Slashdot Mirror
Journalist Test Drives The Pain Ray Gun
Fantastic Lad writes to tell us that journalist Michael Hanlon recently got the opportunity to experience the Army's new not-so-secret weapon, dubbed "Silent Guardian". The Silent Guardian is essentially (even though the creators prefer you not refer to it as such) a ray gun, emitting a focused beam of radiation similar to your microwave tuned to a specific frequency to stimulate human nerve endings. "It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile. Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury. But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonizing sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about. "
In a world where the Taser is no longer considered a self defense weapon, but rather an enforcement/compliance tool, I am frightened to think what will happen when this technology makes its way out of the military sector. Every tough guy cop with a chip on his shoulder will have the power to cause limitless pain, and could justify it by saying "it causes no injury, and it prevents potential harm to innocents".
There is something wrong when the general population begins to fear the police, and I think that is starting to happen in the United States.
I wonder if this will be the next iteration of the Taser problem, specifically, the fact that it leaves no marks and is designed not to permanently injure ends up lowering the threshold for using it.
With a gun, a trained operator understands that the person he's shooting at will probably die, so everything better be absolutely correct before employing it or he's going to jail.
With a Tazer, the trained operator will use it more casually than a gun because the price of being wrong is so much lower.
With the pain ray, it's even lower. Our current legal environment suggests that this will end up being used to break up unpopular demonstrations or groupings even more casually than tear gas, specifically because the physical evidence and chance of permanent injury is so much lower.
What effect will this have on the democratic process? Used in conjunction with modern artifacts like "designated free speech zones", this could be crippling. There's no way to prevent an advance, our duty as citizens is to be aware of the dangers and be ready to speak out against them if they transpire.
Corrupt lobby to pass law declaring it illegal to wear metallic micro-wave reflecting clothes in
Common, they already made it illegal to wear a gaz-mask during manifestations in some countries. What do you expect ?
{Insert your favorite "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-no-reason-to-wear-one" excuse hehe}
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It seems to me that they were created in one.
it says "it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury."
That seems an awfully calculated thing to say... so that means they have found it to cause INVISIBLE permanent injury then?
Or the long term health effects. It may cause pain now, but increase your chance for cancer, much like sunburn.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the sole reason for development was as stated above. The US used teargas in Viet Nam, and non-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets were used by the British in Northern Ireland, and I think by the Israelis against Palestinians. But there may be a problem with this sort of weapon. According to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml The US was unable to use teargas due to a chemical weapons treaty. It wouldn't surprise me if some treaty some where disallowed this thing on the battlefield, but not at home...
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
The thing is, this wave in tuned to a frequency targeting nerve endings - so it might well not be nearly powerful enough to boil anything, much less your eye.
That said I was thinking that anything that sent this much pain coursing through you might well lead to more harmful effects than a tazer. That much pain would have to be quite a shock to your body which would probably trigger a lot of reactions as a result.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are missing the point. For such regimes, this device would not be so attractive for crowd control as it would be for torture. Let's see...cheap and easy to reproduce, causes agony, doesn't leave marks. Perfect for extracting confessions and discrediting dissidents!
Come to think of it, considering how trigger-happy some cops around here seem to be with tasers, I'd hate to see what they would do with a device like this if they ever got someone they didn't like (accused rapist, molester, cop killer, smart-mouthed teenager) in the lock-up.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
No you wouldn't.
If these become commonplace the problem will snowball. Pain begets one of two things:
1) Compliance
2) Ultra-Violence
As a result, when hit with one of these things folks are either going to crawl up into
a ball and hope it goes away, or come out guns blazing to destroy the device causing the
pain to begin with. ( and likely the wielder with it )
If I were to attend a demonstration where it is known the police would likely use such
a device on the crowd I would either:
1) Re-consider my attendance
or
2) Setup similar devices to aim at the police or resort to current tech ( read that firearms )
You cannot use what would be considered an electronic torture device on me and expect me
to be ok with it. The operators of such a device would be the FIRST targets I went after.
Since it's unlikely the citizens would have similar tech in their hands for use, firearms will
put a stop to it just as quickly.
And jokes aside, the risks are higher than just getting hurt a little.
1. 1/64th of an inch seems sufficient to cause serious and possibly permanent eye damage. This is an area-wide weapon, it is not selective about its targets or which body part it is targeting.
2. Exposure to extreme levels of pain (especially suddenly) can also lead to a seizure or heart attack. If the pain is extremely strong, it may incapacitate the target (ever hurt yourself so badly you can't do ANYTHING except perhaps scream?), meaning the people can't escape the target zone, exposing themselves to even more pain.
3. If the authorities decide to use the weapon against a crowd, it is natural to presume some have a higher pain tolerance then others, and if the weapons is used until all or the majority of the crowd is quelled, the weaker-tolerance people will be exposed to unnecessary (and with potential serious consequences) levels and duration of pain.
4. I'm not even going to the legal definitions of physical torture in and by itself...
I'm not saying it shouldn't be used under any circumstances whatsoever, but it seems that it should be classified as deadly or almost deadly force ("deadly" in most jurisdictions includes "capable of producing grievous bodily harm).
Even the story the other day about the use of a Taser (which is also an almost-deadly-force weapon, with documented fatalities) being used where the suspect posed absolutely no danger and could have been subdued without it). This device can lead to the same consequences of a Taser, but instead of being used on one person, it affects hundreds, with no way to observe the effects on each single person and adjust the device power accordingly.
Are there cases where use of this device is legitimate? Maybe, for example if you are rushed by an angry mob and you legitimately feel your life to be in danger if you don't take immediate action. But given our record for indiscriminate and excessive use of next-to-lethal force (rubber bullets, Tasers, etc.) against peaceful demonstrations, non-violent action, cases where safer alternatives are available, and with "just for kicks" being a legitimate reason, I certainly wouldn't bet on this device to be safe in the hands of those who use it. This device is NOT a valid substitute for a water cannon or tear gas, and if in a given situation you are not justified to use live firearms, you also shouldn't be justified to use something like this.
If (or, sadly speaking, when) it will be classified as a "safe, non-lethal" weapon (just as the Taser already has been) well, we will be one mile higher up Shit Creek.
You know, the funny thing is, even the most hardened dictatorships only used "kalashnikovs for crowd control" when things really got out of hand. I know of at least one Eastern European revolution where the oppressive communist government first tried to hose them with water and whatnot, and we're talking revolt against the government there.
Compare it to the neverending stream of Taser stories from the USA. People got tasered occasionally as torture (people which had _already_ been restrained) or because a cop got a chip on his shoulder, for reasons as ridiculous as:
- asking too many questions at a political rally (see the recent story)
- being at a library without their library card (guy got tasered _repeatedly_ after he had already accepted to leave)
- diabetic guy in a medical emergency calls 911 for an ambulance, cops show up first and taser him in his bed (apparently one guy sick enough to be stuck in bed was considered dangerous enough to the cops to warrant use of the taser)
Etc, etc, etc.
Dearie, get this: even China, and even the fucking NKVD under Stalin, wouldn't have used a gun in _those_ situation. Yes, China did shoot some of the people demonstrating in Tiananmen square against the government, but not even in their darkest hour would they consider shooting a sick guy for calling an ambulance.
Effectively the idea that a taser is "non-lethal" has lowered the bar to ludicriously low extremes. It's not replacing the use of guns, as if you were to do something that warrants shooting at you, they'll _still_ shoot at you. (E.g., if you pulled a gun at a cop, I do believe they won't draw the tasers.) It just created a whole new possibility to inflict pain (again, sometimes repeatedly) on someone for minor misdemeanors or just for disliking him or just for fun. It's not replacing guns, it's _in_ _addition_ to guns, for stuff where you previously wouldn't even _think_ of drawing a gun.
Sadder still: for stuff where even China or the USSR wouldn't have even dreamed of using a gun on someone.
So the question isn't whether you'd rather get the ray or a round. For any stuff that would previously warrant getting a round, you'll still get a round. Only now you'll get the ray for everything else. Whop-de-do, big improvement there.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This weapon is designed to work not against invading armies, but against angry citizens. Through most of recent history, governments have been wary of angering their own populations for fear of triggering citizen revolutions. A government cannot effectively use lethal weapons on its own population in any widespread way, because those citizens make the state function. Thus, there are some things that governments simply will not do, because of the risk of a popular uprising.
With weapons like this pain gun, the balance of power is tipped sharply in favor of governments. Governments will be able to use weapons like this against their own people, without creating rebel martyrs. The immediate effects of this gun on an individual are horrible, but temporary. No disfiguring injuries to point to as proof of the government's inhumanity. Just a fleeting moment of pain, that will continue to exist only in a person's memory. These pain guns are a far more effective tool of subjugation than machine guns.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
While you are at it, please check what happens to exposed corneas in your eyes (or at least the topmost 1/64th of it).
With any luck, it'll coaggulate and turn opaque, so the police won't need to use blindfolds on the protesters.
With even more luck, it'll stay that way forever...
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
> But we taser people too often, so we're worse. Seriously, fuck you.
Grand parent never claimed US was "worse" than USSR. That is pure invention on your part, because you lack the mental capabilities to read what he actually wrote. As long as you compensate for your long for your low intelligence by inventing stuff, you will never become smarter.
He claimed that in the US people are tasered for situations where more oppressive governments would not use a gun. You then counter by a Wikipedía quote, listing abuses done by USSR in situation where US police or guards would not use a taser. You don't use tasers to assassinate people, or to "subversion of foreign governments", once again demonstrating how access to Wikipedia is in no way a replacement for having a brain.
You are quite correct. As you say, the Taser has been found to be "seldom lethal"... often called "less lethal" weaponry. Those who call it "non-lethal" are either lying or uninformed. For example, just recently there was a casualty in my own city. (Yes, in the U.S.)
Because of its status as "less lethal", the Taser is supposed to be used by law enforcement as "an alternative to lethal force". In other words, as a way of stopping a person when the only other alternative is to shoot them with a gun. And it performs that function quite well. The Taser very seldom (but occasionally) results in permanent damage or death.
PROBLEM #1 is exactly that perception of non-lethality. To some, non-lethal or "less lethal" means safe or even sane. However, I would be willing to bet a large amount that if you compared the number of people in history who have been beaten with nightsticks, to the number of people who have been Tasered, you would find a higher lethality rate for the Taser. I am only guessing, but nobody so far has really done such a study, so the question is open. And as I mentioned, one died just recently in my own town. I do not think anyone in this town has ever died from beatings by nightsticks... and believe me, there have been some over the last couple of hundred years.
PROBLEM #2 is the conception that "no permanent harm" means "no harm". Bullshit. People hit with a Taser fall down hard, in unnatural positions, and hurt themselves. It is also excruciatingly painful. I believe most people who have been Tasered would rather have been hit with a nightstick, even though the latter would hurt for a much longer time.
Years ago, a popular interrogation (or control) device was a length of rubber hose, because it could be extremely painful but leave few marks and do "no permanent harm". Sound familiar? Strangely, the rubber hose is internationally vilified as a "torture device" while the Taser is not. Somebody please explain this to me!
PROBLEM #3 Police forces tend to attract the kind of people who like to bully and control other people. You could argue with me all you want about that but history supports that statement beyond dispute. I am not saying that all cops are bad, but a disproportionate percentage of them are, and always have been. Plain, simple truth. I wish it were otherwise.
PROBLEM #4 is actually just the consequences of 1, 2, and 3: Police forces (at least in the U.S.) have started using Tasers in ways that are completely inappropriate: to avoid physical confrontation at all; as an alternative to nightsticks (rather than as an alternative to guns, as it should be); and even just as a convenience, such as to avoid having to tell someone something one more time. I have seen video clips of police Tasering people for such things as talking back, not moving fast enough for the officer's taste, and other such "criminal" acts. That very recent video of the student getting Tasered at the Kerry speech is a classic case. The student might have been a mouthy ass, but he did not deserve the treatment he received.
People need to get together and demand that their state or city restrict the use of Tasers (again) to "an alternative to deadly force". Otherwise, their use will escalate and the public will surely regret it.
What the CIA is doing is nasty. But it's nowhere near as bad as the KGB got up to.
Which is pretty much the US all over these days.
"USA - less nasty than the USSR!"
"USA - fewer human rights violations than Uzbekistan!"
"USA - not too nice, but hey, we're better than Burma!"