Nonlethal Force

[Ardentfrost]

Run away the ray-gun is coming : We test US army's new secret weapon | the Daily Mail

Run away the ray-gun is coming : We test US army's new secret weapon

"Where do I put my finger? There ... OK? Nothing's happening ... is it on?"

"Yes, it's on. Move your finger a bit closer."

"Er ... ow! OW!" Not good. I try again. "OWWW!" I pull my hand away sharpish. My finger is throbbing, but seems undamaged.

I was told people can take it for a second, maximum. No way, not for a wimp like me.

I try it again. It is a bit like touching a red-hot wire, but there is no heat, only the sensation of heat. There is no burn mark or blister.

Its makers claim this infernal machine is the modern face of warfare. It has a nice, friendly sounding name, Silent Guardian.

I am told not to call it a ray-gun, though that is precisely what it is (the term "pain gun" is maybe better, but I suppose they would like that even less).

And, to be fair, the machine is not designed to vaporise, shred, atomise, dismember or otherwise cause permanent harm.

But it is a horrible device nonetheless, and you are forced to wonder what the world has come to when human ingenuity is pressed into service to make a thing like this.

Silent Guardian is making waves in defence circles. Built by the U.S. firm Raytheon, it is part of its "Directed Energy Solutions" programme.

What it amounts to is a way of making people run away, very fast, without killing or even permanently harming them.

That is what the company says, anyway. The reality may turn out to be more horrific.

I tested a table-top demonstration model, but here's how it works in the field.

A square transmitter as big as a plasma TV screen is mounted on the back of a Jeep.

When turned on, it emits an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings.

It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile.

Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury.

But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonising sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about.

"I have been in front of the full-sized system and, believe me, you just run. You don't have time to think about it - you just run," says George Svitak, a Raytheon executive.

Silent Guardian is supposed to be the 21st century equivalent of tear gas or water cannon - a way of getting crowds to disperse quickly and with minimum harm. Its potential is obvious.

"In Iraq, there was a situation when combatants had taken media as human shields. The battalion commander told me there was no way of separating combatants from non-combatants without lethal force," Mr Svitak tells me.

He says this weapon would have made it possible because everyone, friend or foe, would have run from it.

In tests, even the most hardened Marines flee after a few seconds of exposure. It just isn't possible to tough it out.

This machine has the ability to inflict limitless, unbearable pain.

What makes it OK, says Raytheon, is that the pain stops as soon as you are out of the beam or the machine is turned off.

But my right finger was tingling hours later - was that psychosomatic?

So what is the problem? All right, it hurts, but then so do tear gas and water cannon and they have been used by the world's police and military for decades.

Am I being squeamish?

One thing is certain: not just the Silent Guardian, but weapons such as the Taser, the electric stun-gun, are being rolled out by Britain's police forces as the new way of controlling people by using pain.

And, as the Raytheon chaps all insist, you always have the option to get out of the way (just as you have the option to comply with the police officer's demands and not get Tasered).

But there is a problem: mission creep. This is the Americanism which describes what happens when, over time, powers or techniques are used to ends not stated or even imagined when they were devised.

With the Taser, the rules in place in Britain say it must be used only as an alternative to the gun. But what happens in ten or 20 years if a new government chooses to amend these rules?

It is so easy to see the Taser being used routinely to control dissent and pacify - as, indeed, already happens in the U.S.

And the Silent Guardian? Raytheon's Mac Jeffery says it is being looked at only by the "North American military and its allies" and is not being sold to countries with questionable human rights records.

An MoD spokesman said Britain is not planning to buy this weapon.

In fact, it is easy to see the raygun being used not as an alternative to lethal force (when I can see that it is quite justified), but as an extra weapon in the battle against dissent.

Because it is, in essence, a simple machine, it is easy to see similar devices being pressed into service in places with extremely dubious reputations.

There are more questions: in tests, volunteers have been asked to remove spectacles and contact lenses before being microwaved. Does this imply these rays are not as harmless as Raytheon insists?

What happens when someone with a weak heart is zapped?

And, perhaps most worryingly, what if deployment of Silent Guardian causes mass panic, leaving some people unable to flee in the melee? Will they just be stuck there roasting?

Raytheon insists the system is set up to limit exposure, but presumably these safeguards can be over-ridden.

Silent Guardian and the Taser are just the first in a new wave of "non-lethal" weaponry being developed, mostly in the U.S.

These include not only microwave ray-guns, but the terrifying Pulsed Energy Projectile weapon. This uses a powerful laser which, when it hits someone up to 11/2 miles away, produces a "plasma" - a bubble of superhot gas - on the skin.

A report in New Scientist claimed the focus of research was to heighten the pain caused by this semi-classified weapon.

And a document released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act talks of "optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation" - i.e. cause the maximum agony possible, leaving no permanent damage.

Perhaps the most alarming prospect is that such machines would make efficient torture instruments.

They are quick, clean, cheap, easy to use and, most importantly, leave no marks. What would happen if they fell into the hands of unscrupulous nations where torture is not unknown?

The agony the Raytheon gun inflicts is probably equal to anything in a torture chamber - these waves are tuned to a frequency exactly designed to stimulate the pain nerves.

I couldn't hold my finger next to the device for more than a fraction of a second. I could make the pain stop, but what if my finger had been strapped to the machine?

Dr John Wood, a biologist at UCL and an expert in the way the brain perceives pain, is horrified by the new pain weapons.

"They are so obviously useful as torture instruments," he says.

"It is ethically dubious to say they are useful for crowd control when they will obviously be used by unscrupulous people for torture."

We use the word "medieval" as shorthand for brutality. The truth is that new technology makes racks look benign.

I wanted to know what you guys thought about all the non-lethal weapons coming out and being used. This device quoted above seems really neat from a tech-geek perspective, but I can understand the author's concerns. A device that sends a wave of energy that causes all the nerves on your skin to react painfully... if that's not a wannabe torture device, I don't know what is.

In light of all the taser use recently, I figure it's a viable topic for discussion. These less-than-lethal devices can still cause harm, most certainly, but since they're not lethal, per say, officials are a lot quicker to pull the trigger than they are a gun.

What happened to old fashioned police work? Where if some drunk was being belligerent, you and 5 of your cop buddies took his ass down. Now they're all zapping him and he's dying of a heart attack from the shock.

What is the eventuality of nonlethal force? When is it being used too much?

[abregar]

Non-lethal weapons should be used by police forces, however lethal means should still be available should the need arise.

[Simius]

Yeah, but can it disarm a lady in a wheelchair?

But seriously... assuming that it is completely safe. Contact lenses won't fuse to people's retinas. Prolonged exposure won't cause harm.... etc. This device makes me nervous. I mean I can picture situations where using this device would not only be justified, but ideal. But I highly doubt the usage would be limited to that.

Sure, first it would only be used to stop riots. Then it would be used in hostage situations. Then it would be used when somebody is armed... so far justified... but then it will be used like a taser is today. Resisting arrest? A quick zap will put an end to that. No harm no foul, right? Jesus. The less damage it does and the more "silent" it is, the more I can picture it being used casually because it seems harmless. Sure, macing someone or tackling them to the ground might cause more actual damage... but at least you think twice about it before doing it. With tools like this I can see them being misused simply because they are so easy. Just flip a switch and the problem is solved.

I can even picture it being used as an "enhanced interrogation technique." Hey, as long as we classify it as not being torture, it isn't, right?

[Diesel66]

first off
It is LESS lethal. Everything from pepperspray, batons, fist, etc.... can be lethal.



And "policework where 5 people take down a drunk" = much more likely to injure or kill the cops and the suspect. I dont understand why it is so hard for you guys to get the concept. Hitting someone with a baton and wrestling them to the ground is much much more dangerous then a simple taser from 5'.

There is basically no permanent damage vs broken bones/major bruises. And the cops are outside of the danger zone instead of getting cut, punched, bit, etc....

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

first off
It is LESS lethal. Everything from pepperspray, batons, fist, etc.... can be lethal.



And "policework where 5 people take down a drunk" = much more likely to injure or kill the cops and the suspect. I dont understand why it is so hard for you guys to get the concept. Hitting someone with a baton and wrestling them to the ground is much much more dangerous then a simple taser from 5'.

There is basically no permanent damage vs broken bones/major bruises. And the cops are outside of the danger zone instead of getting cut, punched, bit, etc....

I don't think anyone has suggested that these weapons aren't safer for the cops, but people are certainly questioning how often and under what circumstances they are used. The taser, for instance, has certainly proven to be lethal in certain situations, and possibly overused in other situations.

The thread is more about what people think about the free use of these things because, like Simius said, they are just so easy to use.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't think anyone has suggested that these weapons aren't safer for the cops, but people are certainly questioning how often and under what circumstances they are used. The taser, for instance, has certainly proven to be lethal in certain situations, and possibly overused in other situations.

Taser can be used in the place of hands on contact, so anytime a cop would normally pull out his nightstick or pepperspray.

Would you rather be hit with a baton or a taser ? One is over in a couple seconds with no permanent or even temp damage normally. The other has the very real possibility of breaking bones, damaging organs etc....

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

A device that sends a wave of energy that causes all the nerves on your skin to react painfully... if that's not a wannabe torture device, I don't know what is.

hahaha...nice characterization. The military and police hardly need this as a "torture device." There are dozens readily available that also hurt like hell and leave no mark and can be found as close as your nearest phone book (no, not a company in the phone book, I mean the actual book itself).

The only reason this should not be made available is if it does physical damage. Last time I read something about this it said it included a "max seconds on" feature, so the operator couldn't turn it on and aim it and leave it on for more than X number of seconds. If testing shows it doesn't do long-term physical harm, deploy it.

In light of all the taser use recently, ...........

Huh? "All the taser use"??????? Isn't that just like saying "all the handcuff use"? Because more than 99% of people who police use these things on are fine when the incident is over. And yes, people died from being handcuffed.

.....but since they're not lethal, per say, officials are a lot quicker to pull the trigger than they are a gun.

Cops are allowed hand-to-hand, then Mace/Pepper, then (unofficially) a Mag-Lite, then their gun. I'd like to replace the Mace/Pepper and (unofficial) Mag-Lite with a Taser.

What happened to old fashioned police work? Where if some drunk was being belligerent, you and 5 of your cop buddies took his ass down. Now they're all zapping him and he's dying of a heart attack from the shock.

HAHAHAHA!!!!! Totally bogus!

[7960]

Originally Posted by Simius

Resisting arrest? A quick zap will put an end to that. No harm no foul, right?

Right.

I can even picture it being used as an "enhanced interrogation technique." Hey, as long as we classify it as not being torture, it isn't, right?

Again, punish the people who use it that way, because ANYTHING can be used that way.

[Ardentfrost]

There needs to be standards set on these devices. There's no way that kid at the Kerry speech (as much of a douchebag that he was) needed to be tasered. He was being held down, and the first cop that got to him already showed that he was easily able to pick the kid up and move him around.

There have been quite a few "taser incidents" recently where the need to use the device has been called into question. In a few cases, the officers were fired like in the case where the lady was being belligerent in the police station, and the cop comes up from behind and without warning tases her. But with official precedent, there would be no question (for citizens of officers) what constitutes needed use.

[Stylerod]

The story was interesting but a lot of his comments are just stupid. Can it be used as a torture device, I guess it could. If it's not deployed will it somehow mean that there will be less torture in the world??? Not hardly.

Plus he says it's cheap. Uhm, if it's made by Raytheon for the military, I am willing to bet it is not cheap at all.

[WickedLou9]

My concern with weapons like this is thier over-use.
Because they ARE non-lethal and cause no injury, there is the perception that there is no risk. People will be willing to use it with much less thought simply because they think that it won't actually harm anyone. It can easily become an instrument to supress groups of protesters even if they don't need supressing. It's use can become almost casual because hey, it doesn't really hurt anyone. They are fine right?
That's not to say that I don't think we should try to find ways to achieve things that we used to rely on lethal force for. I just hope that the use of non-lethal weapons like this doesn't become casual.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Taser can be used in the place of hands on contact, so anytime a cop would normally pull out his nightstick or pepperspray.

Would you rather be hit with a baton or a taser ? One is over in a couple seconds with no permanent or even temp damage normally. The other has the very real possibility of breaking bones, damaging organs etc....

I think we have a volunteer to test out the new microwave ray gun.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Roonie

I think we have a volunteer to test out the new microwave ray gun.

I've seen it tested on people and I'd be willing.

This (or something very similar) was on Future Weapons and they showed exactly how directed the "ray gun" can be. From 1000 yards or so the "path" was about 6' wide, or he could make it wider if he chose. The effect when the "ray" was turned on was the guys were pretty much forced to turn and run.

If there's a mob approaching would you rather have them dispersed using that, or using a rifle?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

I've seen it tested on people and I'd be willing.

This (or something very similar) was on Future Weapons and they showed exactly how directed the "ray gun" can be. From 1000 yards or so the "path" was about 6' wide, or he could make it wider if he chose. The effect when the "ray" was turned on was the guys were pretty much forced to turn and run.

If there's a mob approaching would you rather have them dispersed using that, or using a rifle?

I think you're arguing for when the device should be used, and we're talking more about when it shouldn't.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think you're arguing for when the device should be used, and we're talking more about when it shouldn't.

So set guidelines for when it should and should not be used and punish the person who uses it outside those guidelines.

Saying it shouldn't be deployed because it *might* be abused is a good reason to not give cars to anyone under 30 years old, and a good reason to deny everyone a gun permit, and a perfectly valid reason to not allow a 17 year old to guy spray paint......oh, right, that's already law

[Stylerod]

Don't forget the ray gun that is supposed to make people shit their pants. Though I think MythBusters tried to see if that was possible and they couldn't get it to work.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

So set guidelines for when it should and should not be used and punish the person who uses it outside those guidelines.

Saying it shouldn't be deployed because it *might* be abused is a good reason to not give cars to anyone under 30 years old, and a good reason to deny everyone a gun permit, and a perfectly valid reason to not allow a 17 year old to guy spray paint......oh, right, that's already law

I never said it shouldn't be deployed, the article I posted suggests it (or, if nothing else, the author is scared of the device "getting into the wrong hands").

I'm all about setting guidelines for police that they have to follow. The guidelines for nonlethal force is weak at best.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I never said it shouldn't be deployed,

People in this thread have.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

People in this thread have.

No one has. Everyone is either saying "use it whenever they feel like" or "let's not let the use get out of hand."