What's that you say?

[Fade]

Now hear this! (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3301371.1078866848&prod=35072&modele=feature)

But you just know some liberal is going to complain.

[Glaucus]

Complain about what? It sure beats dropping cluster bombs! Not sure how effective it will be though. Obviously the troops using it can wear some form of ear protection, therefore the intended targets can learn to protect their hearing as well. I would also think that over-use of this device may end up being counter productive, but I'm sure the smart people at the Pentagon know all about maintaining good relations with the people they are oppressing.

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Fade wrote:
Now hear this! (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3301371.1078866848∏=35072&modele=feature)

But you just know some liberal is going to complain.

lol

I don't know, I like the simplicity of traditional conventional weapons.

The thing about these goofy things are that they're eventually going to be used in combat, and in situations where we would have normally been justified in firing at the enemy using conventional rifles, and then when the enemy is deaf we'll see news articles about how cruel we were for disabling the enemy (even though traditionally we would have shot him).

There's really no middle ground, and trying to find middle ground is dangerous and error prone. If someone is a risk to life, you need to shoot to kill.

[aardvark]

If someone is a risk to life, you need to shoot to kill
Nonsense! You only _need_ to shoot to disable. At that point they are no longer a risk to life. The best military training teaches the use of proportionate force. You don't use A-bombs against slingshots. Most shots in war are quite deliberated and calculated.

[Fade]

@ Aardvark
Nonsense! You only _need_ to shoot to disable.
------------------

So says another person who has never been shot at.

NO military trains to shoot to wound.

[T_Bone]

aardvark wrote:
If someone is a risk to life, you need to shoot to kill
Nonsense! You only _need_ to shoot to disable.


Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that there are two types of situations. Those where you don't need to shoot, and those where you need to shoot to kill. if you don't need to kill, you don't need to shoot.

The "You should aim for the kneecap" type of crap comes from watching TV (not the best place to learn about guns and defense). If you don't need to kill the person, you shouldn't be using a lethal weapon, and shouldn't be firing at them at all.

[Glaucus]

You guys seem to have missed the point of this weapon. Non-lethal weapons such as this are not to replace normal combat weapons or tactics. In fact, they are to be used where normal combat weapons and tactics could not and should not be used. The article itself mentioned using it against crowds. For example, a rally turning into a riot could be handled nicely with such a weapon if used correctly, instead of using rifles. A good example of this would be in Isreal and the intifada (sp?) movement.

However, the effectiveness of such non-lethal weapons is somewhat questionable. I'm sure when they invented tear gas and rubber bullets they thought they'd be putting an end to riots - they thought wrong. Also, don't be surprised if US police forces end up using similar devices one day against American protesters.

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
You guys seem to have missed the point of this weapon. Non-lethal weapons such as this are not to replace normal combat weapons or tactics. In fact, they are to be used where normal combat weapons and tactics would not want to be used. The article itself mentioned using it against crowds. For example, a rally turning into a riot could be handled nicely with such a weapon if used correctly, instead of using rifles. A good example of this would be in Isreal and the intifada (sp?) movement.

However, the effectiveness of such non-lethal weapons is somewhat questionable. I'm sure when they invented tear gas and rubber bullets they thought they'd be putting an end to riots - they thought wrong.

- Mike

I know, but I just have a feeling that the situations this could be used in are narrow. I don't like the idea of this weapon being available to the government for things like "riot control" because, well, WE arn't allowed to have them, and concievably anything the military creates for riot purposes could eventually be used by civillian police forces.

I haven't really decided if i think it's something i support or not... but I have this fear that error in judgement might cause this to be used where deadly force should be warranted, or worse, used in an incapacitating manner where only police action is required. Kind of like bringing a gun to a fistfight, or a knife to a gunfight.

[Glaucus]

Hmmm... I don't know T_Bone, your last post there is border line "complaining"... Soon you might be called a liberal (or even worse, a Canadian! ;-) )

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
Hmmm... I don't know T_Bone, your last post there is border line "complaining"... Soon you might be called a liberal (or even worse, a Canadian! ;-) )

- Mike

:lol:

I think my fears are mainly caused by "marketing" where they try to sell the public on the weapon by talking about how "versatile" it is. I don't like versitile weapons. I like deadly weapons used in life threatening situations, and riot control gear used in peace threatening situations. I like to keep the line between the two as clear and crisp as possible.

I don't know, I'll think about it
:-)

[ZINE]

Oh i can see amnesty international or some other worldly human rights organization having a field day if we ever used this in Iraq. As the iraqi people start to smarten up and realize the extremists are the ones fouling things up for them (ex. blowing up the red cross), we won't have a need for it there. We could use it better on ELF etc. during the riots at various world trade talks anyways.