Star Trek Phaser's not to far away...

[Zeus Thunderbolt]

WASHINGTON - Test subjects can't see the invisible beam from the Pentagon's new, Star Trek-like weapon, but no one has withstood the pain it produces for more than three seconds.

People who volunteered to stand in front of the directed energy beam say they felt as if they were on fire. When they stepped aside, the pain disappeared instantly.

The long-range column of millimeter-wave energy is known as the "Active Denial System" for its ability to prevent an aggressor from advancing. Senior military officials, who plan to deliver the device for troop evaluation this fall, say years of testing has produced no sign it will lead to health effects beyond perhaps causing skin to temporarily redden.

It is among the most potent of a new generation of futuristic, "less-than-lethal" weapons being developed by the Defense Department - tools that could dramatically alter the way police control riots and soldiers fight wars.

Other nonlethal devices undergoing tests include "superlubricants" that could make a road or runway too slippery for car or airplane tires to gain traction; directed sound waves to drive people away from an area; and nets able to stop cars.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/stor ... 3294c.html

This is just one of the many non lethal weapons in development, I wonder if you lot could help me find information about other non lethal weapons in development as well as new age weapons and defence projects that are possible. Websites and snippets of information would be helpful

[Guest]

Looks like someone needs to come up with counter-measures for these "less-than Leathal" technologies.

Try the History Channel (sp?) website, I just got finished watching a program about less than lethal weapons.

[WarriorZoalord]

I remeber one less than lethal paintball type gun that shoots pepper balls, its like a mace filled paintball.... but yeah, try the history channel website, that should have links, i dunno about anything else, sorry.

[Guest]

I fail to see any real similarity to a Phaser. No people mysteriously disapearing with no real energy release or effects or anything of that nature. The invisible beam sounds like it amounts to a better stun-gun without chemicals like pepper spray. I wouldn't be surprised if it shares its lack of effectiveness against people hyped up on drugs.

[*zeo]

I fail to see any real similarity to a Phaser.

You know, back in my mid teens I would have given the exact same reply. Boy I'm glad I grew out of that phase.

Anyway, a little pop culture knowledge goes a long way, like the fact the phaser is more famous for its stun setting than its vaporization/kill setting which set it apart from all the other previous sci-fi ray guns of its time. So the majority of time people make comparisons to the fictional beam weapon of the sci-fi Star Trek fame is for its none lethal effect rather than its lethal effect. For death ray weapons people usually compare it to other sci-fi series like Star Wars.

For this particular weapon though its primary purpose is simply riot control and is little more than an easy to use long range none lethal deterant. A job presently limited to armored vehicales with water fire hoses. Effects on people remain effective as long as people have nerve endings and can sense pain so people hyped up on drugs should still be effected unless they use something that can probably kill them before it wears off. Which is one of many reasons this weapon is only one of many being developed.

As for a ray like stun gun, already invented. About two years ago they developed a UV laser enhanced stun gun that fired a harmless laser to ionize the air between the weapon and its target to act like a conductor for the stun gun discharge, wirelessly stunning a target. Presently R&D is working on miniturizing it into a convienant pistol size weapon for ease of use like the present wire firing model used by law enforcement.

[Guest]

<,,<...Iurknow bout you all..but i'd rather be shocked to hell and back by that thing, then go to the damned dentist again..*Crawls into his blankets grumbling* Stupid dentist..stupid ice cold drill..stupid "Whoops, ok, rinse." crap..

*Peeks out* And I agree, Zeo..the less lethal the better..to many killins goin on in da world right now..rather shock the hell outta someone..or make them feel like der on fire, then fill full of holes..*Ish desensitized to violence, blood and gore..but even he has limits dat wun be crossed* >,>.So imma all for this product iffen it helps saving lifes..

[*Jess♥]

Zero unit, I just understood nothing you said.

I think you ought to read the rules again about punctuation and role playing etc.

I think this weapon is great! I mean with these weapons like mace and tazers and the such i was starting to get afraid of going out anywhere. With this at least if you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time you can protect yourself without actually harming anyone. I like that idea!

[Guest]

Great, just another way to let the crims survive and then get let off with a slap on the wrist, and they do nine percent of the time.

I'm sorry but I have no faith in the justice system.

[Guest]

Um, weren't mace and tazers forms of non-lethal weapons too? Weren't some criminals useing them instead of guns and knives?

Anything can be used as a weapon by anyone. At least this way, if the weapon gets into the hands of someone who would use it for evil, then the -Innocent- victum has a chance to survive. (assumeing the victum isn't killed once rendered harmless)

And at least with non-lethal weapons, killing innocent bystanders while trying to capture the murderers becomes a lot more difficult. (stray bullets). You can always execute someone later, but once someone is dead, they usually stay that way.

[*Jess♥]

Good point.

I live in the uk and we don't have those things here so thats my weak excuse!

Although i did hear somewhere that a tazer can cause some really nasty damage to people?

[Guest]

if applied to someone with a pace maker, a taser can be lethal. if applied for too long it can send you into cardiac arrest.

i think this is a welcome change to lethal weapons. violence is not something you want to witness first hand. its not nice. i know. i watched one of my friends get shot with a crossbow by her ex. nut thats beside the point.

the less lethal weapons the better.

[Guest]

Finally a weapon that stuns at long range. Better than a tazer for sure. Because tazers can kill if its used for a prolonged time on a victim. Speaking of Star Trek, shame you cant do Spocks 'nervepinch' that he did in the old series.

Oh well, if you go into a Kung fu school or something, you can get a similar move that stuns.

[Guest]

Viewers didn't see Rodney King attacking the policemen, unfazed by a stun gun;

Stun guns:

It is also purported to be effective against mentally ill and intoxicated individuals, as well as persons who have a high level of adrenaline. This is mainly due to the fact that the TASER does not rely on pain compliance.

Their tests on normal people not in heavily psyched out or effected by drug states said they could take it for a while under controlled conditions and you act like it's just going to always work if the person's nervous system is not fried out? Given similar such things track record? It's another nice toy, but it certainly can't just replace their using the firehoses which use things that are effective regardless of the persons mental state or drugs that may be in their system.

[*zeo]

Kinda missing the point FOG3, besides none of these are toys. Using tasers like toys is the reason they are outlawed in some states. Even non lethal weapons can cause serious harm if abused. Like any weapon their power must be respected and used responsibly. But there is a definite need for such technology for both the safety of law enforcement officers and the civilians rioting. Besides fire hosing doesn't work all the time either, there have been cases where the crowd overwhelmed the firehosing vehicale, and can only be used when an ample supply of water is available which is not always the case when dealing with riots. Not to mention people have been known to die from injuries sustained from firehosing.

The fact is most cases this particular non-lethal weapon will be used will not be against people who are immune to pain. People riot all the time and don't have to be doped up to act crazy. The device makes you feel like you're on fire and no normal person can withstand that more than a few seconds so yes it will be a very effective tool to disperse rioting crowds. For the rare more hard to take down people they can easily resort to other non-lethal weapons that are more physically effective but are less useful against large groups. Combined these weapons would allow the safe handling of even the worst of rioting crowds and that is the goal, zero casualties!

[Guest]

If you're going to backtrack at least have the good grace to be graceful enough to not feel it necessary to try and twist and turn someone else's words to imply they meant something they did not. I was not implying that such things should be used carelessly. After going on about your pop culture knowledge you stated:

Effects on people remain effective as long as people have nerve endings and can sense pain so people hyped up on drugs should still be effected unless they use something that can probably kill them before it wears off.

in response to

I wouldn't be surprised if it shares its lack of effectiveness against people hyped up on drugs.

and gee one of the links I provided made a point of most times stun guns do work. You made an unqualified generalization by implying it would always work and I showed with evidence this was not the case. Now that I've showed this is not the case you've backed off and tried to attack my credibility in a not so subtle fashion. Your underhanded attempt to ruin my credibility is not appreciated.

[*zeo]

Credibility? You think this has anything to do with your credibility?

Anyway, what back tracking? Everything I've posted has been consistant.

My previous mention of fire hosing was simply a statement of fact. I never said it was reliable and your previous post suggested it was more reliable than the non lethal weapons we're discussing. I corrected that assumption, nothing more.

Nothing was being twisted. You clearly compared stun guns and the like as toys, not to be taken seriously and shouldn't replace firehosing which you described as being more effective which is not completely true as my last post pointed out.

My statement you quoted clearly noted the condition upon which such non lethal weapons would and would not be effective, if you had just bothered to read it you would have realized I never said they work all the time either. Also stun guns are not the only weapons being refered to here! Covering the whole topic is not neither backtracking nor twisting of words.

Again you miss the point of the discussion. This weapon and others like it will allow for zero casualties. There are moral ramifications to consider, along with the effectiveness of such technology.

[Guest]

Before:

Effects on people remain effective as long as people have nerve endings and can sense pain so people hyped up on drugs should still be effected unless they use something that can probably kill them before it wears off.

In short ?if nervous system=intact effective. Implication if they aren?t nerve dead it will work as designed and intended causing them to back off. Your only condition is against substances that will ?probably kill them before it wears off? which means any drugs that aren?t pretty much guranteed poisonous are excluded. PCP for example from what I've read isn't lethal enough to fit your requirements although I expect there are some rather serious stuff that does.

After:

The fact is most cases this particular non-lethal weapon will be used will not be against people who are immune to pain. People riot all the time and don't have to be doped up to act crazy. The device makes you feel like you're on fire and no normal person can withstand that more than a few seconds so yes it will be a very effective tool to disperse rioting crowds.

Now it?s no normal person can withstand it, which was gee sort of what I was trying to convey. Oh where oh where did nervous system intact=effective go mister ?I?ve been completely consistent.? You are a liar and not a very good one.

Kinda missing the point FOG3, besides none of these are toys. Using tasers like toys is the reason they are outlawed in some states. Even non lethal weapons can cause serious harm if abused. Like any weapon their power must be respected and used responsibly.

Where did I say anything about using them irresponsibly? Heck one of the links makes a point of Europeans being less then inclined to use them because they view them as torture devices. The only thing resembling a foothold is my referring to them as toys the vernacular for which isn?t exclusive to play things. In my vernacular at the point it was a snipe at it?s usefulness. A Nickel plated highly accurate revolver can be called a toy because it?s real world usefulness is questionable. By stating nice I was acknowledging they did have some usefulness but not as far you went. I?m willing to bet if I took the time I could find multiple examples of this vernacular in your pop culture sources. The mere implication I?d try to convey such a thing as using them irresponsibly is an insult to me and my credibility. I don?t like to be portrayed as some sort of heartless sadist especially for only the apparent reason of contradicting someone. Let?s see I said:

It's another nice toy, but it certainly can't just replace their using the firehoses which use things that are effective regardless of the persons mental state or drugs that may be in their system.

Now what could that just be about? Maybe as in this isn?t a cure all that can completely replace the existing hardware? I also think in BGC 2032 the K-12S can?t just replace the K-11 because it can?t keep up with the boomers, does that mean I?m not acknowledging the K-12S?s effectiveness?

Oh yes real consistent. Why do you keep trying to weasel and can?t just admit you had no right to dismiss my concern about their effectiveness against people hyped up on drugs when comparing it already existing equipment? In short you just reiterated what I was implying in the first place then take the high and mighty position of lecturing me as ignorant on what I was implying?

[*zeo]

Let's see

Effects on people remain effective as long as people have nerve endings and can sense pain so people hyped up on drugs should still be effected unless they use something that can probably kill them before it wears off.

In the english language this means that unless something impairs a person to the point that their life is in danger that they will be effected by this weapon. Note I did say

and can sense pain

as part of my criteria which you seem to just skip over in your vain attempt to try to make me look inconsistant. The whole point being that this weapon will be effective so long as the target can feel and respond to pain.

The fact is most cases this particular non-lethal weapon will be used will not be against people who are immune to pain. People riot all the time and don't have to be doped up to act crazy. The device makes you feel like you're on fire and no normal person can withstand that more than a few seconds so yes it will be a very effective tool to disperse rioting crowds.

Hmm, you also missed

will not be against people who are immune to pain

as well in your now sad attempt to invalidate me. This is clearly consistant with me previous post, you just didn't want to understand it that way. The only difference is my second post refered to real world use rather than lab conditions.

Then there's your quote

It's another nice toy, but it certainly can't just replace their using the firehoses which use things that are effective regardless of the persons mental state or drugs that may be in their system.

Which according to proper english grammar does exactly mean you were inferring that stun guns and the like can't just replace they're using fire hosing, which use things that are effective regardless of the persons mental state or drugs that they may be in their system.

Ask anyone to read that and that is exactly the meaning you gave. Regardless of what you may have been thinking. So instead of clarifying what you meant from what was posted you make it sound like I was purposely twisting your words. This was never personal until you made it personal.

I simply responded to what you had posted and did so truthfully and you try to make it look like I was trying to discredit you and that I'm a liar.

I said it before that calling me a liar is a personal insult and you have crossed that line twice. Note, I will not tolerate it again.

You seem to have a problem with people questioning you FOG3, like the first time you came on this board and posted a theory that we questioned. So you reacted by calling me and all the others who disagreed with you idiots. . .

You have only succeeded in discrediting yourself FOG3.

[Sully]

Strike 1 FOG3, never insult one of the mod on this board.

IF you do not apologise in the next day (24 hours after this post) to James (Zeo1234) you will be banned.

Do it again and I'll not bother with just striking you. You will be banned.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, I felt you intended to imply they'd always work and when I brought evidence and links to show where my concerns were coming from you were trying to potray me as some sort of sadist that thought such things should be used as toys. An interpretation I could not see any basis for except vicious intent as the intended usage wasn't exactly that uncommon in the vernacular.

I was wrong and I apologize for unnecessarily causing this incident by jumping to incorrect assumptions. I should have thought better of you then to assume such a thing of you. Sorry about this Zeo.

[*zeo]

Apology accepted.

Just to be fair, there was some misunderstanding on both our parts. Understandable since neither of us are mind readers. It was never my intention to suggest or portray you as a sadist. I simply responded to what I understood from your post. It just never occured to me that you would take my response so personally.

For future reference just remember that my activity on this board is simply a hobby for me. I've been seriously interested in science and technology for the last 20 years of my life. I've been a Guyver fan since '89. So I have a lot to say on those subjects. I never intentionally insult anyone if I can help it and take it as a matter of honor to be truthful. So outside of fan fiction I don't make stuff up.

I have no interest in defaming anyone and consider it a waste of energy to even try.

Now that that is settled, back on topic, here are two useful links relating to this topic.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992254

http://www.capstun.com/english/non-lethal_weapons/nlt-usaf.html