Replies

But seriously, does this sound so much worse than flamethrowers, napalm, hand grenades, mortars, rockets, cannons, rifles, daisy cutters, FAEs, etc., etc., etc.?

Have you considered the possibility that this weapon may be used to repel an enemy without permanently injuring him? That it could, in fact, end up being more humane than current weaponry?

But seriously, does this sound so much worse than flamethrowers, napalm, hand grenades, mortars, rockets, cannons, rifles, daisy cutters, FAEs, etc., etc., etc.?

Don't bother trying to explain what is so obvious. In a large demographic segment of humanity (which I will not name), emotion always trumps logic.

"Have you considered the possibility that this weapon may be used to repel an enemy without permanently injuring him? That it could, in fact, end up being more humane than current weaponry?"

Yes, one can consider that, but these non-lethal weapons are technologies for political control. You might be interested in the following article. Yes, it was prepared by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessments for European Parliament, but it also includes what the U.S. has come up with as far as torture weapons and who makes them here. Names names, IOW. BTW, these weapons are not in the planning stage, many are in use as we speak.

Have you considered the possibility that this weapon may be used to repel an enemy without permanently injuring him? That it could, in fact, end up being more humane than current weaponry?

That would be fine. But have you considered the possibility that after the military have tested and validated these weapons, the government may allow law enforcement to use these things in situations where they would not be allowed to use conventional weapons? For example, during a political demonstration which looks like it might turn nasty. Also these sorts of things could easily be used as implements of torture.

Here in Britain, the Police use batten rounds and tear gas on unlawful marchers, if they deem it appropriate. A batten round can kill or maim, although its supposed to be 'non-lethal'. Plenty of people have been killed by them and that 'non-lethal' gas in Moscow killed at least 116 people. I wonder how safe a laser which causes temporary blindness actually is, personally I would prefer to be dead than permanently blinded. Also a microwave which cooks the skin could probably make a man sterile. If non-lethal weapons could be used in warfare without causing permanent disabilities then fair enough, but its a short step from there to using them to control undesirable political demonstrators etc.