Scientists have reacted angrily to the revelation that the US military is funding development of a weapon intended to deliver an "excrutiating bout of pain" from over a mile away. The "Pulsed Energy Projectile" (PEP) device "fires a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid", the New Scientist explains. If you happen to be that something solid, then you get temporarily incapacitated without suffering permanent injury. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/03/us_plasma_weapon/
Isn't this the same as the "pain gun" we heard was being deployed in Iraq, along with the "magical-automatic-sniper-triangulation-and-return-fire-machine"? AH edit: Bugger, everyone assumed i was taking the piss... why does that always happen! I'm serious, i swear i read about this a few months ago.
being in the US military, I think it's important that we develop other types of less-lethal weaponry. not every situation calls for use of deadly force, and current less-lethal weapons have very short range or limited incapacitation abilities. given the choice between being shot with a bullet, rubber dart/pellets, tazer, or this new plasma shock, which would you rather be on the receiving end of?
how long until the "pain gun" turns into the "tie a guy up naked and hold the trigger down gun"? especially when my gov't thinks it's ok to imprison people without trial indefinately, then say that we do not have to treat them according to the Geneva Convention. like the Nazi's did.
it's like any other weapon: dangerous in the hands of the untrained or undisciplined, but highly effective in the hands of the capable and competent. nazi's? ouch! well, at least the indefinitly imprisoned in Iraq get geneva treatment
like abu ghraib? some news agency carried out the stuff the CIA OK's for Iraqis, after it aired the CIA put out a press release stating that it was sick to do this stuff to american citizens, and it demeans the life of everybody that has been killed by terrorists. guess they only count when their taxes pay your salary, huh?
Let's not go there, again. The US military is made up of 1.6 million active duty, uniformed soldiers, not to include reservists and non-active soldiers. A handfull of them acted like animals at Abu Gharib and you condemn the entire military. Have a little respect for the men and women who RISK THEIR LIVES EVERY DAY to protect YOUR freedom.
i respect the soldiers, not the asshats who did the stuff in abu ghraib. i wasn't directing that comment at all military personel, i live in a very republican part of CA and a lot of 20somethings i know are in the military. this is the same thing with that microwave gun that boild the skin at the very surface, leaving no damage but excrutiating pain. in abu ghraib and similar incidents the people were mostly scared and embarassed, but what is to stop the jerks from using a weapon that leaves no (physical) marks after hours of "treatment" except for chapped skin? just do like archie bunker tells you, a sack of delicious florida oranges teaches your kid whos boss without leaving bruises!
I hate to disappoint you but no they don't, the geneva convention bans anything considered torture. Prolonged use of white noise and the use of enforced stress positions is classed as torture and is outlawed yet the american goverement has given its armed forces FULL permission to use both forms of torture to extract information and to maintain discipline of the "PRISONERS". I put the word prisoners in caps and speech marks for a reason to be honest I believe a more honest term would be captives or even hostages . Don't get me wrong I believe that in certain circumstances practically everything can be justified but they have kept some of the prisoners with out trial for all most four years now. Its stopped being a sensible precaution and has I have no doubt started being an active reason that some of the ali quade terrorists have joined after all if you going to be accused of something and locked up for something you have'nt done then some people will go out and do it and feel justifed about doing so. Even if the act itself is morally wrong
I worked at Bucca. Recently. The Iraqi "Detainees" are given full Geneva rights and then some. I know because I had to abide by it every hour of every day. I don't agree with what the clowns at Abu did either, but when you take young soldiers that have little/no corrections experience, and put them not only in a prison, but a war zone where they are shelled and shot at almost daily, your ability to discern what is acceptable behavior becomes very hazy. Imagine seeing someone you know blown up by a mortar round, and then having to turn around and go to work in the prison where the compatriots of the people firing at you are throwing feces and urine in your face. Oh, and the only thing that the ICRC will allow you to do to discipline them is to take away thier styrofoam cup. Frustration? As far as Gitmo/Afghan, I don't have personal experience, so I can't comment on that. I am also very skeptical of what the news media says about anything. I trust to personal experience.
I think such a weapon is a good idea in the right hands. I'm sick of the militarisation of science but if it comes to the decision between putting a bullet in someone's head and disabling them temporarily then i know which I'd prefer. Just got to be careful it isn't used for torture, but in the hands of some of the UKs or USs troops, i think that's inevitable. Off Topic: I think you'll find that the Geneva convention is effectively sidestepped by calling the "prisoners of war" "enemy combatants" or "enemy insurgents" instead. The training guide books which have been released and even speeches from the likes of Rumsfelt clearly authorise the use of what would be termed "torture" by the UN in Guantanamo and Abu Gharib. Rumsfelt however defines torture as something that causes permanent damage which provides a major impairment to someone's physical functioning or something that kills. A lot of people quietly think "well, they are there for a reason, maybe they deserve that" - although that is questionable at best a lot of the "insurgents" have been captured from information from civilians. Information which soldiers are authorised to pay $5000 for. What a convent way to get rid of anyone you don't like, "Yup, my neighbour, he's a member of Al Q' alright. Now how much was that worth again?". I make it sound like this is just a US thing, but the UK is almost equally at fault here, permissing evidence obtained through torture is clearly unacceptable. Treating people like this is of course a dream come true for the "terrorist organisations" - i dread to think how many people have signed up to fight the "evil America" and "evil Britain" when there friends or family get thrown into a prison without trail for four years of constant torture without even basic human rights. I thought the hostages which appeared on videos in cages dressed in orange would hammer the point home, but it would appear it hasn't. Anyway, can we please try and be steering this thread back on topic now.
Have you thought that it's the same situation the other way around as well? I'm sure that the prisoners lurrrve seeing people who killed family or friends every day. And how come with a count of ?less than 500 active members from accross the world there's always someone who's been to these s**tholes? Seems a little... strange.
I've heard of the counter sniper thing too, but apparently we're both nuts as newscientist (where I read about it) has no information... - H.
yeah i've sort of heard of this is'nt it what they are outfitting harry potters broomstick with for the next film
I really wasn't directing that specifically at you, what you wrote just prompted my response There's just too many people, especially here in the US, who condemn every soldier for the act(s) of a few "misguided individuals". Know what I mean? I guess it's a personal thing for me because so many relatives of mine are or were in the military. In fact, it's something that I seriously considered when I graduated high school. Glad I didn't because I would have been at the end of the standard 5-year stint when Gulf War I broke in '91...
The fact is that people join the military for reasons as diverse as those of people joining, say, nursing. Some want to make a difference and help people. Some think it offers a decent career structure. Some enjoy the status and authority the role can represent. A very few nurses end up dehumanising or killing patients, because of abuse of that power and authority, or because they themselves get dehumanised by a system that exploited them once too often. That doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't trying to do their very best to do the right and human thing, even if sometimes they get the balance a bit wrong. The same applies to soldiers. Life's complicated like that, guys.
So not making a weapon (non-leathal at that) because it could be used for torture? ummm its not hard to torture people. its been pretty well perfected over the years. are car batteries allowed, water, paperclips, hammers, sleep deprivation? anything can be used as a torture device. and realisticly pain torture probably isn't the most effective. how can you tell what is being said is the truth or not. a form of torture that breaks down mental barriers probably has better results. and I'm sure people can make some pretty interesting drugs now that don't have lethal or even crippling effects. sleep/time deprivation work surprisingly well.
i'm not saying that, but people will bitch and moan when someone IS tortured with one, and Dick (a very apt name) Cheney and his cronies will say it's not torture. it is basically another weapon of potential torture. just about any thing can be a weapon, if inserted into the right hole or administered with sufficent velocity, but some weapons have a stigma. pulling teeth has a stigma, so the gov't won't touch it. making someone stand for 48 hours with a muzzled dog growling in their ear does not, therefore it is used with little hesitation.
True, but is it fair to demonise or condemn something because of it's potential application? Isn't this the same thinking as what the RIAA and MPAA have with p2p networks, software such as DVD Copy and the like? Anything can be used as a device of torture, it doesn't have to be the obvious things. I think the more non-lethal tech that is developed, the better off we are as there will be less collateral damage in wartime.
jinkies, this went off topic. no matter how you look at this, i'd rather be torured, or "subdued" with this than with a taser/rubber bullet or an m16.
