Set PHASRs On Stun

Can't blind on purpose by ReformedExCon · 2005-11-08 18:29 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.

Re:Can't blind on purpose by yamum · 2005-11-08 18:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Isn't the Geneva Convention only for war? Use within a country would bypass this rule, no?
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Hard_Rock_2 · 2005-11-08 18:32 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by drivekiller · 2005-11-08 18:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not only that. Driving blind has a high probability of lethality.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2005-11-08 18:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm just wondering how many times you can saftly "temporarily" blind someone with a laser.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-08 18:42 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by ozmanjusri · 2005-11-08 18:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

No, it would just prevent Geneva conventions.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:Can't blind on purpose by aaron_ds · 2005-11-08 19:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Just once. Don't look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by SupremeTaco · 2005-11-08 19:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
You have a constitutionally protected right to be wrong, and I the right to ignore you.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Rei · 2005-11-08 21:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

The same reason chemical weapons were banned. Contrary to modern scare tactics, chemical weapons are notoriously *ineffective* killers. In WWI (which had the most widespread use of chemical weapons in human history), several tonnes of chemical munitions were produced for every fatality that they caused. What they do, however (in addition to breaking lines), is maim. Societies got back from that war a bunch of people who were damaged and broken. Chemical weapons were initially championed for the same reason US is pushing things like this blinding weaponry - they were supposed to be a more humane way of fighting wars, by making your foe no longer able to be an effective combattant (in fact, chlorine gas accomplished this often through blinding) while not being as likely to take their life. However, after seing people return from the war burned, blinded, etc - many decided that this wasn't more humane at all, and pushed for a ban.

Naturally, if a person is only temporarily blinded, it's not the same situation. However, there are ample reasons to doubt how "temporary" this will be. Even if they have a laser range finder that adjusts output power, reflection, eyewear, and even things like car windshields can greatly distort the intensity delivered - and even a pulse that causes "temporary blindness" is going to be awfully bad for the retina.

--
He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by packeteer · 2005-11-08 22:55 · Score: 2, Funny

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".

--
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Mad_Rain · 2005-11-09 00:05 · Score: 4, Funny

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"

--
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · 2005-11-09 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by mforbes · 2005-11-09 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
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.
--
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
Re:Can't blind on purpose by ScentCone · 2005-11-09 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, i can just as easily blind an enemy combatant by poking him in the eye with a stick as i can with an assault rifle.

Sure, but you can't use that stick from 300 meters away. And you can't use that stick on an entire platoon of guys popping out of a ditch, trying - right now - with lots of weapons, to kill you.

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

You're thinking largely about the past, here. The Geneva convention only applies (and then, loosely) to those that actually sign onto it, and substantially adhere to it. Remember those video tapes we found in Afghanistan, where the parts of some of the local training camps had been used to test nerve gas weapons on dogs and goats? The guys thinking of using that stuff, mostly on civilians in what we now think of as terrorist attacks, are not signees to the Geneva Convention(s). The "wars" we're facing (not counting some absurd lashing out by North Korea, or the Chinese deciding to gobble up Taiwan by force) will almost never again be between facing-off uniformed combatants. It's just not like that any more.

So, we can "ban" pain-related weapons all day long, but just like gun control for civilians, it only has meaning to those that adhere to the agreement - and since there always have been, and always will be people who don't give a rat's ass about such agreements/laws, the people that agree to them end up at a disadvantage.

That said, I don't find that a weapon which induces temporary pain (say, on someone who is about to hurl a molotov cocktail through some poor shopkeeper's window because he's mad at the world) is nearly as bad as the use of lethal or maiming force from conventional weapons. A headache that lasts an hour isn't nearly as bad as permanent damage to a limb or major organ. And if that's all that's needed to dispurse a bunch of Parisians burning public transportation vehicles, etc., then that's a far better alternative to slinging lead.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by baptiste · 2005-11-09 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative
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):
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
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Kadin2048 · 2005-11-09 02:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Call me cynical, but I think the prohibitions on chemical weapons have a lot more to do with countries that think themselves pretty good at 'conventional war' not wanting to allow anything in that changes the rules and might put them at a disadvantage. Consider the parties that came up with the Geneva Convention and what it prohibits: all of them are what could potentially be disruptive technologies. Chemical (and later, biological) weapons are not only ugly in an aesthetic/"honorable war" sense, but they could allow a country which lacks conventional military capabilities to compete with a major power. Thus the major powers have a vested interest in keeping them from being developed, especially if there is domestic pressure for them not to use them themselves.

It's clearer when you consider how biological and nerve weapons are treated versus nuclear ones. Both have the capability of being WMDs, but nuclear ones were more or less tolerated for a long time because they were perceived as difficult for less industrialized countries to build. As it's become less of a technical challenge to construct them, we've seen the major powers start beating the nonproliferation/disarmament drum -- and there was a period in the 80s with "Star Wars," when it looked like nuclear missles were going to be supplanted by an even newer and harder to build type of weapons system.

IMO, the prohibitions against chemical weapons were partly the last gasp of a 19th century idea of war as an honorable and manly activity, to which the concept of invisible, impersonal death by airborne chemicals was abhorrent; but mainly it was the superpowers who had the most to lose from a new and disruptive form of warfare trying to nip a new technology in the bud, and keep war focused on what they were proven to be good at.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Can't blind on purpose by Kadin2048 · 2005-11-09 03:54 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Can't blind on purpose by onepoint · 2005-11-09 04:07 · Score: 2, Informative

>>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

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by ScentCone · 2005-11-09 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

if you think through the probable results of introducing weapons like this into a place like Iraq, I think you'll find their value to be questionable

But not all conflicts are like Iraq. You've also got places like Somalia (remember the downed chopper there?) where you've got militant-armed local punks who deliberately stand in the middle of crowds of civilians knowing that our troops will resist shooting at them. Or picture, say, a French embassy that's being surrounded with the same sort of stuff that's happening in Paris right now. Or a rescue operation... where you don't want to have to kill people in a semi-hostile village setting, but you want them all to stand well back from where you're putting down an aircraft. If you limit your choices to "lethal force" and "no other option," you either have to be overrun or start killing people that you don't intend to kill.

Just because a stunning laser or skin heater won't help with an IED-placing foreign fighter hitting convoys in Irag doesn't mean the tool shouldn't be available to those troops who do have to deal with more typical rioters or embassy-throngers.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Can't blind on purpose by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2005-11-09 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by SatanicPuppy · 2005-11-09 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

The real reason they used chemical weapons is because they maimed more than they killed. Kill a soldier, and all you need is two guys and a shovel to take care of him. But maim him, and you need food, medical care, medical supplies, and you'll continue to need them for quite some time. It's a nasty kind of logistical warfare, designed to cripple your enemies infrastructure.

It's the same sort of reason Anthrax is the bioweapon of choice...Not all that fatal, but the people who get infected with it require a lot of care. Ebola and other hemmoragic fevers, on the other hand, are back to the two guys and the shovel.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.

Is it just me.. by Daxster · 2005-11-08 18:31 · Score: 3, Funny

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".

--
Death by snoo-snoo!

But will it be able to defend against... by FF8Jake · 2005-11-08 18:31 · Score: 5, Funny

sharks with frickin lasers on their heads?

Re:But will it be able to defend against... by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-11-08 20:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by utexaspunk · 2005-11-09 02:16 · Score: 2, Funny

So THAT's why gangsters like lots of bling!

Nice acronym by Guysmiley777 · 2005-11-08 18:36 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.

Re:Nice acronym by cryptoz · 2005-11-08 18:39 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblock by Jim_Callahan · 2005-11-08 18:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

I'm just going to not RTFA: If I found out that this suggested use was actually in the documentation rather than a stupid comment of an article submitter, I'd lose the last remaining scraps of faith I had in the existence of intelligent life in the universe.

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~

Re:And the defence is... by Technician · 2005-11-08 18:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--
The truth shall set you free!

nitpicking by cryptoz · 2005-11-08 18:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

"(PHASR) laser"

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

/me is confused.

Blinding the driver by lorcha · 2005-11-08 18:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent

Re:Blinding the driver by daraf · 2005-11-08 19:01 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Remember folks. by hobotron · 2005-11-08 18:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's Less-Lethal, not Non-Lethal

--
There is truth in humor.

Re:Remember folks. by Sycraft-fu · 2005-11-08 19:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Harder to revolt by electrosoccertux · 2005-11-08 18:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by grogdamighty · 2005-11-08 19:16 · Score: 2

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

--
My other sig is funny.
Re:Harder to revolt by electrosoccertux · 2005-11-08 19:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Sounds like things aren't going as planned by core+plexus · 2005-11-08 18:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Dun+Malg · 2005-11-08 18:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:Sounds like things aren't going as planned by TapeCutter · 2005-11-08 20:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Cue new fashion trend by Attaturk · 2005-11-08 18:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Now you know why the men in black wear shades.

WHAT??? by laughingcoyote · 2005-11-08 18:45 · Score: 3, Funny

...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!

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.

ah, who cares about geneva conventions. by artifex2004 · 2005-11-08 18:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

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. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2005-11-08 21:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:W00t, PHASRs by eobanb · 2005-11-08 19:01 · Score: 4, Funny

The PHASR, now with a 1.3 MP camera and iTunes

--

Take off every sig. For great justice.

Does it include....? by mindstorms · 2005-11-08 19:03 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
Fighting ignorance with ignorance.

Re:over the top by ozmanjusri · 2005-11-08 19:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."

Ridiculously Contrived Acronym of the Month Award by serutan · 2005-11-08 19:10 · Score: 5, Funny

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 ? by this+great+guy · 2005-11-08 19:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Hot girls have this feature built-in.

Re:Temporarily blind guys ? by Toxicgonzo · 2005-11-08 19:27 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Non lethal, more dangerous to liberty by letdinosaursdie · 2005-11-08 19:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

great move by Xaggroth · 2005-11-08 19:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

How is that a problem for America? by katharsis83 · 2005-11-08 19:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-11-08 19:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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? by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-11-08 19:56 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Problem Solved: by karlfr · 2005-11-08 19:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Sunglasses.

Lethality 0 by Wantok · 2005-11-08 19:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.

COOL!! by ksheff · 2005-11-08 19:43 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs

Re:over the top by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-08 19:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

(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 by n54 · 2005-11-08 20:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Looking at it that way the Geneva conventions would prohibit the use of flashbangs. I'm very confident the mutually agreed definition of "maiming weapons" among the signatories does not include temporary sensory depravation etc. and even more certain that most people would agree that non-lethal warfare is better than lethal warfare.

Continuing your thought one has to ask what weapon can't conceivably be used for maiming rather than killing? I know of no such weapon only which has such a "boolean value"-like use, not even weapons of mass destruction.

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

You're right by katharsis83 · 2005-11-08 20:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Kadin2048 · 2005-11-09 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:You're right by rayvd · 2005-11-09 03:35 · Score: 2

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 by Harry+Coin · 2005-11-09 05:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
That's pre 7-11 thinking....

Re:Psyops by warmcat · 2005-11-08 21:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2005-11-08 21:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

This is especially the case if the driver is a professional soccer mom, ferrying her manicured offspring to the local mall. Her sunglasses will shield her from the glare, and what filters through will only cause her already strained mind to finally snap. In her rage, she will plough over the road blocks and escaping marines in her three ton death mobile, hunched over the steering wheel, hands circling wildly screaming; "Won't Anyone Please Think Of The Children!! How Am I Supposed Get Them To Soccer Practice With All The Porno On TV, Violet Video Games, And Now US Soldier FLASHING Me On The Roads!! I Have A God Given Right To Do Whatever I Want In My Car!!!"

--
May the Maths Be with you!

What a crock! by waif69 · 2005-11-09 01:39 · Score: 2

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.

Really bad idea. by Kadin2048 · 2005-11-09 01:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's idiotic.

Go stand in front of a car sometime and try and figure out how you'd like to shoot the tires, especially if it was driving towards you at high speed. They're not exactly a huge target to begin with, plus they'd be turned end-on, and all but the very bottom is covered by the front fender in most vehicles. Now imagine trying to shoot them and only them, using a machine gun, probably mounted on another vehicle (putting it ~6' up in the air) so there's a downward angle, and you'll realize it's highly impractical. Furthermore, it would really suck to waste your last chance at stopping a car by shooting at its tires, only to realize the instant before whatever large amount of explosive that it's carrying detonates, that it had run-flats.

This whole "shoot the tires" idea is pure Hollywood. If you're putting bullets into a car, chances are the situation has already degraded past the point where non-lethal force is appropriate anyway. Most of the time if you're trying to stop a car, you don't even aim for the driver, you'd be aiming for the engine block, which is unfortunately mounted in front of the driver. Cracking the block pretty much guarantees a quick disable of the vehicle, and is conveniently located "center mass" so it's not difficult to hit.

Think about the real world practicality of your suggestions in the future. There's a reason soldiers aren't trained to aim for the tires when somebody is trying to ram a roadblock, and it's not because they get a sick thrill out of shooting people.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re:Really bad idea. by Kadin2048 · 2005-11-09 02:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Blocking the frequency by phasm42 · 2005-11-09 01:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner

HE vs WP by Kadin2048 · 2005-11-09 02:28 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re:Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblo by Shihar · 2005-11-09 02:44 · Score: 2

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.

73 of 380 comments (clear)