The line of reasoning is interesting, but I am not sure anybody believes that. Would the government be willing to use a nuclear bomb on American's to quell an uprising?
I've read up on the microwave crowd control and it concerns me alittle. Usually test groups are asked to remove watches, rings, and loose change from their pockets.
Most mobs dont' concern themselves with those procedures.
Then again just wheeling that sucker out and watching angry mobs quickly taking off their watches, throwing down their loose change, and watching people with alot of body piercings frantically taking them off would make for some humerous viewing. You could then clear the mob with the device and then send in troops to scoop up all the loose change/watches/etc.
But seriously folks, do you think the devices are a good idea, or would you say that even for a non lethal device, the potential for causing pain outranks the cause of crowd control?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing it's a very low-amplitude wave that would feel very unpleasent (after all, you want them to move, not flop around like a fish). What does it do to biomedical devices -- pacemakers, for example?
1) j_k is correct. The idea of "non-lethality" is often dependent on who is in the crowd. Boston PD found that out when they fired rubber bullets into the post-World-Series crowd. The one aimed for the chest of a burly reveler that entered through the eye socket of a petite young woman has helped to change the notiong of "non-lethal" police weaponry. A "beam" or "energy pulse" that is uncomfortable to the average 24 year old -- could it kill someone in poor health or who is old? What about the effect on people who might be operating machinery (such as vehicles) in the vicinity.
2) if something causes disorientation, and the crowd disperses, is the government then liable for them walking into the path of cars, falling off of curbs, down steps, driving erratically, etc?
3) I worry that the desire to test this crap will lead to itchy-trigger-fingers. The AF guy says he wants it tested before we use it on foreigners. So...they have this big deal problem in Iraq and they want the PR from having used it in the US first. Hey...instead of using traditional crowd control, let's blast 'em with this stuff...why not, worth a try... Frankly, I can't see a municipal police department being foolish enough to be part of such a test. But...is there any doubt that had this idea been floating around in the days post-Katrina that people in New Orleans might've experienced the latest the defense department has to offer? I'd say there's at least a 50:50 chance it would've been used. Then, instead of just a massive clean-up, we'd have massive law suits too.
4) Every once in awhile some high-level military type spouts off something that renews my appreciation for the notion of civilian control of the military. This is one of those times. If this guy really thinks he should be allowed to test military weapons on US citizens, he needs to go. Even if they think the stuff is no-lethal. I predict he'll be put out to pasture in the not too distant future. It's just one of those things that we don't tolerate in our military. At least I hope this nation hasn't turned into such a bunch of sheep that we'd sit back while some military goon thinks up things to try on the citizenry.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
An interesting one is the LRAD, which can deliver a 150db blast in a 30 degree arc, which is well beyond the pain threshhold for humans. They've even mounted it on cruise ships to repel pirates.
Also, there's the Vortex Ring Gun, which can fire a "vortex ring" that can knock down a 150lb person from 10 feet away; basically, it's a big concussive air weapon. They're looking to prep a GL-6 repeating grenade launcher with these shells, so that should be loads of fun against a crowd.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe what they are talking about here (maybe, I heard it's already been deployed and used in Iraq), is the Active Denial System (ADS). As far as I know, it's one of the prime lines of non-lethal, microwaved based weapons the Air Force is working on.
From everything I heard it is designed to be uncomfortable to an extreme that prolonged exposure would either be torture, or a ticket into unconsiousness. The low down is that it pretty much stimulates even pain nerve that is in line of sight of the weapon, and is not covered by material that is impervious to x-rays (cloth of course is not). It's instant on and off, and supposedly there are no lingering effects once it is off.
Also, as far as I know, the only physically lasting effect that has been brought up is the potential of burns on any part of the skin that is touching exposed metal (same reason you don't put metal in a microwave oven).
Interesting concept. And also a particularly nasty concept.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. Do any of you know of a non-lethal weapon yet used in the US that CAN'T either be used to kill, maim or torture?
2. Would you rather cops used regular guns and nightsticks?
Tasers can, and have reportedly been used in a torture-esque form before by police. Tear gas is a bit like torture too I'd imagine (my brother describes it as very unpleasant, to say the least). Rubber bullets have killed. That sonic blast thing can permanantly damage your hearing. None of these are perfect. There's no "stun" setting phaser device to use like in Star Trek. Non-Lethal means exactly that, it probably won't kill you, but it sure as hell isn't going to be pretty.
If I have to choose between the possibility or chance of extreme pain or having my face bashed in by a billy club, I'll pick the pain causing microwave device.
To address the original issue though, I don't think it should be tested on the US civilian population. We're civilians, for better or for worse, regardless of our actions, it doesn't make us US military guinea pigs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Do any of you know of a non-lethal weapon yet used in the US that CAN'T either be used to kill, maim or torture?
I pointed out the LRAD; even though it can cause pain and deafness, it's only if they turn up the volume to eleven. And the vortex ring will fall in to that category as well.
Other than that, bean bags fall in to your description; basically, they're meant to knock the wind out of you.
quote:2. Would you rather cops used regular guns and nightsticks?
Frankly, yes, if necessary. But I have the deluded expectation that cops are supposed to be, for the most part, righteous.
The problem now is that they basically only have three weapons at their disposal: a gun, a nightstick (which my understanding is that they are to seldom use it on individuals) and pepper spray (which is pretty damn effective).
quote:If I have to choose between the possibility or chance of extreme pain or having my face bashed in by a billy club...
If that is something you have to think about on a daily basis, you have a different set of problems altogether. I've never had to personally worry about what a police office might use against me; I've never had a reason.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bean bags I accept as the only exception so far. But those don't work on a crowd, only on individuals. Vortex falls into the same category as rubber bullets, they CAN be harmful, very much so, if used improperly. And the LRAD, like a Taser, if used improperly or excessively can be quite damaging or torturous.
As for your second assertion, sorry but I think that's crazy. If you were trapped in, or for some reason took part in a crazed mob, be it following a sports event or a riot for some reason or another, or for example following a mass catastrophe in which the law enforcement officials are shooting looters on site, you'd want them to SHOOT you, or BEAT you with a nightstick rather than use non-lethal methods, however painful they might be?
Pepper spray and beanbags work just fine on individuals, or maybe even a small group, but it IS NOT going to stop a mob. You only take out those in the front, who are used as virtual human shields by the throng behind them to push forward. Guns will stop them faster, but at the expense of the front line, and billy clubs will either kill or maim far behind what the non-lethal forms discussed here will do. I'm with you on believing that most of the time, cops are in fact good and righteous, but do you think that across the board, thar righteousness extends into a situation where a giant mob is closing on them, they fear for their lives, and have no other option before them? Not everyone is Louis's Swiss Bodyguards, they won't allow themselves to be attacked without any defense necessary for protection.
quote:If that is something you have to think about on a daily basis, you have a different set of problems altogether. I've never had to personally worry about what a police office might use against me; I've never had a reason.
Whatever gave you that idea from what I said? I don't really have to worry about it either. I've never been in a riot or mob, and have no intention to be, just as I never intend to be disorderly when arrested, as I also plan to never be arrested. But that doesn't mean I can't hypothetically imagine a situation in which it might happen to me. Just because I'm removed from the problem being right in front of me doesn't mean I can't concieve possible consequences. I don't think you're being realistic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is not a police department in the country that has "fire indiscriminately into a crowd" as their SOP. Police in riot gear and billy clubs deal with one person at a time; officer-to-person. It may accumulate to a lot of individuals bopped over the head, but it happens one person at a time.
This microwave thing hits indiscriminately.
If metal touching skin is a problem, what about the people with surgical implants. The young lady with a copper-based IUD -- is she going to have burns in her uterus and become sterile because of this? What is the effect on pregnant women and their fetuses? Seriously, one miscarriage (for ANY reason) among women who were protesters the day the military gets to try this out and I guarantee not only will the military lose it's PR advantage, and a few heads, but I suspect a government would topple. "Who authorized this?" "Is there a chance it could harm a fetus?"
"We don't know..." is the eventual answer that'll be wrung out of the them.
No, it will not happen the way this AF guy thinks it should. I won't say that this will never be used in the US, but it will not be tried on US citizens first. At least not in any way that we'll ever find out about it. It will not be a PR fall-back for the DoD to point to when Iraqis (or whomever) complain about the inevitable unforeseen ill effects.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for your second assertion, sorry but I think that's crazy. If you were trapped in, or for some reason took part in a crazed mob, be it following a sports event or a riot for some reason or another, or for example following a mass catastrophe in which the law enforcement officials are shooting looters on site, you'd want them to SHOOT you, or BEAT you with a nightstick rather than use non-lethal methods, however painful they might be?
You mention a "mass catastrophe": I've been arguably part of at least one, Hurricane Andrew, which involved me having an armed national guard officer with an M1 stationed less than ten yards from my front door for two weeks. But I'm of the mindset that if the rule is to shoot looters on sight (which I don't think it's ever come to that), then I best not be looting, no? In a "mass catastrophe" situation, you STAY HOME unless it is absolutely necessary to venture out, and when you do venture out don't even think of remotely looking like a looter 'cause they will take you in or worse. Whatever happens as a result of police retaliation in those situations, I feel one brings it upon themselves.
You mention a "riot": I've had my share of riot situations here in Miami. But, when there's a riot going on, I'm not going to be walking around Liberty City for my own curiosity; I'm going to be as far as possible from the situation. How does one get "trapped" in to a riot, anyway?
The riots that I remember in Miami were not controlled. People here had a tendency to just set their own neighborhood on fire, so police would basically let them: they'd seal off all paths in and out of the area and let it burn. Eventually, when the rioters realized that nobody was listening, they stopped. Of course, I'm talking 10+ years ago since the last major riot, so perhaps the media might make such an event harder to contain.
I see your examples involving "innocent bystanders," but I like to think that the truly innocent do everything within their power to look as such. If you are innocent, yet you do something that the police might find threatening, you become a target. Your best bet in your examples: either go straight home and lock the door or curl up in to a ball in a corner and cry.
Again, maybe I have too much faith in the police force. I expect the police force to retaliate to rioters that are threatening the lives of police and others, but I'm not expecting them to napalm a city block in order to stop it.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that we worry more about the rights and safety of the people causing the riot than the rights of those who are victims of it?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Where there may be a disconnect, though, is in what you and I would see as legitimate actions by protestors, and what should be done to stop protests.
For me, protestors do not have the right to physically harm anyone else. If they do, they should be arrested and prosecuted. They do have the right to say anything they want to (short of certain things that may actually incite a riot or panic, which would/could reasonably be expected to lead to harm). They also have the right to peaceably assemble.
In our history, that right has been assailed by uniformed thugs acting on behalf of the government. It has happened numerous times in my lifetime, perhaps not so much in yours (I don't know your age). So, it's possible we may be coming at this with somewhat different perspectives. But still, I don't see anyone claiming that the rights of protestors are in any way superior to those of anyone else.
Now, when you say "victims" and refer specifically to riots, then we're in a whole new realm of civil disobedience up to and including violence. I don't know a single person who actually condones that. But the rights of US citizens do not end even during the commission of an illegal act. And being present during a riot is not the same thing as actually participating in other illegal actions. It can be rather confusing, especially as one of these things unfolds. The assembled masses may still be thinking of it as a protest gathering, while the police or National Guard may call it a riot, or illegal, or whatever. Who's right? The government just 'cuz they say so?
And not everyone starts the looting and burning. One part of the mob may not know what is going on a block or so away. But suddenly, the whole thing is labeled a riot.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do like to keep a close eye on how our government treats our citizens, but I don't think we've fallen so far yet that police regularly use force against non-violent protesters. It does happen, but it's pretty rare, and most often, some idiot or idiots in the crowd helps bring things to a boiling point.
I don't see a lot of down side to developing new ways to more safely control situations which tend towards going further out of control.
The police already have tear gas and fire hoses. We don't see those indiscriminately turned on crowds of feisty Christmas shoppers and quiet groups of peace protesters having a sit in.
Why should we fear that a new non-lethal weapon would suddenly cause police to go hog wild and microwave crowds for fun?
I would rather police have several steps to use before they get to clubs and guns. How might Kent State have unfolded if the National Guard had more non-lethal options? I don't know, but I'd much rather read about the Kent State Really Severe Burns Episode.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of the things that bugs me about news articles
quote: Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
Did he actually say those words or are they paraphrasing?
quote: "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
I wonder if this was his only actual statement and the above statement was a paraphrase. I don't actually know but I think they should have used his actual quote with the " " around it in the first paragraph
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If metal touching skin is a problem, what about the people with surgical implants. The young lady with a copper-based IUD -- is she going to have burns in her uterus and become sterile because of this? What is the effect on pregnant women and their fetuses? Seriously, one miscarriage (for ANY reason) among women who were protesters the day the military gets to try this out and I guarantee not only will the military lose it's PR advantage, and a few heads, but I suspect a government would topple. "Who authorized this?" "Is there a chance it could harm a fetus?"
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden: Also, as far as I know, the only physically lasting effect that has been brought up is the potential of burns on any part of the skin that is touching exposed metal (same reason you don't put metal in a microwave oven).
So you're saying they definitely shouldn't use it if the UFO Believer's Pride Parade ever gets rowdy?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you on what you said Bob. I was thinking of these things being used on a violent mob type of situation. Not on people protesting peacefully. I was thinking in terms of non lethal force being used when innocent peoples lives and safety are threatened.
I dont think that these should be used on people who are protesting and not causing physical harm to people or property.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my reading, these sort of things are almost never reffered to as non-lethal any more. Usually they are reffered to as "less lethal" and aknowledgement that they can be fatal although that is (generally) not the intent. As with any tool, if used improperly it can and will cause harm. Here in Chicago, where we have a... shall we say... hands-on police history, this has been a serious issue in the past. Can a tazer kill? Yes. Would I still prefer that a police officer used that on me than the .45? Oh yes.
Although the best less-lethal weapon that I've seen is the slippery foam. Hard to riot when you can't stand up.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morydd: From my reading, these sort of things are almost never reffered to as non-lethal any more. Usually they are reffered to as "less lethal" and aknowledgement that they can be fatal although that is (generally) not the intent. As with any tool, if used improperly it can and will cause harm. Here in Chicago, where we have a... shall we say... hands-on police history, this has been a serious issue in the past. Can a tazer kill? Yes. Would I still prefer that a police officer used that on me than the .45? Oh yes.
Although the best less-lethal weapon that I've seen is the slippery foam. Hard to riot when you can't stand up.
Do Firehoses kill anybody? Pretty sure they dont though you could probably drown somebody if you kept focusing the blast of water on the person as they lay there.
I personally think there are just too many problems with using microwaves for crowd control. Perhaps it has military functions, but thats it as far as I am concerned.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know of any instances where a firehose killed someone when being used for crowd-control, but it's well documented that the were used in abusive fashion on occasions.
There is also the issue that using firehoses can hinder using the fire hydrant system for what it was designed for. Something that can become much more vital if a riot gets out of hand. Also, controlling a fire hose is hard work.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morydd: I don't know of any instances where a firehose killed someone when being used for crowd-control, but it's well documented that the were used in abusive fashion on occasions.
That goes without saying for just about any non lethal device you could devise.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
