Weapons of War Now Include Lightning Guns 665
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post is running a lengthy article today about Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems, an Indiana-based company that says its developed a nonlethal weapon that shoots lightning bolts. This article is an in-depth look at a company that's stirred up some controversy on Slashdot in the past. From the article: 'Lightning guns, heat rays, weapons that can make you hear the voice of God. This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.'"
Aiming accuracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that lightning wouldn't necessarily go where you want it to, but instead would go where it wants to...
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot (Score:4, Funny)
Time to burn some mod points. I wonder how low the liberal whiners here can mod me down.
S I G H.
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, just as likely, somebody -- but we'd never know who, because the bomb would be imported in a lead-lined box, inside one of the many cargo containers that still don't get inspected. All we'd know is that one day, (major US city) existed, and the next day, it didn't.
That's the problem with too many Americans (and yes, I am one myself, keep that in mind when you flame me): they think that waving their dicks around and threatening/bullying the rest of the world will make us safer, when in fact it does the opposite.
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Different sources of uranium leave different signatures, even after having gone through a nuclear explosion. Extensive testing was done with this during the cold war to enusre that if someone attacked the US, we could retaliate at the correct party resposible.
So even if someone took the precautions outlined above by you, once it has exploded we could trace the source of the uranium/plutonium back to the original source and have a good idea of who created the bomb in the first place.
That's the problem with too many Americans (and yes, I am one myself, keep that in mind when you flame me): they think that waving their dicks around and threatening/bullying the rest of the world will make us safer, when in fact it does the opposite.
It's called posturing. Just about every animal does it. Posture big enough and your enemies will leave you alone. The USA and USSR did this all through the cold war. If you don't, you can get runover or get suckerpunched if no one thinks you have backbone enough to retaliate (Pearl harbor/WWII for starters).
That said, being completely peaceful will get you run over. Start by looking at Tibet.
"threatening/bullying" == "diplomacy" (Score:3, Insightful)
I think lots of people on the Left want to think that the only reason that people hate and attack the USA is because of the USA's "bad behavior". Keep in mind that this action gives ammunition to the rabid Right-wing war hawks who call you the "blame America f
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
The predatory nature of the human species is well proven by its own history, its own accounting of same, and its various works of self-analysis and introspection. Show weakness, capitulate before threatening goons with a grudge, and they will never let you s
You should worry about other stuff. (Score:3, Interesting)
It'll be totally stupid to shoot stuff at the US. If leaders of my country ever even publicly talk about that, I would give medals to the first person to kill them. Which is why practically _nobody_ outside of the US and UK thought that Saddam would shoot stuff at US/UK despite what Bush or Blair said. "Minutes away etc", WMD, all bullshit.
Anyway, if you only had
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:5, Informative)
The guy zapped himself. (Score:4, Funny)
Some degree of accuracy eh? :-D Reading the article, I find the guy manages to inadvertently zap himself with a lightning gun that has a useful range of about four feet. If he's dead set on using electricity, a projectile that releases an electric charge on impact sounds like a better idea to me. But hey, it only cost the US taxpayer a million bucks or so to find out lightning sucks as a weapon. IMHO that ranks right up there with the cow fart studies.
FYI (Score:3, Informative)
I recently read somewhere about one of a few such products currently in development (sorry, can't give you links, I'm on my handheld right now. I bet you'd see it on defensetech.org though). It seemed like a really neat idea - take the shot out of a shotgun cartridge and put a piezoelectric generator in it. The force of the impact itself generates the electricity which is then discharged via contact into the vic
Bring it on (Score:3, Funny)
Video of lightning suitcase/lazers (Score:3, Informative)
There is a video there with a shot of the suitcase that shoots lightning [xtremeads.com] talked about in the article.
If you look around the rest of the site, you'll basically just see artist's [xtremeads.com] drawings [xtremeads.com] of their ideas [xtremeads.com].
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
People advertise nonlethal weapons as safer, compared to lethal weapons. I'll believe that argument when patrol cops give up their guns in favor of nonlethal alternatives. In practice, what happens is people get gassed or shocked in circumstances that previously would have called for deployment of a megaphone or fire hose.
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:4, Funny)
no comment necessary...
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for patrol cops handing in guns in exchange for non-lethal/less-lethan alternatives, that'll happen when gun/weapon makers create an multipurpose weapon to suit their needs. Tasers are too short ranged, useless against armored targets and can range from useless against enraged subjects to potentially lethal if used against someone with a weak heart. Pepper spray/guns suffer from the same problem, poor accuracy over long ranges, useless against gas masks and ineffective/potentially lethal depending on subject. Sound and laser-based weapons are too experimental to be fielded. Beanbag guns can only really be used if the target is not behind cover, have seriously varying effects on a case-by-case situation and can cause internal damage if too many shots in the same general area.
It isn't that police don't want less lethal weaponery, its simply a matter of the current stage is too experimental. (Pepper spray is useless if I'm charging you with a knife in a small room. A taser won't work if I'm trying to run you over. Most people who work out at the gym will be able to take a couple beanbag hits and will be able to attack. So on and so on.)
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lightning gun's lack of accuracy could actually be an aid in that sort of situation. It becomes a sort of non lethal shotgun, stopping several people each time it's fired. The article said that they had a general ability to aim it (based on ionizing air in a certain direction.) As long as it shocks the roiting crowd instead of the other soilders, this sort of weapon can but used for crowd control.
Accuracy isn't the point (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely. Urban crowd control is the optimum environment for nonlethal weapons. The US military is serious about using nonlethal systems where practical [estripes.com], but they do recognize their limitations.
Re:Accuracy isn't the point (Score:3, Informative)
>> "nonlethal" weapons
> The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations.
"Nonlethal" is a misnomer for many of these weapons.
The problem inherent to these less-then-lethal weapons is that the police or the military will be more inclined to use them in situations that may not call for such use of force.
Crowd control situations are particularly problematic. I live not far from Boston, and was appalled at the way the Boston police handled the c
Obviously, ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How does this help fight the so-called WOT? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the US sending weapons to the Dominican Republic, where those weapons were diverted to former Haitian death squads does not have US fingerprints on it?
President Aristide being refused additional bodyguards from the US mercenary contractor at a critical time doesn't hint that the US gov't might be involved?
The US bodyguards which Aristide had in Haiti who mysteriously "disappeared" right about the time the US Marines showed up are only a concincidence, huh?
The US Mari
Re:How does this help fight the so-called WOT? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we lost the Vietnam war -- big time.
Sure, like Iraq, the US could hold a piece of ground when it wanted to and had semi-control of most of the cities. But the people there hated the US (with the exception of the quislings we bought and some French-speaking Vietnamese Catholics).
The US fought to keep Vietnam under our thumb and the Vietnamese fought for their own independence. In the course of that fighting the US go
Re:How does this help fight the so-called WOT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the Vietnamese people were sick of foreign domination after a century of brutal colonial occupation by the French that began in 1883, and which in many cases pushed the Vietnamese in to virtual slavery to colonial masters. When the French abandoned the place the U.S. stepped in and picked up the colonial baton.
The U.S. proceeded to install a wildly sil
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the Americans have a big problem with doing the vast majority of the fighting, equipping, logistics, and, of course, shooting. When you're doing almost all of the work, more of what goes wrong in the chaos of combat (and even in the complexity of live fire exercises) is going to be laid at the feet of the people carrying/flying/driving/shooting the most weapons. Every single injury or death of this type is a tragedy, but the number that are avoided through the use of the US's stunningly effective (by historical standards) command and control systems is not to be trivialized. It's terrible when an ally dies fighting with the US, and it's just as terrible when we shoot up one of our own. But what we have now is better stats, embedded reporters, and an changed ethic about a lot of this. Can you imagine how much of this happened (on all sides) during the Vietnam, or World wars?
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:3, Informative)
Eh? Canada has a military, and a rather good one too, I'm told. They're not in Iraq because they already sent their entire block of deployable troops to Afghanistan. Remember them?
Lea
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
"They?" You mean, of course, guys like Zarqawi? You know, the Jordanian head-remover and his boys, most of whom are not from Iraq, but are from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Fighting back? Is that what they call blowing up markets, driving car bombs into crowds of kids, shooting politicians working on the constitution, and loading up houses on the Syrian boarder with fake Iraqi police cars and ambulence full of Iranian-made exposives?
You'll recall the millions of people in tha
Re:Aiming accuracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
"one is non-Iraqi, therefore more are". Nice reasoning. Pity the facts don't back up that point-of-view.
Fighting back? Is that what they call blowing up markets, driving car bombs into crowds of kids, shooting politicians working on the constitution, and loading up houses on the Syrian boarder with fake Iraqi police cars and ambulence full of Iranian-made exposives?
Yup. Viva la Resistance. Go read a history book, resistance movements don't wear uniforms
which God? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:which God? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:which God? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:which God? (Score:3, Funny)
UT2004 (Score:5, Funny)
Non-Lethal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-Lethal? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would guess that if a non-lethal weapon is non-leathal 90% of the possible scenarios, It would be ok to use it as a non lethal weapon.
If a woman is being raped and beat then reaches for a stun gun wich ends up killing here attacker instead of imobilising him, is that all that bad? I won't lose and sleep over it.
Re:Non-Lethal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then by definition it isn't "non-lethal", now is it? These weapons are often sold to the public on the premise that they are totally harmless, which isn't true. I just want truth in advertising-"not as lethal", "virtually non-lethal", etc. But then, the makers wouldn't sell as many, would they
Certainly (Score:5, Funny)
Because we all know how effective giant lightning bolts are at seeking out a terrorist in a populated urban area...
Re:Certainly (Score:2)
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
U.S.A! U.S.A!
when are we getting the sonic tanks? (Score:5, Funny)
R. Lee Ermey says... (Score:2)
BIG Fun (Score:5, Funny)
I smell a new type of X-Games Competition.
"dazzler" laser (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:4, Informative)
Temporary blinding.. while it's questionable if such is very possible without risk of permanant injury, isn't forbidden.
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:2)
The most major of which was World War II, which by no means was started by the US, and set the precedent for throwing Kellogg-Briand out the window. The problem is that such a treaty, when upheld, leaves the nice guys no recourse against the mean guys. And the mean guys never sign
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:2)
WWII was started by Germany and Japan, and most other countries fought in communal self defense.
Korea and Vietnam were really a case of helping another nation defend itself.
The '91 gulf war was an international coalition to liberate Kuwait, which was unlawfully attacked according to international law. The reason the invasion of Iraq stopped at th
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they are. Geneva conventions (plural) cover all classes of participants in warfare, one of them is "non-uniformed" combatants (GC3) or alternatively civilians (GC4). There is no possibility of anyone in a war not to be covered by one of the Conventions. The "unlawful combatant" bullshit is wholly invented by the Bush Administration.
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:3, Insightful)
All those "pieces of shit" are there as the result of combat in either Afganistan (a war) or Iraq (a war) or a "War on Terror". Geneva conventions bind any signatory, regardless if they are fighting a country which was not one.
Folks like you piss and whine whenever US troops scare someone with a damn dog o
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:3, Informative)
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:5, Informative)
In which case the US is not at war and they are merely criminals to be tried in accrodance with international law standards. You cannot have it both ways! Either they are para-military caught during military operations or they are criminal suspects. What the Bush Administration has done is to invent a whole new category of "no-rights-whatsover-because-we-say-so" oponents. This is only giving factual ammunition to those who had long claimed the US to be a hypocritical warmonger whose oh-so-pious regard for law extends only as far as its interests.
The Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, the members of both houses of Congress, all know and say this is perfectly legal.
No, but they do they know on which side their bread is buttered and we are talking about some inconsequential brown people of whom a number are actual terrorists so who cares. Its not like they are going to get a TV campaign going during elections or something that would actually hurt these members of Congress.
But a little fool on the Internet, living in Hyper-reality, has no explanation as to [i]how[/i] the Bush Administration is, in his view, doing something illegal.
Explanation is really simple, dimwit: none of the Geneva Conventions allow for this, they don't even mention an "unlawful combatant" as a valid class of prisoners. And they apply to all signatories regardless if they are fighting a non-signarory, as long as they are at "war". Its dead simple. And if you are not at "war" then they are criminal suspects and suject to internationally accepted laws, including access to a lawyer etc.
There is one possibility you and your liberal blogs have not considered: that it is perfectly legal and proper to do so (after all, terrorists don't attend conventions).
Proper? Proper?! You mean to sink to the level of murderous, beheding, torturing, child-killing thugs because you are fighting them is proper?! In that case you have not only already lost that fight but you will be counted among those very barbarous enemies of civilization, democracy, law and freedom. And that would be proper indeed.
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is to be arbitrarily determined by the very enemy who captured them?! You gotta be kidding. If that were true, no soldier ever would qualify as a POW as soon as some officer in the invading army decided that he "violated the rules of war". As per GC3 4.A.1, the POW status is awarded with no exceptions to: "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case he is a criminal to be tried for mass murder by the courts in his country. As far as the Occupying Power is concerned he falls under the Fourth Convention.
The preamble of first convention of 1949:
Yes, technically the Conventions originated in 1929 but they were nearly completely revised at the end of WWII as a result of the Nazi experiences.
The US didn't sign the treaty that would recognize the permanent international war crim
Re:"dazzler" laser (Score:5, Informative)
You should note that I only responded to ad-hominem attacks in kind.
According to this [wikipedia] article 2 of the third geneva convention states: That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "
Wikipedia lies. Please do not quote Wikipedia on anything political because it is utterly unreliable as a source and its data depends on whose political bias happens to be dominant at the moment in the "edit wars".
The actual GC3 text is:
Which is quite different (i.e. no opt-out clause). The question is rather academic as both Afghanistan and Iraq were signatories. However consider this: if the Wikipedia interpretation were true it would allow one to start acting arbitrarily barbaric in respect to captured soldiers just because you are fighting someone who does not subscribe to the Conventions. In this line of reasoning, one could argue you are entitled to set up gas chambers for the members of Al-Queida just because they are not officially a party to the Geneva Conventions and are not following their rules. But US still must adhere. Such is the burden of the defender of Liberty. Either you believe in it or you are just an obnoxious opportunistic pretender. No other options exist for the US.What you can argue (and which is the point of view I hold) is that Al-Queida is not an armed force of a Power but a criminal organization to be dealt with via criminal courts the very same way you deal with the Mafia or some of the european leftist rebels of the 1980s and similar social malcontents. They cannot be considered a nation or any other sort of Power which the GC3 would apply to in a war-like scenario, because you simply cannot be at war with them (GC4 still applying to those found in Iraq/Afghanistan). Thus Gitmo is simply illegal as the US is not at war with Al-Queida. In the context of Iraq and Afghanistan the Conventions apply as usual and the US has to stingently follow the rules.
GC3 explicitly states you only get protection if you wear uniform, so why should one demand protection if you don't wear uniform?
The article 4.A.1 makes no such distinction:
It makes no note of uniform. These additional provisions apply to a different category described in 4.A.2. Also note that if you do not fall under GC3 then by default you are covered by GC4. The "insurgents" are then either POWs (if they were in Saddam's army and still believe they are in it), armed resistance under 4.A.2 (all they need is command structure, some basic rules of engagement, a head-band and a weapon worn in the open - see the battle for Falluja) or they are war criminals (that is POWs until their trial in a civilian court or in Hague under the supervision of a Protecting Power) or civilian criminals in which case they get tried in their own country (that would be all those Al-Queida foreign idiots who blow up schools if they are not deemed to fall under 4.A.2).Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell this guy just has some lasers and Tesla coils and "artist's renderings" of terrorists being struck down by sparks.
There's a fundamental problem yet to be addressed. It's extremely difficult to incapacitate someone without risking their life.
His vision of "Zapping the hostages with the kidnappers and sorting it out later" is scary!
That's the real risk of less-lethal weapons, they lend themselves to overuse.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
That was clearly what the DOD's Humvee mounted heat ray technology was for.
Its one of the more disturbing sides of the U.S. government these days, they seem to be spending way to much time thinking about, and spending money, on how to suppress dissent, institute martial law and protect themselves from their own unhappy population.
I see (Score:5, Funny)
I demand to know who used this on our fearless leader, Mr. Bush.
Deathmatch!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I was thinking about joining the army. I mean, its just like fps, but with better graphics. But what if I get lag out there??? I'm dead!!! I heard there isn't even respawn points in RL!" -fps-doug
But where I ask you.... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, calm down! (Score:2)
"Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!" (Score:5, Funny)
Let me guess (Score:3, Funny)
shock and awe! (Score:4, Funny)
Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
Embedded journalists have been trying to report that soldiers have been using IDDQD and IDKFA since April 2004, The Pentagon alleges that if the terrorists ever found out these codes it would "ruin the game", and has subsequently been stripping press reports of this information.
Weapons of war. (Score:3, Funny)
Do we really need more weapons of war? I mean, in all seriousness. Doesn't the US spend as much on the military as most other nations' GNP combined? Whom are we supposed to be fighting?
Re:Weapons of war. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I can appreciate a noble desire by people to wonder why weapons are needed, you do need to understand that weapons exist both as a means to inflict force as well as a means to psychologically affect a potential enemy.
The U.S and (former) U.S.S.R. nuclear arsenals are a perfect example of this idea. If only one country had possessed such a devastating arsenal, it could use it with impunity, thus constituting a an effective deterrence against any other party initiating hostilities. With both parties having the same weaponry, neither side can start anything without a devastating reprisal and are thus mutually deterred.
So, you see, the weapons themselves don't have to actually be used in order to be effective. The very fact that they could be used can deter someone who is considering attacking us or our international interests. Indeed, the lack of such weapons can actually encourage belligerent activity against us and our interests since any such belligerent party might feel they could "get away with it."
Finally, the more effectively our weaponry is, the less likely we'll ever need to use it. For that reason if no other, we should be glad research in these areas is continuing. The fact that this "lightning gun" is intended to be non-lethal is another great idea. It would alway be preferrable to "stun" a target than exercise lethal force. A stunned person will live if you make a mistake. Non-lethal weaponry, if perfected, could eventually eliminate the very concept of civilian casualties. And that is a very good thing to have in your arsenal no matter which "side" you are on.
Marketing vs. Technology (Score:2)
This is what happens when you ignore Nikola Tesla. I know this because I've played Command and Conquer.
Terrorists, pfft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whoa, hold on... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cool... (Score:3, Funny)
Voice of God (Score:5, Funny)
New weapons for protest suppresion (Score:5, Funny)
Now where we do really need nonlethal weapons is in Iraq, where children under the age of fifteen commonly shoot at our guys there. Our guys have nothing else to defend themselves with but guns, and I've heard about how demoralizing it can be for our troops to be forced to kill children (let alone the moral issues, and the fact that we're creating new "insurgents" by killing family members). And it's not like our military does not have nonlethal weapons, it just won't arm our guys with them for the obvious lunkhead reasons.
Rest assured these high tech toys will not be used on armed combatants, but on peaceful protesters.
Re:New weapons for protest suppresion (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, those G8 protesters out there burning cars, smashing storefronts, and generally destroying everything in sight are just...so...peaceful, aren't they?
There was a time when a protest was something arranged around non-violent confrontation. Today, protests are just another excuse for hooligans to do what they do best: destroy things for the fun of it.
Ghandi had it right: if you want an effective protest, violence is the last thing you should encourage or tolerate. It gives your opponents all the ammunition they need to increase the level of control, force, and invasiveness on those who are protesting. These freaks who are out there slinging rocks and Molotov cocktails are not protesters, they're thugs.
Re:New weapons for protest suppresion (Score:5, Interesting)
those thugs are "agent provocateurs" deliberately planted to give the authorities the opportunity to claim that the protest isn't peacefull. What do think the real fuss is about over that server seizure then??? the servers were hosting photos of undercover policemen... evidence of the agent provocatuer policy [reclaimthemedia.org]
Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
You mean *some* of those thugs are agent provocateurs. Governments are certainly not clean in this regard -- they want an excuse to disperse an unruly and highly-disliked crowd of punks as quickly as possible. Suppose the rationale is to give the cops "reason" to use brute force before something "worse" happens? Given how much I dislike anarchist punk kids, I kind of sympathize with it. Given how much I dislike right-wing pseudo-military abusive c
I Have a Thousand Years of Power (Score:3, Insightful)
I Call BS.... Big Money War Economy BS... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my never too humble opinion what's hapenning is that some fast talking BS artist spins a tale to tech to a defense buddy/contact/flak who's more knowledgable about ProSprorts than science....and gets a million or so research grant to pursue the idea. Then of course a small chunk of the grant goes out to the spin machine flaks like the Wash Post (and eventually end up) here.
By te time the idea is proven to be BS (which any 2nd year college physics student could likely have told you ) then everything is covered up and forgotten so there are no embarrassing questions about what MORON allocated the funding in the first place.
Moller and his fantastic flying cars has been pulling that stunt on the government every 15 years and those f-tards never learn.
Am I ranting again?....
Oops..
One more thing - the original artical goes on to say that the company's big achievement to date is selling scay green laser pointers to the military as a defense weapon for $1100 a pop! Oh well...at least it keeps these a-holes out from selling junk bonds to grandmothers.
Am I ranting again?
... the voice of God (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm. I think entirely too many people hear the voice of god already. That's largely why we think we need weapons.
=brian
Voice of God Gun considered harmful (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't "hearing the voice of God" one of the primary causes of terrorist acts? It's hard to imagine the September 11th hijackers took the job because of the good dental plan...
Some thoughts... (Score:4, Informative)
Instead, it was judged to be easier on the passengers for the air marshal to point a blinking light at the guy and then bonk him nicely over the head while he's blinded.
This has the potential to be a big market.
Wow, Tesla Tanks! (Score:3, Funny)
Why make them hear the "voice of G-d" (Score:3, Insightful)
(sorry, sorry, couldn't resist)
Re:Why? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides for profit, there's one great reason: Non-Lethal Weapons.
Sure we could just stick with the landmines, bio-weapons, and nuclear arms that are already developed, but I think we can do better. Don't you?
Non-lethal, because it's profitable, blah, blah... (Score:5, Funny)
The real reason, is that the US needs to modernize. We need to take our military to the Xtreme.
This is only one in a number of changes that was obviously necessary to convert our military from a well disciplined fighting force into an Xtreme force.
Here are some of the others:
-The US army is changing it's name to "Rmee Xtreme!"
-War on Terror renamed to "Ultra-mega xtreme terror elimitation"
-Soldiers must now practice one-liners to go along when throwing grenades.
-Army camo replaced with "Xtreme metallic green"
-Soldiers are issued new, cooler names upon enlistment. For example, "Joe Smith" would become "Goe sMitH Xtreme!"
-Grenades are now going to be called "Ultra Xtreme Blastilators"
-There will be a new branch of the military: "X-treme Fighting Ninja Monkies"
-Periods (.) will be replaced with exclaimation points (!) on all official documents.
And, of course, all the weaponry will be replaced with new, Xtreme! weaponry, such as the one listed here.
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know not harming our fellow man and all.
Oh yes. Because, you know, angry rioting crowds are really friendly once you get to know them.
As Mao Zedong said, power is only in the barrel of a gun. You can argue political theory all you want, but when a fight breaks out in vivo, you've got to make sure that the side you agree with has the stronger weapon. And I'd prefer the power be in the barrel of a non-lethal gun - because it could also be wielded th
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I beg to differ on both counts. Clobbering peaceful protesters happens in western countries too, one example was a police raid after the G8 summit in Genoa a few years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1460036.st m [bbc.co.uk]
Considering revolutions, sometimes force is necessary. The
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the question?
Re:How The Fuck Is This Insightful?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
Re:Why? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are private companies still developing weapons? That's an easy question - because it's profitable. In a capitalist society, there doesn't need to be any other reason.
Re:Why? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certain other highly profitable ventures (for instance, drug running and people trafficking) do occur in capitalist (as well as non capitalist) societies, but involve risks to those involved because of their illegality. These risks act as a deterrent to most businessmen.
I would also add that there are capitalist societies where moral issues also enter the equation. While in the US it seems to be considered the duty of executives to maximise profits (insofar as possible without ending up in jail) this is not true, for instance, of Japan or Scandinavia. Personally, I prefer the more moral approach of those societies.
Re:Why? Why? (Score:2)
Plain and simple truth, the private sector has been developing weapons since the US declared independance over 200 years ago. Matter of fact, the US military has not a single w
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not specific to the US military. The 'private sector' has been developing weapons since Og showed nGg!g how to hit Blorg over the head with a rock.
Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
And then the $1000 b
Re:Why? Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Because we dont want to loose the next war?
I thought that's what the original poster was afraid of, building weapons for loosing the next war.
Oh, wait, you meant "lose". Nevermind. It's amazing how a single letter in a common typo can so change the meaning of a sentence.
(Just in case you still don't understand: loose [reference.com], v. tr., to let loose, release.)
Typos and spell check (Score:2)
Yes, it should have been lose, not loose...
Re:Why? Why? (Score:2)
No one seems to care, and we "pedants" [reference.com] apparently just have to live with the language rape^^^^evolution.
Have a nice shmurl.
Re:Voice of god weapons? (Score:2)
It's a terrible powerplay, and if the government endorces it, I think it'd cause a backlash, but hey, land of the free, manipulate whomever you want. I'm pretty sure they'll use their second amendment rights to keep these things rolling out.
Re:Let the record show (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget that hardline Communism existed for "decades" and millions of people died in prison camps and executions.
Wars are cause by "people", not religions, ideologies, politics. People are inherently evil and
Re:Classic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can anyone please explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
High frequency AC can utilise all sort of parasitic effects to create an effective path - very small inductances and capacitance (like skin, shoes etc) can be utilised.
The glass plasma balls at the toy shop use high frequency to this effect. It wouldnt work with DC.