Suicidesoldier#1
(?)Community Member
Fanatical Zealot
Offline
- Posted: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:10:17 +0000
So, basically, as of now there's a 230 kilogram laser weapon designed to be fired from a HumVEE or similar vehicle that could incapacitate a target by creating plasma with a laser designed to send electromagnetic waves to overstimulate hyper sensitive nerves without relying on the resistance of skin (such as in tazors, which need uber high voltage) due to it's high penetration, and in accordance with a mild shockwave in order to temporarily incapacitate a target without any permanent side effects.
In tests, on low settings, it seemed to be capable of paralyzing rats without any kind of permanent damage, even at close range, and this is said to have a range of over 2KM. This could potentially be a game changer for the military and for police, where the only options have been "shoot to kill" or "don't shoot", sense if a guy at 55 yards is holding a terrorist hostage, and you attempt to use a less lethal round, the round may be too powerful or too weak to incapacitate given the degradation of power at different ranges, and it might still strike them in an area that could still kill them, or even potentially cause them to fire their weapon by accident. If you were to use a tazor for instance, they might spaz out due to a loss of muscle control and the inherent disruption, making them likely to clench uncontrollably, or pull the trigger of the weapon. If you were to use a tranquilizer dart, or some kind of muscle relaxant, you carry the risk of the needle striking somewhere else vital, such as the head, in which it might penetrate too deeply, inject part of the clothing into the individual, or cause other types of damage; even so, it would take many minutes to take effect, of which the person would likely realize they had already been shot, and pulled the trigger anyways. Kolokol-1, developed by the Russians, and kept extremely secret, is the only known quick incapacitate delivered by gas available, and carries additional risks typically associated with any aerosol or gas dispersant (in that those directly next to it will get 100 times as much as those 10 times further away, since it fills a room very quickly), and it still killed 10% of the hostages they were trying to rescue. The only realistic option has been to shoot an individual and take them out nearly instant;y, kill or be killed, as it is the only sure fire way of stopping a person quickly and without issue. Obviously, criminals need to be stopped, and when they're willing to resort to violence, due to it's destructiveness, it's necessary to respond back with it or flee, of which fleeing is not always an option.
The best thing we've been able to do is shoot the gun out of people's hands. Sometimes, people will be drunk or go crazy and be wavering around weapons and while obviously they need to be taken down, it would be preferable if a non-lethal means could be implemented without risk to the user, the officers, or nearby bystanders or potential victims. So far, few options are widely available, and even when used carry significant risks or drawbacks (such with tear gas and bean bag rounds).
PEP lazahsz
While the effectiveness of it is still questionable, and it's 230+ kilograms, making it difficult to carry around, I imagine that a smaller version, inside of a small fin stabilized rubber bullet, may be capable of delivering a round that, if it contacted the individual, could incapacitate them using the laser without concern of it being disrupted by reflective surfaces, or by accidentally ablating a surface which did not wish to be ablated, as it would ablate the rubber or some other material, specifically, instead. Since it is a chemical laser, capable of only producing a few useful shots before it needs be refueled, a small, one use expendable round may be more desirable for a long range weapon anyways, which wouldn't be dependent on the kinetic energy of the rubber bullet (which is lethal at close ranges, or not lethal enough at far ranges, as it loses power in flight) or the laser power at different ranges to incapacitate the target. It might also allow it to be smaller, although each round may still be expensive, hopefully on the range of 5-100 dollars each.
However, many scientists left the project due to supposed ethical reasons. "Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown."
Okay wut? WUT?! To me, this makes no sense. First of all, if there are any side effects, that's the whole point of continued scientific testing, to do it slowly at first and gauge the reactions to see what is acceptable and what's not. Tests with tazors and pepper sprays are common, not only to gather information but just as demonstrations, to prove it can incapacitate individuals non-lethally. While awful to observe, it's necessary to understand how the device will effect the target, which is invaluable to understand it's general effects.
Tazers, pepper spray, and other incapacitates are generally considered better for restraining people than flat out violence, since other physical restraints, such as hand to hand combat, can break bones and cause other problems, while more direct approaches, such as using firearms, can result in grievous injuries or even death. As a result, a method that will temporarily, but not permanently incapacitate a person, through a non-lethal incapacitate, and even better yet potentially serve as a deterrent that only effects the user in the short term (unlike pepper spray, which may remain on an individual for over 24 hours and get worse with rubbing, something like a laser would stop effecting an individual immediately after they moved out of the way) should be the preferred method of taking down a target if it's capable of being possibly utilized.
This would make riot control and situations where an officer would ordinarily react in fear for their life, or someone else's (and therefore require violence to stop a target, that even if wielding a knife, are still a serious lethal threat to innocent people, bystanders, or even cops unless they actually use their firearms or other weapons) non-existent, where they could immobilize, but not kill a person, who can then theoretically learn to become a better person later on, or prevent a tragedy. Or a situation where a person is waving around a gun when their drunk, and instead of assuming the worst, you could incapacitate them. Or incapacitate a kid at a school with a toy or even real gun.
But instead, you got moronic people walking around thinking that somehow killing people is better than temporary pain, or who simply don't care enough to consider the consequences. A gun potentially being used as a crowd dispersant rather than an incapacitate is terrible, I suppose.
No kind of physical damage to speak of, just proclaimed "psychological damage" due to the 'extreme pain' (which is less than a tazer).
What do you make of this, ED, and what do you think? It is rational to have a pain gun that incapacitates individuals as compared to flat out killing them or the potential dangers associated with tear gas and pepper spray, and the long lasting effects? I'd rather them possess temporary pain than permanent damage brought on by more violent means. Is it possible that scientists are overreacting, or like what?
Think of it like this. As of now, there's a big thing about gun control because people are concerned with self defense. If people could have knock out guns which were just as effective, with the same range and stopping power, but that were non-lethal, you could have the best of both worlds, with a weapon that could stop, but not kill individuals. While criminals are still likely to be armed, it would potentially eliminate any criminal getting ahold of a civilian legal firearm to do damage with. It might not remove hunting firearms however, if that's the case, and it does replace hunting weapons, it might allow hunters to focus on the sport, without actually killing the animals, making that easier as well. Any kind of gun which could potentially stop a person without killing them could revolutionize everything.
In tests, on low settings, it seemed to be capable of paralyzing rats without any kind of permanent damage, even at close range, and this is said to have a range of over 2KM. This could potentially be a game changer for the military and for police, where the only options have been "shoot to kill" or "don't shoot", sense if a guy at 55 yards is holding a terrorist hostage, and you attempt to use a less lethal round, the round may be too powerful or too weak to incapacitate given the degradation of power at different ranges, and it might still strike them in an area that could still kill them, or even potentially cause them to fire their weapon by accident. If you were to use a tazor for instance, they might spaz out due to a loss of muscle control and the inherent disruption, making them likely to clench uncontrollably, or pull the trigger of the weapon. If you were to use a tranquilizer dart, or some kind of muscle relaxant, you carry the risk of the needle striking somewhere else vital, such as the head, in which it might penetrate too deeply, inject part of the clothing into the individual, or cause other types of damage; even so, it would take many minutes to take effect, of which the person would likely realize they had already been shot, and pulled the trigger anyways. Kolokol-1, developed by the Russians, and kept extremely secret, is the only known quick incapacitate delivered by gas available, and carries additional risks typically associated with any aerosol or gas dispersant (in that those directly next to it will get 100 times as much as those 10 times further away, since it fills a room very quickly), and it still killed 10% of the hostages they were trying to rescue. The only realistic option has been to shoot an individual and take them out nearly instant;y, kill or be killed, as it is the only sure fire way of stopping a person quickly and without issue. Obviously, criminals need to be stopped, and when they're willing to resort to violence, due to it's destructiveness, it's necessary to respond back with it or flee, of which fleeing is not always an option.
The best thing we've been able to do is shoot the gun out of people's hands. Sometimes, people will be drunk or go crazy and be wavering around weapons and while obviously they need to be taken down, it would be preferable if a non-lethal means could be implemented without risk to the user, the officers, or nearby bystanders or potential victims. So far, few options are widely available, and even when used carry significant risks or drawbacks (such with tear gas and bean bag rounds).
PEP lazahsz
While the effectiveness of it is still questionable, and it's 230+ kilograms, making it difficult to carry around, I imagine that a smaller version, inside of a small fin stabilized rubber bullet, may be capable of delivering a round that, if it contacted the individual, could incapacitate them using the laser without concern of it being disrupted by reflective surfaces, or by accidentally ablating a surface which did not wish to be ablated, as it would ablate the rubber or some other material, specifically, instead. Since it is a chemical laser, capable of only producing a few useful shots before it needs be refueled, a small, one use expendable round may be more desirable for a long range weapon anyways, which wouldn't be dependent on the kinetic energy of the rubber bullet (which is lethal at close ranges, or not lethal enough at far ranges, as it loses power in flight) or the laser power at different ranges to incapacitate the target. It might also allow it to be smaller, although each round may still be expensive, hopefully on the range of 5-100 dollars each.
However, many scientists left the project due to supposed ethical reasons. "Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown."
Okay wut? WUT?! To me, this makes no sense. First of all, if there are any side effects, that's the whole point of continued scientific testing, to do it slowly at first and gauge the reactions to see what is acceptable and what's not. Tests with tazors and pepper sprays are common, not only to gather information but just as demonstrations, to prove it can incapacitate individuals non-lethally. While awful to observe, it's necessary to understand how the device will effect the target, which is invaluable to understand it's general effects.
Tazers, pepper spray, and other incapacitates are generally considered better for restraining people than flat out violence, since other physical restraints, such as hand to hand combat, can break bones and cause other problems, while more direct approaches, such as using firearms, can result in grievous injuries or even death. As a result, a method that will temporarily, but not permanently incapacitate a person, through a non-lethal incapacitate, and even better yet potentially serve as a deterrent that only effects the user in the short term (unlike pepper spray, which may remain on an individual for over 24 hours and get worse with rubbing, something like a laser would stop effecting an individual immediately after they moved out of the way) should be the preferred method of taking down a target if it's capable of being possibly utilized.
This would make riot control and situations where an officer would ordinarily react in fear for their life, or someone else's (and therefore require violence to stop a target, that even if wielding a knife, are still a serious lethal threat to innocent people, bystanders, or even cops unless they actually use their firearms or other weapons) non-existent, where they could immobilize, but not kill a person, who can then theoretically learn to become a better person later on, or prevent a tragedy. Or a situation where a person is waving around a gun when their drunk, and instead of assuming the worst, you could incapacitate them. Or incapacitate a kid at a school with a toy or even real gun.
But instead, you got moronic people walking around thinking that somehow killing people is better than temporary pain, or who simply don't care enough to consider the consequences. A gun potentially being used as a crowd dispersant rather than an incapacitate is terrible, I suppose.
No kind of physical damage to speak of, just proclaimed "psychological damage" due to the 'extreme pain' (which is less than a tazer).
What do you make of this, ED, and what do you think? It is rational to have a pain gun that incapacitates individuals as compared to flat out killing them or the potential dangers associated with tear gas and pepper spray, and the long lasting effects? I'd rather them possess temporary pain than permanent damage brought on by more violent means. Is it possible that scientists are overreacting, or like what?
Think of it like this. As of now, there's a big thing about gun control because people are concerned with self defense. If people could have knock out guns which were just as effective, with the same range and stopping power, but that were non-lethal, you could have the best of both worlds, with a weapon that could stop, but not kill individuals. While criminals are still likely to be armed, it would potentially eliminate any criminal getting ahold of a civilian legal firearm to do damage with. It might not remove hunting firearms however, if that's the case, and it does replace hunting weapons, it might allow hunters to focus on the sport, without actually killing the animals, making that easier as well. Any kind of gun which could potentially stop a person without killing them could revolutionize everything.
