quote: The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed....Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Protestors, rioters, those annoying civilians that want to attack our armed forces and then claim foul when we return fire...
"Less than Lethal" has always been a point of interest for the US Military and law enforcement, for various reasons.
Direct care staff in facilities which permitted the use of strong aversives reported more intense feelings of personal accomplishment on the inventory than did subjects whose programs were limited to the use of mild aversives. S.L. Harris, J.S. Handleman, M.J. Gill, P.L. Fong
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing.
Edited to address the possibility that Trevor might have been serious.
The answer is "yes" - it's a bad thing, especially when masquerading as "help" or "therapy" - at least law enforcement and the military are upfront about what the goals are. But that reference I posted bears some investigation - if using painful methods is personally gratifying to the one inflicting them, there is a real danger the methods jump to the top of the list in terms of dealing with any problem.
[ March 04, 2005, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, there have always been deaths from "less than lethal" crowd-control methods; whether we want to use them in a certain situation should, in my mind, be considered more carefully than it often is.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think, though I may be wrong, that Trevor was referring to the police and military applications, in terms of anti-riot applications, of such technology.
In those situations, control is not a bad thing. In fact, the restoration of some sort of control and order is desireable to save lives.
But, then, I could be wrong about his meaning.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That IS scary. More painful methods of control in a "helping" setting being personally satisfying for the inflictor? o_O
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
From thread topic:
quote:Topic: Did I miss the "Zap Protestors With Excruciating Pain" thread?
From the link:
quote: Intended for use against rioters
I want to point out that being a protestor doesn't make you a rioter, and being a rioter doesn't make you a protestor.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, but in my experience, peaceful protesters are often responded to as if they were rioters.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But there is a long history of use of riot control measures against protesters.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)