DescentBB

Lothar wrote:People are overlooking the opinion I've put forward: non-lethal weapons that don't do any permanent harm are good in both domestic and military settings. Despite what Diedel and others have said, the goal of our military is not always to kill enemy troops or to injure them so they burden their society. A doctrine of true modern American warfare is: take out enemy leaders and those who fight against you because they hate you, but minimize casualties among those who fight against you because it's their job. Such people will (for the most part) make it easier for you to rebuild their country because they'll be able to be productive citizens of your replacement government.

The military does in fact "kill people & break stuff" and I understand the need to minimize casualties in any war but the main priority is to protect our own. Regular police have a duty to protect and serve the citizens, the military does not.

I fully get what you are saying. Minimizing casualties and injuries on the enemies side will lessen the financial burden on us when it comes to rebuilding, however, with that being said, I do not think that that should be the primary duty of our soldiers nor should they be burdened with that responsibility while they are attempting to rout the enemy from it's positions.

In a postwar situation involving police -or- in a domestic setting, I think weapons that can incapacitate without doing harm would be an enormous benefit and I see no problem with equipping police with such devices as killing a suspect who has not yet been proven guilty is contrary to our very system. If there is a way to merely incapacitate them while still protecting the police doing their jobs, then that would by all means be the best system.

And finally, I don't really understand how incapacitating an enemy soldier through injury is somehow worse than killing them. Yes, in some cases, they would be better off dead, but there are many weapons already that do this. In any war, the injuries outweigh the dead and some of these injuries are quite severe. I would rather have a spot on my retina than unable to walk. I'd rather be deaf than dead, and while these solutions are not the greatest in that they still cause harm, they are better than death. When the military is equipped with Star Trek like weapons with "Stun" settings, then yeah, we'll have found the perfect weapon but until then, I think progress is being made.

bash wrote:But these are not designed as replacements for conventional lethal weapons. In situations where the threat is lethal, then that will be met with lethal weapons. You and others seem to think these are meant to up the cruelty factor when the opposite is true. There are designed primarily to disperse crowds in a manner that won't leave any lasting effects. The main point is ask yourselves why would you choose a non-lethal weapon or a non-lethal weapon turned up to lethal levels when facing a lethal threat if a conventional lethal weapon would be more logical to use?

I think you answered your own question. These are not a replacement for guns, they are an alternative that is better in certain situations, and therefor is good to have ONE OR TWO OF in a platoon just in case it comes in handy

I agree.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that this thing was made with saving lives in mind.

The ultimate goal of this line of weaponry is liquifying your lungs.

These are your statements that I was responding to that indicated you believe their primary purpose is for lethal confrontation. They aren't. They are meant to minimize injury and death in the anticipated situations where they would likely see usage. That's not to say some troops might not find more creative uses when they are finally put into a theater of operations.

bash i think we've both been confused by who said what in this thread.

neither you or i are saying that this thing is designed to kill or harm. we both are of the same opinion that it's designed as non-lethal and non-harmful.
it can cause deafness if you are hit with it at close range with the "long range" high power blast, but this is not how it is designed to be used. the high power blast is designed solely to be used for long distance, the high power blast is not ment to be used at short distance coz no-one wants to make anyone deaf.
only the lower power blast is supposed to be used for close combat.

roid, my comments have been directed toward PR (with the exception of the one where I was answering yours), as the above post attempts to clarify.

bash wrote:

roid wrote:Pentagon sources said it would be used in Iraq as an alternative to bullets to break up riots or protests, to stop suspects approaching check points and force snipers from buildings or caves.

Lying and poor analysis is not the same. The primary purpose is for crowd control and separating innocents from bad guys....

You and others seem to think these are meant to up the cruelty factor when the opposite is true.

oh dear, it seems you are wrong

(haha nice of you to go back and re-read..
thanks for editing out "roid you are the only one who is confused")

I opted to soften my reply. OK, you're confused. There, it's back.

bash wrote:There, it's back.

you're damn right to assume that you'd be confusing bash.
coz although you say you reedited your post back to it's original state, at my time of posting this you have done no such thing.

if this is somehow ment to confuse others, then then you'r not confusing me. i know EXACTLY what you're trying to do mr cloak and dagger, and i'm not buying into it.

Give it a rest, roid. I wasn't trying to do anything except avoid another confusing argument with a man who needs to up his dosage.

bash wrote:There, it's back.

WHERE

i'm not standing for this ★■◆● this time bash.
(taking this to private message / email)

It's back in the *it's back* post. See *OK, you're confused*. Boy, did I hit that nail on the head.

stfu and answer your private message

Supersheep, I mostly agree. I don't think it's the military's responsibility to try to eliminate all deaths (though they should certainly aim to minimize them to the degree that's reasonable) -- I just think that, given the opportunity, there will be times when using something like this in a nonlethal way would be far better than shooting at enemy troops with lethal weapons. People seem to be ignoring this possibility, assuming that either it will be lethal or it will be useless in the military. I think both lethal and nonlethal versions would have military uses (less so for the lethal versions), and nonlethal versions would have a wide variety of domestic uses as well. I'm not even sure lethal versions would be produced, though there might be *very* specialized applications where one *might* be useful.

PR, why do you assume the finished product will be lethal? Why wouldn't there be both lethal and nonlethal versions, or a single model with multiple settings, or just a nonlethal version? You deride bash for assuming the final version will be nonlethal, but you provide no evidence or reasoning to the contrary. I thought you didn't like when people showed disdain for others' opinions.

Lothar: I think then for the most part we have been in agreement the entire time with differences in semantics. I think non-lethal weapons are fine, in fact preferable to lethal ones, with the caveat being "do they eliminate the threat?" I think if a weapon can do this then it makes an effective weapon.

Really, all the arguments boil down to this. Does the weapon elimate the threat? If it can do this, then I would imagine everyone here would be in agreement that non-lethal, non-injurious would be better than lethal -or- permanently disabling.

SuperSheep wrote:Lothar: I think then for the most part we have been in agreement the entire time with differences in semantics. I think non-lethal weapons are fine, in fact preferable to lethal ones, with the caveat being "do they eliminate the threat?" I think if a weapon can do this then it makes an effective weapon.

Really, all the arguments boil down to this. Does the weapon elimate the threat? If it can do this, then I would imagine everyone here would be in agreement that non-lethal, non-injurious would be better than lethal -or- permanently disabling.

I can't believe this thread took off as much as it did when in fact this is exactly the main point and one that I tried to end my post with back on page 1. I'll admit it was caked in a little bit of humor but...

Don't know if it really applies here, but don't you guys hate it when fights break out when technically we're all saying the same thing, just in different ways which in turn makes it seem like we're saying something completely different? I know I do

I thought this was going to make it to E&C by now.

Tyr, the reason it took off is because, while some of us really are saying the same thing, a few still insist one of the following:

1) the weapons aren't meant for military use
2) the weapons are definitely meant to be lethal
3) the weapons are definitely meant to cause permanent injuries

In other words, some people insist on limiting what they allow themselves to believe sound-weapons are meant for.

if i were a mod, i would move this to e&c, so that stupid people like me who only chill in teh café remain blissfully stupid