Set PHASRs On Stun 380
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.
Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblock (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
nitpicking (Score:3, Insightful)
So now it's a Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radation?
Blinding the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Less-Lethal, not Non-Lethal
Harder to revolt (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-lethal weapons do not exist (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Can't blind on purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it would just prevent Geneva conventions.
Re:over the top (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one, but it has to work. Most of them don't.
Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Non lethal, more dangerous to liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
great move (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that a problem for America? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Remember folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Harder to revolt (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Lethality 0 (Score:2, Insightful)
Flashbang Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
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:But will it be able to defend against... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You're right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What I really love: (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:How is that a problem for America? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nah...They would never do stuff like that. You're obviously some kind of commie.
Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Psyops (Score:3, Insightful)
Soccer Mom Wrath (Score:4, Insightful)
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!!!"
Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions. (Score:0, Insightful)
We are signatories to the Geneva convention but The President approves the use of torture and his VP argues against 90 senators who say he is wrong.
We have a president who daily in 2000 swore an oath to have the most ethical administration in history but several in his inner circle now stand accused of TREASON, one is indicted for lying in this matter.
We have a president who claims to protect us against terrorists but cannot handle a storm that gives a full week of advanced warning.
The emporer wears no clothes.
Such an emporer, by Intelligent Design, justifies nothing.
Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Napalming civilians? I have to call Bullshit (Score:0, Insightful)
The reasoning behind the article was photograhic evidence of burned civilians. I'm not saying civilians were not caught in the crossfire, because I really don't know, and neither do you. I am saying that civilians were not targeted by American soldiers. I'm also saying that the enemies we are fighting in Iraq make a habbit of intentionally targeting civilians, mainly because they are less armed than the military.
So, who do you think burned the civilians found after all action in Falluja? The US Military, who goes out of their way to avoid targeting civilians, or the terrorists (sorry, you probably call them "Freedom Fighters") who intentionally target markets, schools and mosques?
Is it possible to oppose the war and NOT want Saddam Hussein back in power?
Really bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Can't blind on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Blocking the frequency (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Can't blind on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
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:You're right (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Can't blind on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't blind on purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
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.