bloody, violent, horrible thing. There is no honor is war, and when you attempt to interject civility into blood shed you simply shed more of your own blood. Perhaps all the people who don't have years of political experience, military experience, experience with world cultures, and access to all the data (including classified info) on the war should be quiet and let the experts do their job without uninformed, non-constructive critisism. You would think people in the tech fields would understand how difficult it is to do a job while being criticised by those who know little to nothing of your job (but often seem to think they know what is best).

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.

Re:Sounds like things aren't going as planned

[TapeCutter]

"As certain italian secret agents have discovered...reckless friendlies with no better escape plan..."

I see the point of the post and it is a god one but we will never know what happened until it no longer matters (30-50yrs). A complete fuck-up on both sides is no story, so like you, I have my own favorite theory. It links the headlines "Italy forged oil-for-food documents" to "Italy's top spook killed by friendly fire". Who needs fiction when you have the six-o-clock news.

Re:Sounds like things aren't going as planned

[Dun Malg]

...like you, I have my own favorite theory. It links the headlines "Italy forged oil-for-food documents" to "Italy's top spook killed by friendly fire". Who needs fiction when you have the six-o-clock news.

Heh. As a former 101st Airborne grunt with many hours spent guarding empty roads with a machine gun, I think it unlikely. No way in hell such a sensitive mission as a "hit" on a foreign agent would be delegated to a bunch of mooks like us and we were "regular army", not guard or reserve like those guys! The whole thing sounds to me like it was just a typical wartime chaos. Besides, if they really wanted to hit 'em, wouldn't it make more sense to blow up the car with a hellfire from a predator out in the desert where no one would see it, rather than hoping that the driver would make the mistake of not slowing down and turning on his lights, and hoping a bunch of part-time soldier yahoos will shoot rather than hesitate? I know there's a temptation to look for conspiracy because in a way it's comforting to think that there's someone in control, albeit someone with evil intent; but really, most things like that are just random fuckups mixed with dumb luck. There ain't no one running anything. Real life is, for the most part, totally out of control.

Re:Sounds like things aren't going as planned

[TapeCutter]

I agree with all of what you say, I was responding to the GP's assertion that it was the Italian's own fault for "speeding", the conspiracy thing was sarcasam disguised as a conter-example.

Cue new fashion trend

[Attaturk]

Now you know why the men in black wear shades.

WHAT???

[laughingcoyote]

...has many potential applications such as temporarily blinding a suspect who drives through a roadblock.

Yeah, that's a GREAT idea! I sure hope I'm somewhere near that roadblock so I can see it used, too! I mean, so long as they just temporarily blind the driver of a moving vehicle, no one will get hurt!

Re:WHAT???

[Voltageaav]

I think this was gone over already, but you didn't seem to notice. In front of ALL military bases, there are large barriers that you have to drive around in order to get in. If you can't see, the odds are you'll hit one of them. These barriers are fairly large and heavy and aren't likely to move much if hit by a car. Thus, the only people likely to get hurt are in the car and I'd personally take my chances with hitting a barrier than getting shot at with three M16s or some of the M249 SAWs I've seen at gates overseas. Sure, you might have a few cuts and your eyes will probably be sore for a while, but you won't have the consistency of Swiss cheese. Also, The Air Force LOVES acronyms. They use them whenever possible.

US Gov Laser rifle

[Bubble666]

I wonder if it's anything bigger then this
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000253066406/
...

Non-lethal weapons do not exist

[Anonymous Coward]

"...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.

Re:Non-lethal weapons do not exist

[grogdamighty]

That's like saying that Penicillin is a biological warfare agent simply because there are people who are allergic to it. Just as healing the many sick takes precedence over anaphylactic shock in the few, it is inane to fight the innovation of non-lethal weaponry simply because it has drawbacks to very few.

Of course, it is still important to find out what those drawbacks are so that we can put all effort into avoiding them.

Re:Non-lethal weapons do not exist

[ichigo 2.0]

I think that was the OP's point. There is no such thing as non-lethal, only warying degrees of lethality.

Re:Non-lethal weapons do not exist

[Rallion]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/toys/60b6/

Ruffle the insurgents' hair! For great justice!

Re:Star trek paving the way yet again

[nametaken]

Is it just me or are these over paid trekkers pushing it a bit to far to make the word phaser to name this weapon.

Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response (PHASR)

I recon it looks more like a BGF or Bio Force Cannon.

Ahhh, marketing. It makes the world go round.

What are the applications...

[Browncoat]

For things like the PHASR (couldn't find anything for the E I guess) or rail gun technology?

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:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Have you seen this?
We're napalming civilians, now.

Not to sound condescending to the younger slashdotters amoung us, but this isn't in fact, as recent a development as you might think. There was this thing way back when called The Vietnam War, where US forces used napalm quite copiously on civilians.

History inevitably repeats.

Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[mastertigurius]

Phosphorous weapons were used back in World War II as well. There are pictures showing phosphor-bombs being detonated over ships. Does anyone know whether it was napalm or phosphor being used?
It would be interesting to hear the government's attempt to justify this whole matter.

Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[grouchomarxist]

Napalm was originally used in World War II. It was used against civilians at that time too.

Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[Neoprofin]

One could say it's ok because we didn't sign the treaty.

One could say it's ok because Fallujah was a military target.

One could say it's ok becasue the phosphorous was not intended to burn humans, but instead to illuminate the battlefeild.

Is it good that people are getting burned by fire from the sky? No. Very few people would ever try to make that argument.

Is it anything more ghastly or a greater crime against humanity than anything else that happens in war and thus subject to incredible moral outrage like I get the impression you think it is? Not really. Wars kill, and those deaths are about as politically defensable as any other civilian casaulties.

Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[kalel666]

Did you actually read that article? here's a sample:

Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

Do you actually believe that the US used WP on civilians and that it burned their bodies beyond recognition, but did NOT ignite their clothing? Seriously?

Please look here for more information, and a debunking of the Independents slander:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/

Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.

[StikyPad]

Right.. because phosphorus = napalm. They're exactly the same.

Re:W00t, PHASRs

[eobanb]

The PHASR, now with a 1.3 MP camera and iTunes

Selling it to the media?

[AHuxley]

Depends on what they can say about it ie use of laser dazzler in the Falklands War (1982). One flash and the pilots retina is ash? Sold to the public: 'only' for use with electro-optical systems? Is it 'only' for use with a set distace for a short time? Will it be like an instant bright light at a distance- you stop for a few seconds and then get your sight back? But afer click, click, click .....?

Re:W00t, PHASRs

[Anonymous Coward]

More like "Beat me up, Scotty!"...

Does it include....?

[mindstorms]

Does this have Laser sights? I always wanted a Laser gun with Laser sights, how else would I know what I am shooting at?

Re:Does it include....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this have Laser sights? I always wanted a Laser gun with Laser sights, how else would I know what I am shooting at?

No, it uses standard 9mm bullets as tracers.

Re:Best quote from article

[JanneM]

It would be nice if the UN would also regulate the use of traditional weaponary with regards to murdering people with them.

They are; there's a lot of traditional weapons and ammunition that is perfectly fine to use for hunting or somesuch, but not allowed by the convention. The reason is usually because they cause more suffering than necessary, like flechettes or hail that give the target lots of small, hard to remove fragments; or plastic ammo that isn't visible on x-rays. It is of course a balancing act - the harm is weighed against the military utility, thus hand grenades, for instance, are not banned.

Am i the only one...

[Lisandro]

...who was expecting a high-powered pulse laser weapon, you know, a-la-Akira?

Re:over the top

[ozmanjusri]

how many non lethal devices does the government need in its arsenal?

Just one, but it has to work. Most of them don't.

Ridiculously Contrived Acronym of the Month Award

[serutan]

Personnel Halting And Stimulation Response???

I can see why they made up that acronym though, because RBFTSOLLAF (Really Bright Flashlight That Sort of Looks Like a Fish) is way too long, hard to pronounce, and not as cool.

Temporarily blind guys ?

[this great guy]

Hot girls have this feature built-in.

Re:Temporarily blind guys ?

[Toxicgonzo]

Only if they FLASH you, that's when you go blind.

Non lethal, more dangerous to liberty

[letdinosaursdie]

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.

Re:Non lethal, more dangerous to liberty

[woolio]

I understand where you're coming from but be careful...

I thought (most) cops don't like to use guns unless absolutely necessary. But given a "non-lethal" weapson, it may be used copiously without regret.

The only check I can see to such copious use is the legal ramifications it may present. Perhaps there is good aspect of our twisted legal system...

great move

[Xaggroth]

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

Re:great move

[Majin Bubu]

I'd lean more toward A myself. If you are injured to the head and/or in severe pain, instinctive reaction is to drop everything and clutch your hands to the head. Maybe a trained pro can overcome this, but that's not what the guys this weapon is meant to stop are.

Re:great move

[Bonobo_Unknown]

There is the possibility that the person driving is innocent of any wrong doing (ie that there is no bomb in the car). Even a "goodie" might find it difficult stop safeley having been blinded. The funny thing is just how elementary this error of deploying the weapon in this manner is. Then again elementary errors in logic have been paramount in the Gulf war from it's outset. So where do they *really* want to employ a weapon of this type? It seems more usefull in "civil" control to me...

Re:great move

[darkmeridian]

The United States military needs this. Four Marines were killed a few days ago from a suicide bomber at a checkpoint. The weapon seems to be used while the "bad guy" is still far away from the roadblock. Hard to keep going down the road towards the roadblock when you cannot see. So the bad guy flies off the road or stops his car. If he is able to keep going at the roadblock, well, then the Marines open fire with their .50 caliber Ma Deuce. Or their 25 mm cannon.

Re:great move

[$lashdot]

Sure, 'cause letting them aim is a much better move.

Re:great move

[geekoid]

Shoot wildly, which means he likly misses. Which is better then taking carefull aim.

Enough with your improper analogy.

A driver is less likly to hit its target if it is blind, couple that with an obstacle that you need to drive around and this will work nicely.

Re:great move

[Xaggroth]

... My point was to show that collateral will result. Such as if this device were to be used where there are civilians.. Seems you and others like yourself can't read, let alone make decisions free of ignorance. Let me ask you this: Who did you vote for?

Re:great move

[Xaggroth]

"anonymous coward" enough said.

How is that a problem for America?

[katharsis83]

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...

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:How is that a problem for America?

[Wyatt Earp]

Now, as for the dig against the DoD, as a Military Historian whose been doing alot of research on the US military and the conflict with Iraq, I would like to point out that no nation on Earth has spent and spends as much time, lives and money to insure that conflicts are carried out as "legally" as they can be.

For example, during the March Up to Baghdad in 2003, JAG groups were embeded in the main force and follow-on forces and anything taken, down to the knock-off Pepsi in one of the factories owned by Uday, were paid for or people who owned it were paid for things taken or damaged.

It's not perfect and 100% "clean", but its not really accurate to critize the DoD, a War is a War and it is violent and unfair, but the US and other NATO militaries try much harder than anyone ever has to mitigate the impact on civilians and non-combatants.

Re:How is that a problem for America?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. while you are not the enemy ..., but what if they began to use it to pro-abortion dudes too?. Abortion is homicide, isn't it?. Then later it could be used for Darwinist too, any anti-christian is a terrorist too.

Nah...They would never do stuff like that. You're obviously some kind of commie.

Re:How is that a problem for America?

[glesga_kiss]

I would like to point out that no nation on Earth has spent and spends as much time, lives and money to insure that conflicts are carried out as "legally" as they can be.

The citizens of the following countries invite you to put down the Jerry Bruikheimer "documentaries" and read some real history. Stuff that happened.

• Iran
• Chile
• Haiti
• Nicaragua
• The Phillippines
• El Salvador
• VietNam
• Guatemala
• Argentina
• Greece
• Brazil

You are living in a dream world. The America you believe in hasn't existed for 50 years, and your complete and utter ignorance of the facts illustrates how bad things have gotten in your neck of the woods. You actually believe you are "the good guy". And you wonder why people why some people hate you so much?

but the US and other NATO militaries try much harder than anyone ever has to mitigate the impact on civilians and non-combatants.

No, they seek to mitigate the perceived impact. I suggest you read up on the practice of embedded reporters, especially with respect to Falluja. The US militry has been indiscriminally killing people, even those waving white flags. You won't see this footage on your TV. Neither will you see the footage of chemical weapons (mk77) being used on civilians by US forces. If you think the reports from the "offical" reporters are in any way close to the truth, you are living in a dream world. Step out of line, you lose all press privledges and get sent home. That's the truth of embedded reporting.

In the next five years the truth will come out about what's been going on in Iraq. US politics is in for a major shake up that'll make the blowjob thing look like kids stuff.

Re:How is that a problem for America?

[operagost]

What if they start using it against goat porn junkies?

What if monkeys flew out of my ass?

Re:How is that a problem for America?

[geekoid]

And if it turns out they have the wrong Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Many people will tell there tortures(and yes coercion is torture) what they want to hear, even if it is not true.

Torture does not work often enough to warrent it as effective. It's just a chance for hired thugs to be able to let there psychoatic tendancies run free.

Re:And the defence is...

[danharan]

Yay! More security through ...er, we're talking lasers here. Ok, two problems with your theory.

1- Do you trust the government to test weapons on the public without us knowing what they are? (And if you answered yes, what the FUCK are you doing here?)

2- People that steal cars are NOT going to wear anti-laser or welding helmets. Talk about not looking cool and making yourself conspicuous.

Problem Solved:

[karlfr]

Sunglasses.

Lethality 0

[Wantok]

Blinding someone driving at high speed through a roadblock... oh yeah, that sounds non-lethal.

mix that with...

[where's alderaan]

....LRAD and you can give terrorists the ultimate hellen keller experience (now dodging heavinly lightening bolts)

COOL!!

[ksheff]

but what smells better in the morning? white phosphorous or napalm?

Re:COOL!!

[SappoMan]

You think you are funny? You should see the fotage of burned civilians. Try to joke about phosphorus then

Re:COOL!!

[SappoMan]

Look, I'm not a pacifist: I know that sometimes violence is needed. But I try to respect dead people. Maybe it's just another forma mentis, maybe it's my colture.

but anyway,

amen brother

Re:COOL!!

[ksheff]

That's why typed it.

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.

Flashbang Re:Can't blind on purpose

[n54]

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.

Re:Flashbang Re:Can't blind on purpose

[vertinox]

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.

Perhaps the Neutron bomb comes close because of their projected short term lethality and long term complications of radiation posioning leading to a painful death.

But I suppose you could be severly maimed until you die...

Brute shot ?

[JonyEpsilon]

I'm sure I've seen one of those before somewhere ...

Re:Brute shot ?

[ichigo 2.0]

Carbine.

You're right

[katharsis83]

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.

Re:You're right

[NerdJock]

I do not fully agree with your arguments. While you are right that the US is set to a higher standard, it is not only because of the sentiment of being a "better" country. It is also because of their superior military resources. As a immensely stronger force, they are expected to win wars, while showing restraint and a higher regard for innocent lives. Therefore Russia and China would face the same kind of criticism for unnecessary violance in wars. The most recent example of this is the opposition against the methods Russia used in the Checnian war. Unlike business, people actually expect more from a stronger entity in world politics.

Re:You're right

[Kadin2048]

if say, China/Russia had invaded, we'd be seeing much more brutality and inhumane treatment stories.

No, you wouldn't, because they'd be controlling the press so tightly that nothing negative would really get out, at least officially. All you'd have would be a lot of really disturbing rumors, and later on, a lot of hollow-eyed people mumbling about how they'd never been mistreated and had nothing to say. And maybe twenty or thirty years from now, once the perpetrators were nicely retired, there'd be a few not-too-well selling books on the topic, and maybe a History Channel special. That'd be it.

Frankly I think they'd probably be much more effective occupiers (whether that's something a country should aspire to, I won't say) than the U.S. is, because our effectiveness is limited by our inability to accept that sometimes you have to be hypocritical if you want to be effective: sometimes you have to espouse an ideal, even if you can't live up to it because of circumstances (and because your enemies may not play by the same rules). Given that the alternative, and the route taken by some other countries, is to not espouse any ideals and thus avoid being charged with hypocrisy, excuse me if I decide to ignore their shallow criticism.

Re:You're right

[rayvd]

The problem is there is NO NEED for additional language. 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.

An additional bill on the subject is a waste of time and money and simply adds fuel to the completely ridiculous comparisons of the United States to USSR/WW2 Germany by all the wackos out there.

There is NOTHING to fix here.

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.

Re:You're right

[mfrank]

Only after the Israelis take their revenge on Germany and China takes theirs on Japan. In WWII the Germans and Japanese were fscking *evil* and, personally, I have no problem with 10 of them dying for every American. They started it, they can reap the whirlwind.

And if you think the Soviet army sacrificed their own troops to spare enemy civilians, you're an idiot. Stalin didn't care about his *troops*, let alone enemy civilians. Feel free to research how many German and Japanese soldiers died in Russian POW camps. Over a million Germans died in Soviet POW camps. In the few days at the end of the war the Soviets captured half a million Japanese (guess when all you do for a decade is bayonet pregnant Chinese women you lose your fighting skills), and most of them died in captivity.

Re:You're right

[geekoid]

besides the fact that it doesn't apply to anyone not in a nuiform?
that means they can tortore you to find out 'truth' becasue the Geneva convention won't apply to you.

Unless you are an uniformed member of a recognized country.

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:Better than white phosphorous at least

[kin52]

First off the article you mentioned is completely wrong about how white phosphorus works. Rounds that are used to illuminate a target area are made of Magnesium and come down slowly while burning because they use a parachute to slow their rate of fall. WP usually always explodes (Actually just the canister is burst) when it hits the ground. Wp ignites when exposed to oxygen and is used to create smoke mostly and as an incendiary second. The only way to put it out is to remove it from oxygen. WP provides very little illumination.

suicide bombers

[SuperBanana]

Because what you really want to do to the speeding 3-ton SUV is blind the driver... yup, definitely makes things safer for everyone.

They're referring to suicide bombers in Iraq.

However, I agree the concept is yet another half-baked military weapon (see my comment history re the sonic weapon); what good is blinding a guy who just has to keep driving in a straight line and push a button to blow himself up? And by the time they figure out he's going to actually RUN the roadblock, he's well within the range that everybody's probably gonna die anyway.

Meanwhile, the "insurgents" are using improvised shaped charges to blast right through "armoured" humvees like they're made of paper...but sure, let's keep cranking out the multi-million-dollar laser pointers...

Re:suicide bombers

[ichigo 2.0]

Do you know that, or is it just propaganda in preparation for the next invasion? I guess it could be either way, keeping American troops stationed in Iraq busy fighting insurgents would be an effective way to buy time, but it's also a good excuse to intervene in Iran. I can almost see the headlines now, "Iran supporting terrorist activity" and "Iran developing weapons of mass destruction".

Re:suicide bombers

[Bobsledboy]

Bollocks. A shaped charge is a lot simpler to make than a car bomb, and the insurgents seem to have no problem making those.

Re:suicide bombers

[YrWrstNtmr]

blinding a guy who just has to keep driving in a straight line

Approaches to checkpoints are rarely a straight line.

Re:suicide bombers

[TGK]

Doubtful. Bush isn't going to take on Iran because they

1 - Actually -=HAVE=- weapons of mass destruction. When you invade a country that has WMDs there is the real risk they'll USE them. One might argue that the fact that we were willing to invade Iraq in the first place demonstrates that we knew there were no weapons there.

2 - Haven't been bombed into the stone age by the US military in a previous war. The Iraqi war was a resounding suceess (at first) because we'd allready fought it in 1991. Iran hasn't been slapped around once before -- so it's not as if we can just roll in there. We might actually have to conquer the place before we invade.

Nah - Iran would be too much trouble for this administration.

Re:suicide bombers

[benjamindees]

Do you know that, or is it just propaganda in preparation for the next invasion?

Physicists in American universities don't create anything that doesn't have primarily a military purpose.

I can almost see the headlines now

I see those already.

What I really love:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing that America stands for freedom, democracy, and human rights, otherwise I'd be worried...

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.

Whilst not accurate - parent is *not* flamebait

[tod_miller]

This is a weapon for temporary disable the suspect. Like mace. Like a flashbang. The previous methodology was called 'POONT' and involved lightly peppering the vehicle and its occupants with small gauge munitions, dare I say 9-11mm rounds. About 500 should do the trick, one of them is bound to miss an occupant and look like a warning shot, or hit the tyres.

You are right, it is not illegal to shoot someone, or force a foot long metal blade into their vital organs, while they are looking at you in the eyes. However, if that blade is rusty, you are in violation of the Geneva convention - where the poor sod might get an infection.

So, dying of an infection versus dying after being punched kicked and stabbed.

No matter how we try to dress war up, it is still never legal. War doesn't make it legal to kill people. People make it legal to kill people, it is our definition, and it is shocking.

I do not know why someone hasn't sued to try and get civilian death rates reported from this war in iraq. It is terrible.

The flamebait post shows just how mad society is. Mad I tell you! The doctors thought I was mad, but they are laughing on the other side of their disfigured faces now hheheh heheh ehehehheaahuaha aa aheeahmea!!

In all seriousness - no wonder CmdrTaco's spelling has improved - all these 'type in the word here' shenanigans on /. but no doubt he has some kind of magic CmdrCookie that does this all for him.

please type the word in this image: quagmire
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

Re:Whilst not accurate - parent is *not* flamebait

[Johnny5000]

I do not know why someone hasn't sued to try and get civilian death rates reported from this war in iraq. It is terrible.

You're assuming that people would care. I think you could tell them that a million Iraqi orphans were burned alive and there wouldn't be much of a public outcry.

Maybe I'm just jaded.

how does it work? well...

[nilbog]

It's too bad they won't tell us how they work. I just can't figure out how they get lasers shot into someone's eyes to actually temporarily blind them...

Re:Psyops

[warmcat]

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.

Soccer Mom Wrath

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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!!!"

Isn't that a Motorola phone?

[danielsfca2]

Are you sure that's not just the next Motorola phone?

MTLA RLY LUVS 2 NM THR PHNS WTH RTRDD NMS LK THS.

So...considering their penchant for retarded phone model names and crappy phones, this would be a phone with a weak flashlight built-in. But it would be limited to 100 uses of the flashlight function, to avoid competing with standalone flashlights.

Halo

[ichigo 2.0]

It's just you, I don't remember seeing anything like that on Farscape (finished watching it last week). However, that does remind me of a Covenant Carbine from Halo 2.

This has puzzled me...

[SerpentMage]

There was this episode in Star Trek NG (movie I think?) where they meet the Borg. So Picard is on the hollowdeck dancing in 1920's. The Borg come in and Picard starts shooting them using common bullets and oddly enough that kills the Borg! Yet time and time again we see the Borg adapting to the lasers!

Where I get confused is if the 1) Borg is resistent to all "Laser" weapons 2) Not resistant to common bullets, why are they using lasers with futility. I will admit it makes for great action, but kind of stupid.

The laser and blinding reminds me of the same thing as in Star Trek. If a terrorist knows this gun exists, are they are going to go along with the show (for the action that is) and allow themselves to be blinded? I suppose not, they are going to get something against the light probably making the laser gun a 10 billion dollar paperweight. Albeit a REALLY cool looking and behaving paperweight!

The parent isn't insightful at all.

[Shivetya]

Ignorant is more like it.

That 3 ton SUV is already blowing your roadblock, anything you can do to prevent it from getting where the driver intends to put it is a viable solution.

This is probably a better solution than killing the driver which is what is done now in war zones or at least attempted. It also has the potential to save lives instead of blindly firing into a moving vehicle.

One example
The French reporter killed because her driver was speeding into a roadblock may be alive to day if a non-lethal method of disabling the driver was available.

Others.
There are cases where people freak at the sign of a checkpoint and a non-lethal device would allow a reduction in loss of life. The current alternative is to shoot at it with guns. An early example in the Iraq war was a van with women and children in it that ran or attempted to run a roadblock.

Finally, most roadblocks are set up so you have to navigate them. That 3-ton SUV with a blinded driver is not going to be able to navigate anything blid.

Old news?

[deadphoenix]

Surely they could just use one of these?

It's time to wear mirror shades then.

[master_p]

I wonder what will happen if opponents wear those shades with reflective glasses; you know, the ones that not only are black, but they also reflect photons.

Would a pair of glasses like that render PHASRs obsolete?

(by the way, it's cool they haven't named them phasers. You don't want Paramount after your tail. And real phasers may be developed in the future.)

Could it be the same principle used in this?

[MilenCent]

Some scientists are using a kind of paddle-wand that can selectively, non-invasively, and according to them harmlessly deactivate portions of someone's brain. They're using it to run experiments in which someone's sense of sight is temporarily deactivated, to try to get information on the phenomonon of "blind-sight," a sort of rudimentary sense of the location and presence of objects not directly seen.

This is a guess of course, and other than what's in this article I know nothing about it. But I thought it was kind of weird that I should read about this, and then two weeks later someone announces a weapon that can blind someone....

Re:And the defence is...

[Technician]

2- People that steal cars are NOT going to wear anti-laser or welding helmets. Talk about not looking cool and making yourself conspicuous.

We are not talking about a car thief. We are talking about terrorists. Having a gasmask or IED in a backpack until they reach their destination is SOP. They come prepared for action. If I were on the bad side (I'm not) and I knew what I had to defeat, and could carry a small portable device that would render it useless and ineffective.....

People who try to crash a military guard gate defended with a laser may carry the tools to get past the gate. Recently the press hotel in Bagdad was attacked. They brought the tools to get through a concrete barrier (car bomb) so they could get past to deliver a cement truck bomb to the building. It almost worked. They got past the concrete barrier with the cement truck. They didn't reach the building because they didn't get past the entangelment wire.

A couple guards with a bright light are not going to stop most of these guys. The guards are going to need something else in addition to the front line defense.

obligatory serenity quote

[hachete]

"goram alliance technology"

Re:Sorry, dude

[SolitaryMan]

If I found out that this suggested use was actually in the documentation rather than a stupid comment of an article submitter...

I'm sorry, dude, but I have to disappoint you...

Mirrored sunglasses

[laurieknight]

Surely any laser will bounce off a well mirrored surface? I hardly think this is going to foil the terrorists!

LOOKER

[scharkalvin]

Remember the stun gun in the movie 'looker'?

Re:And the defence is...

[danharan]

Car theft was the first thing that came to mind when reading about police stopping cars that drive through roadblocks. Of course, it should have been obvious that you're thinking about those "terrorists". Blame it on an all-nighter and silly amounts of caffeine.

You didn't try to refute my first point, and you make a fairly weak case as to this technology's use against terrorists. Even if we did surprise them, how long until someone figures it out? If we'll call that "security by surprise", you better be one creative guy and have deep pockets. How much did this toy cost? And even without surprise, how long until it loses most of its efficiency and you have to invent a new toy?

Overall the cost-benefit of these types of technologies is rather dismal. Plus, how long until the "terrorists" get their hands on one (or improvise one) and use it to down helicopters?

Mark my words: this is going to be a disaster, and not just because of the civilians this will inevitably be used on.

Queen

[chris_eineke]

Another one bites the dust. :)

What a crock!

[waif69]

The US forces do not use Willy Pete to burn people, it is an ineffective use of a tool. There was another article at the Independent talking about the same thing, only they threw in a bunch of so-called facts that were so false that anyone who searches more than one source can tell is fraudulant.

There are a lot of people in the world, and in the US too, that hate the US and can't see the truth when presented. The US Army retention rate is higher than expected for the troops deployed to the sandbox. The troops over there (I know quite a few) tell a different story than the one that you read about and see in the mainstream media. The majority of the Iraqi people are grateful we are there and want us to continue the course. We are training the Iraqi people to take care of their own, but it is not something that can be accomplished overnight.

We (the US) are making a positive difference over there, and if you don't believe me, talk to the troops who are there now, or better yet, go over there. The Iraqis would be more than happy to talk to you.

Re:What a crock!

[FhnuZoag]

Of course the troops tell a different story. They are the ones getting the fingers pointed at. I mean, what do you expect? Mass admissions of guilt? And besides, it is easy for your average grunt to be unaware of what he is doing. Artillery crews don't see their victims.

Almost by definition, chemical weapons and incindeary weapons are ineffective methods of killing people. They kill inhumanely, and they kill messily. They are weapons of psychological terror, and as weapons of terror they can be very effective. Now, the Independent claims (and I do not know whether these claims are true) that they have physical evidence to show that WP does kill civilians, and has killed civilians in a most horrible way. The soldiers being ignorant that WP fulfills such a role is not an excuse.

Burning innocent people to death is never a good thing, even if you are just doing it to a small minority of people. It certainly isn't something we want to train the Iraqis to do, is it?

Re:What a crock!

[artifex2004]

The US forces do not use Willy Pete to burn people, it is an ineffective use of a tool.

Ever heard of shake and bake? Internal page 26, read 9b and especially c, where they talk about using WP for lethal missions. Notice where this is coming from? Field Artillery Magazine, March-April 2005 issue.

Wanna see a better account of shake and bake? Try here.

Re:What a crock!

[waif69]

Don't forget that mortars use "shake-and-bake" too. Artillery aren't the only ones that use high-trajectory. However "shake-and-bake" is normally used against buildings and equipment.

not really new?

[SkyMunky]

I think I saw a similar device on History Channel's "Mail Call" awhile back. Here is some other info:
http://www.icltd.org/laser_weapons.htm

Really bad idea.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Really bad idea.

[uberjoe]

all but the very bottom is covered by the front fender in most vehicles

If that machine gun is using .50 cal SLAP ammo, which I think is standard in the US mil you could probably shoot straight through the fender anyway. If the bullets are really big you could just shoot through the engine block.

Re:Really bad idea.

[Kadin2048]

Yup. But that sort of defeats the purpose of trying to shoot the tires as an alternative to something that's going to harm the driver. Even .30-cal rounds will go probably go through the firewall and into the passenger compartment if they don't hit the engine block. They'd have no problem going through a sheet-metal fender. The fender just conceals the target you're shooting for and makes it harder to just shoot the tire, I didn't mean to suggest that it doesn't offer any protection.

I guess my basic point was that you don't start putting lead at high velocity towards anything or anyone that you haven't already written off; shooting out the tires of a moving vehicle is right up there with "shoot the gun out of his hand" as a non-lethal takedown procedure.

Re:Really bad idea.

[sco08y]

I guess my basic point was that you don't start putting lead at high velocity towards anything or anyone that you haven't already written off; shooting out the tires of a moving vehicle is right up there with "shoot the gun out of his hand" as a non-lethal takedown procedure.

Why even argue with these people?

Re:Really bad idea.

[budgenator]

Actualy one of my friends got hit while in a helicopter over Viet Nam by a 12.5mm. it went through the floor of the chopper, through his leg, through his machine gun, through his arm, through the ceiling all with nice neat 1/2 inch holes.
5.56mm is going to penetrate about 3/8 th steel so a fender isn't going to stop it.
7.62 I've seen them go through 12 inches of hichory tree, so I'm pretty sure we're talking about 1.5 inches of steel, that would be an engine block on a aluminum front wheel drive car. .50 cal doesn't stop for much, that's the problem; you have to consider that every shot is going to continue until the bullet buries itself in the dirt. With a M2 there is no clear safe shot, put one into a cast iron V8 its going to penetrate into the engine block a ways

Re:Really bad idea.

[cbiltcliffe]

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.

Not only would it still work, but the ~6' up mounting would actually help. You'd be shooting down through the fender into the tire (which a standard handgun would be able to do. It's only sheet metal, after all...) so the bullets would possibly be below ground level by the time they got back to where the driver would be. If you're using some of the big calibre rapid-fire stuff that people have mentioned here, you could easily tear through the front suspension in a couple of seconds. You think a car's going anywhere with the wheel not attached? It'll slow down a heck of a lot faster than if you just blasted the engine to bits, although it might roll over in the process.

Re:Really bad idea.

[illumin8]

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.

Here's a better idea: If you're so concerned about drivers ramming the checkpoint with their vehicles, why not put road spikes that are activated with a button at the 100 foot, 50 foot, and 25 foot mark leading up to the checkpoint. If a driver starts speeding towards the checkpoint, bam, press a button and all 4 wheels are gone. Hell, they could even have some kind of steel barriers/holes that open up in the road when a button is pressed. There are a lot better ways to stop a speeding vehicle from hitting a checkpoint or guard structure. Just some good old fashioned jersey barriers should do the trick.

Blocking the frequency

[phasm42]

I hope they rotate frequencies on their lasers; otherwise the Borg will adapt and wear sunglasses to block that frequency.

Dear GOD!!!

[uradu]

Look at the SIZE of that thing! It's either made of cardboard and hollow, or requires two extra people in the front to raise the--uh--barrel?! Flipper?

HE vs WP

[Kadin2048]

WP is generally used as an anti-armor round, although it's markedly less effective than it was in the past. It's not anti-personnel, although there are situations where it could be used against mixed forces and seem as though it was being used that way.

Before tanks were hermetically sealed like they are today, you could pretty reliably disable one by dumping some burning stuff on it (napalm, white phosphorous, burning gasoline) if you could get it to fall down into the gap between the turret and the chassis. The turret essentially sits in a hole in the top of the chassis...get something through that gap and it's in the crew compartment. This is why if you're in a tank, you don't want to let yourself get swarmed by rioters with Molotov cocktails; even though it might not seem like they'd be much of a risk to a tank, a few well placed ones can really make life uncomfortable for the crew inside.

As a result, you don't send out armor units without infantry support, because they'll get overrun by foot soldiers and destroyed (a la 'Saving Private Ryan'). An advancing armor unit will almost always be mixed in with regular leg infantry, as force protection.

As a counter to this, if you're an artilleryman and trying to stop an advancing column of tanks with infantry support, you'd use a combination of both air-bursting high explosive (to disable the soldiers) and white phosphorous (to disable the tanks). The command for this is "HE and WP, timed and quick" -- high explosive air bursting (timed fuse) and white phosphorous with a contact-detonating fuse (quick fuse).

Nowadays, I'm not sure that white phosphorous is really used as a weapon per se, I think it's mostly used for the psychological effect, and for illumination. Plus obviously the tactics of huge land armies maneuvering around each other is relatively outdated today.

Re:HE vs WP

[budgenator]

WP isn't an effective antiarmor weapon, to armor its just smoke, it's use is primarily as a smoke or obscurent and secondarily as an incendiary device. Shooting HE WP at an armor/infantry column, is going to strip off the infantry and blind the armor, but your still going to have to deal with the armor. It's been a while but the last word I got was WP is being phased out in favor of Red Phosphorus as RP smoke obscure IR and thermal much better than WP, and is much easier to store and use. WP actualy melts in enviromental temperatures, so if its stored off-vertical, you'll get a out of ballance round that could go anywhere but where you want. Sounds like the existing stocks lasted quite a while.

'Temporarily dazzle?'

[GungaDan]

Do they play Pink Floyd or Led Zep with this new weapon?

Re:Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblo

[Shihar]

When the US first invaded Iraq, US soldiers killed hundreds of civilians. Why? A bunch of US soldiers would set up a roadblock. A scared civilian would see a bunch of soldiers in the road ordering them to stop, and promptly slam on the accelerator to try and speed through. Marines would fire into the air as a warning, but simply scare said civilian further into accelerating. Marines fearful that the accelerating car was going to attack them would then pump it full of bullets, generally killing the occupants.

Personally, I wish that those Marines had been armed with ANYTHING that sends a clear signle of "MOTHER FUCKING STOP" without killing everyone in the car. Is there a danger that the civilian in question would simply crash instead of stopping? Sure. Is crashing better then having a .50 cal gun rake through your windshield? You better fucking believe it. I can think of at least one Italian that would probably still be alive if the Army had something other then bullets to stop cars crashing through the roadblocks.

Re:And the defence is...

[Technician]

No, an advantage is when you have something that works regardless of what the other person knows.

Sometimes knowledge is power. I know the password to my server. I know the combination to my locker. I know the key to my encrypted files. Public posting of these items does not make me more secure.

There are a few advantages to some secrets. You may know how a combination lock is operated. You may know how encryption works. My encryption key, password, and combination should not be public.

The news that a cruise ship used a blast of sound is fine. Giving the details of how it worked was not nessary. Giving details that a bright light blinds drivers trying to crash a gate is fine. Saying it is a pulse of green laser is not a good idea.

Saying the police will respond to a riot is fine. Saying police will not be using guns, but just tear gas is not. Expect the riot to have lots of thrown rocks and see lots of gas masks.

Saying the police will respond to a riot is fine. Don't tell them they will be bringing water cannons, tasers, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, tear gas, lasers, tranquilizer darts, snipers, and smoke bombs. Let it be a suprise. Let the perimiter exit searches and arrests be a suprise.

PHASR or MASER?

[GuyFawkes]

Rumour has it that USAF pilots in afghanistan and other places where conventional aircraft munitions were pretty useless found that a low pass with the "attack" radar set on maximum power did quite a good job of causing cataracts in whoever you flew over, thus blinding them, thus achieving the same stated end "non fatal incapacitation" in typical mealymouth doublespeak.

Gentlemen, set your watches

[Hoi Polloi]

New military gadgets? Here we go...

1. New military gizmo is invented
2. Inventor deploys it. If others are impressed it goes on to...
3. Other armies copy it sooner or later
4. Armies decide to add it to their "arms for sale" lists
5. If product can be hand-held it drops in price and works it's way down to paramilitaries, rebel groups, etc
6. Inventor now must invent countermeasure to it's own invention

I used to work at a DOD lab. I always thought it was ironic how they went through so much effort to build these systems and devices and then had to immediately figure out a countermeasure to their own invention.

Less Lethal Exists

[bigtrike]

This is certainly less lethal than bullets or a nuclear weapon. Whether or not we should be using any of these weapons is another question.

or Automatic Darkening Welding Helmets

[bigtrike]

A helmet which automatically darkens in response to bright light can be bought on ebay for about $30. The availability of such an easy defense means that this technology is entirely pointless for road blocks, as a speeding vehicle will be too close to stop with other methods (bullets) once you've discovered they're immune to your primary attack.

It's a bit more useful for protests (peaceful or not) because it's very hard to wear a welding helmet and a gasmask at the same time.

PHASR??? ENOUGH!!!

[circusboy]

Enough with the @*&$*&# acronyms already. The english language has suffered enough torture already, and in light of recent claims by this 'administration,' we (the US,) aren't supposed to be doing that sort of thing.

762 rounds (from an M-60, current issue MG)

[blueZ3]

will punch through 2 inches of solid aluminum. Can't remember if those were AP rounds or not. A .50 cal will do significantly better. :o)

Makes you wonder, though-- Why not just set some qualified marksman up with a high-power rifle and have 'em put a couple rounds through the engine. In head-on cases, it's an easy traget for a stationary shooter. Steel-sleeved aluminum blocks are pretty much in all cars these days, so I'm guessing that you'd pretty much kill the car.

Of course, physics says that a 3000lb car going 55mph is going to continue moving along its trajectory for a good while, even if you blind the driver or shoot out the engine.

Re:762 rounds (from an M-60, current issue MG)

[Kadin2048]

I'm pretty sure that this is the intent when soldiers end up shooting at cars driving towards road blocks. The driver just has a tendency to get shot also, since they're located behind the engine and as other people have pointed out, rounds which don't bury themselves in the block aren't going to be stopped by much else in the car.

Although I can't say for sure what the current Rules of Engagement are for situations like that, I bet that when they do get authorization to fire on the vehicle (after firing all their warning shots -- just in case you missed the road block ahead of you), it's the engine block that they're supposed to be aiming for.

Protective goggles?

[dindi]

Wonde what that thing does when I wear dark sunglasses, laser protection glasses or similar protection.

The next ime I drive thru that roadblock I probably have to a wear a welding mask. DAMN! I just go used to those damn paintball masks that work well with the shattering mask every time they shoot my windscreen..... OK bad joke, I am not driving thru any roadblocks and never got my windscreen shot with anything else but paintballs near the field where I play.....

It's the wrong colour

[murdie]

If they'd made it out of green plastic, they could have marketed it as the "Johnny Seven". (That's a comment for males of a certain age.)

Or is it alien technology? :-)

Motorola?

[midnightblaze]

Motorola is branching out into the laser rifle business?

A stimulating idea for this laser?

[zeke2.0]

Now, if this laser could instead be used to give a person the irresistable urge to pull over and masturbate, would they still go blind?

beat me to it

[HaDAk]

Damn. i was wondering why my submission was rejected... you beat me to it!

Yeah, like Machete's

[JhohannaVH]

It would be nice if the UN would also regulate the use of traditional weaponary with regards to murdering people with them. Although I would rather be killed in battle than come home eating out a straw with a few parts missing.

At least, I think that's what you were referring to. Rwanda happens all over again, and the entire world turns a blind eye. Yet, the tools remain simple and same - blades. Let's just have the UN outlaw blades of any kind. Ah, but it's the UN who's turning the blind eye, while their 'workers' are raping Darfur's child refugees for fun. :(

So what if the US bends the rules a little bit? When are people going to realize and figure out that the world is a helluva lot nastier than the United States Military, while it may have it's whackjobs, most are sane, smart, and compassionate people who make the right decisions. And I'm sorry, if it takes a little bit of pressure and coercion, maybe even some torture for a while, to rid the world of these IslamiFacisiNazis that are slaughtering who races of people... GO FOR IT! Hell, give me some bamboo splinters and a water bucket, I'll join in the fun.

Genocide is the most animalistic exhibition of evil on the planet today... yet the world says nothing, does nothing, and continues to let millions of people die by the hands of Allah in the name of race purification. It makes me sick, it makes me vomit, and it makes me proud to be an American to know that despite all the bullshit and the protests and the fuckwads, WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT AND JUST THING.

A Flaw in design....

[ILLEGAL Alien]

...This device is complatly useless agaist blind terrorists!! They can train driving skills in the deserts of Iraq and still be able to get through the checkpoint zigzag baricades. Nice try Mr. AntiTerrorist

Hrm... I don't know

[tod_miller]

I am assuming this comment was on the yankeedoodledandy side of the pond, but I don't know if you heard what has happened in France after two (admittedly theiving little asswipes) kids killed >themselvesTHE WORST INSULT?

These people who are doing this, are not even cautious, or subtle, or intelligent and they are getting away with it.

Amazing. Sickening. Damn, I wish I could do that instead of them.

please type the word in this image: instead
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

SCIENCE!

[zrk]

She blinded me with science!

Parent post is b0rked, here is real one

[tod_miller]

I am assuming this comment was on the yankeedoodledandy side of the pond, but I don't know if you heard what has happened in France after two (admittedly theiving little asswipes) kids killed *themselves* after running away from the police.

A bit of a kerfuffle.

Even if people don't care about the lives of people they don't know, at least they relish the ammunition against bush and co, and although, if I may make this statement: dumb asshats for letting him dupe you twice, and dumb asshats for being the seat of liberty and freedom with an unelected guy calling the shots (literally) and doing what he pleases.

America, home of the corporate dicatorship - the worst insult: THE WORST INSULT?

These people who are doing this, are not even cautious, or subtle, or intelligent and they are getting away with it.

Amazing. Sickening. Damn, I wish I could do that instead of them.

please type the word in this image: instead
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

Re:Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblo

[mfrank]

If you're ever driven in rural Mexico, you find out a very effictive way to get someone to slow down. 5 inch diameter steel pipe across the road tacked down with tar. You *will* slow down.

Less lethal is perfect.

[Chris Burke]

PLaying the name-game doesn't really change anything.

Which is why it is important to call something what it is. The way language works is we pick up on things implied by the name regardless of whether that affects the reality. This is why we call someone an "accused murderer" rather than "murderer" before they are convicted (though people will still conclude that accusation is the same as guilt). Similarly it is natural (and has been observed in reality) for the users of a "non-lethal" weapon to believe that the weapon, used as intended, will not kill when that simply isn't true. Updates to training of police officers have started to take this fact into account.

"Less-lethal weapons" is a perfect name for the devices normally called "non-lethal", and I was glad when I started to see news reports using that term. It conveys the absolutely correct idea: These are weapons who are designed to do less-than-lethal harm, but still have the capacity for lethality inherent in any weapon capable of incapacitating someone. The very important inference from this is that one should use caution relative to that risk of death when deciding whether or not to fire the weapon.

Personally I believe the cop that shot the woman through the eye with a rubber bullet would have been much less likely to discharge his weapon into a crowd at head level had that weapon been a full-fledged "lethal" weapon. "Non-lethal" lends to thinking of the device more like one would think of a baton, or hand cuffs, when in fact it is much closer to the sidearm a police officer is trained to consider carefully before using.

As opposed to, say, a pillow, which is not designed to harm at all. Non-lethal applies perfectly to pillows. If you think a tazer or pellet gun is closer to a pillow in terms of lethality than a gun, you are mistaken. If you don't think this, then why is "less lethal" not a superior phrase?

He started first !

[DrYak]

So is it that 2 wrongs make 1 good ?
That the murderer of a murderer isn't a murderer ? ...or is just a bunch of 8 years old boys yelling "he started first!" at each other ?

WTF?

[StikyPad]

I get the first part -- Personnel Halting -- but "and Stimulation Response" just sounds like someone sucked at reverse acronym forming. "Ok guys, we need two words, any length.. one starts with an S, and one starts with an R. They don't have to make any sense in relation to the object they're supposed to describe, they just need to be words damnit!"

Now I don't claim to be an acronym genius by any means, but, uh... "Personnel Halting and Stunning Rifle," maybe? How f'ing hard is that? And look, it even makes sense. Or you could even make it "Stunning Energy Rifle" and it'd be PHASER.

Violet Video Games

[Namarrgon]

They sound cute. Where do I get them, Japan?

Here's the one which DOES bother me. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

What a dumb story. New Scientist is obviously a propaganda mouthpiece if this is the stuff they're reporting.

Every now and again, however, you get leaks in the media net which describe the real state of technology. . .

Ignore the following article's intention, and look at the leaks. . .

[. . .] Generally, it is suggested that other parts of the brain besides the primary visual cortex respond to nerve messages from the eyes at an unconscious level. Scientists from the University of Houston in Texas, temporarily blinded a group of 12 volunteers by using an electromagnetic field to shut down the primary visual cortex. Images were then flashed in front of them on a screen. [. . .]

-Uh. . , they temporarily did what? (And people still continue to insist that the human nervous system is not affected by EM. "There's not enough power emitted from a cell phone to damage cells!" Uhh, fine. Have you considered what other effects EM might have on the brain, or is that pleasent buzz in your skull keeping you from thinking too much?)

Honestly. Green lasers to blind drivers is just another dumb budget gouge as military contracters try to cash in on the war created by the wealthy. The real state of technology is waaaay beyond green lasers, but don't expect Zionist-owned mouthpieces like, New Scientist to tell you about it any time soon. Or ever.

Sheesh. How dumb do they think we are? (Well, pretty damned dumb actually, and by the number of cell phones I hear ringing. . .)

Not knowing you are being manipulated is ignorance. Choosing to play along with the manipulation once you do know is something else entirely.

Those who have the courage of a lion will not have the fate of a mouse.

-FL

Re:Here's the one which DOES bother me. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

"Those who have the courage of a lion will not have the fate of a mouse."
Both die eventually.
By the way, which species numbers in the billions and has the most adaptive, successful, and widely-distributed population?
The courageous species is more fun to hunt and kill for recreation. Its other virtues are what?

It was a loose metaphor, but if you want to examine it. . .

The Lion sits at the top of its respective food chain. A mouse lives at the bottom of the food chain. It is food. While numbering in the billions and living in fear are interesting and valid qualities, they are not ones I particularly admire or strive to experience.

Being kept/hunted/farmed by higher beings is a reality we all exist within whether we are aware of it or not, but it is something which can be overcome. To do so requires courage and action. The argument for weakness and timidity and strength by way of rapidly reproducing does not appeal to me.

-FL

Re:My definition of non-lethal

[winwar]

"If the user of the item, the inventor and the politician OKing this are willing to be hit by the non-lethal weapon at least once every three months until it is taken off the list.

If they are willing to do that, then I'd believe them when they call it "non-lethal"."

Actually one of the best practical definitions I've encountered.

Wrong

[geekoid]

the real reason chemical weapons were developed was to get people out of the trenches. Notable by killing the people in the OTHER trenches.

They guy whio invented it also invented nitrogen fertilzer.
He was German and he was Jewish. He was forced to leave is beloved country when hitler came to power. Somethinf that may not have happend if it wasn't for Chemical weapons.

I will let you use your own devices to get the man's name.

Neutron bomb

[n54]

Neutron bombs could definetly be used to maim rather than kill, even when not done on purpose they are likely to maim people that are not in the killzone close to the detonation. It would/could induce cancer, immune system deficiencies, tissue failures and similar, and if the dose is low enough it might not be lethal in their future either (that even goes for radiation sickness).

For example (this is all by memory so take it with a grain of salt - I might be mixing up the percentages etc. however the gist of it should be correct) only about 45% of the initial survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have died from reasons related to the bombs but many of those that have not died from the longterm effects would still be said to be maimed from the radiation exposure (I'm sorry I can't be bothered to dig up the link to this claim but I think it was Nature or NewScientist who had a story on this some time between june and now).

Nope

[n54]

You're neglecting quite a few things here:
- the angle makes the (accelerating) speed of the approching car into a very big issue in relation to precision fire, much bigger I guess than anyone except those with extensive firearms training would realize
- the target area of a wheel is much less than the engine (but this is kind of irrelevant as pointed out in the next paragraph)
- the reaction time has to be low both because many roadblocks do not have a long field of view and because most who want to penetrate a roadblock speed up rather than slow down in a relatively short stretch in front of the roadblock (and that's when one notices)

For these and other reasons nobody would be concerned about anything else than hitting any part of the car possible to stop it, be it the occupants, engine, wheels, whatever. I guess this goes quite a long way in explaining why one can find that something like 500 rounds of all sorts of calibers are fired in such a situation.

It's only if you feel "safe" that you would consider getting a perfect aim and stopping the car with one .50-cal slug through the engine (and I wouldn't be surprised if that is a rare occurance in any situation).

Disclaimer: IANAAS (I Am Not An American Soldier)

No

[n54]

It is actually 1 wrong (terrorists) and 1 good (practical rather than principled response to terrorists) making 0 wrong or good.

Remember that no terrorist organisation has ever signed the Geneva conventions and that none of them have avoided intentionally breaking them. Until the time that the worlds governments can figure out an agreement on what rights (if any) terrorists should have that's how it will stay.

Oh and terrorism does not equal militias (civilian resistance movements) acting on behalf of, and under at least indirect guidance from, an acknowledged state. This is easily understood from the definitions of the Geneva conventions themselves as well as other international treaties: it makes a lot of the people shouting about the issue look rather stupid, they're seldom talking about the central point that should be discussed (above paragraph).

Arrgghhh

[barefootgenius]

The goggles, they do nothing! (Simpsons)

Sorry, I just had to.

Geneva Convention

[Descalzo]

The US has not signed the whole Geneva Convention. They didn't sign the original until 1955, and they never did sign the additional provisions of 1977. It doesn't look like the provisions of 1977 have anything to do with blinding, though, so I guess we would be bound by that requirement.

I leave it to you guys: Interesting or Off-Topic?

LOLWHAT

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

OK, are you on crack? What the hell are you talking about?