Non-lethal combat

[Frostbyte]

The idea for this thread came from the following, in another thread:

Originally posted by Unabomber
Lasers can be used to burn out the retinas of the enemy troops

Perhaps meant as a joke, but it got me thinking.

What if we could invent weapons that were non-lethal, but still effective?

If you could fire a laser at someone and blind them, would that not be enough for them to be taken out of the equation? For the most part at least?

Whether the damage was permanent, or able to be corrected through surgery, it would seem to be a way to disable the enemy without killing them.

Would a country rather have 10,000 dead troops or 10,000 blind veterans?

Just a few of the questions that come to mind.

I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Pros
----
Loss of life is reduced
Emotional strain on friendly troops is reduced (?)
If surgery will not correct it, their military will be weakened just as much as if the troops were killed

Cons
----
Blind soldiers may not simply surrender or stop fighting on the field.
Possible deception by the enemy, pretending to be blinded. How could we tell?
Possible future suicide attacks by blind veterans(?)
If surgery will correct it, they still have a fully functional military.. now more experienced.

[freeo]

I believe there are already a number of non-lethal weapons undergoing testing as we speak. I saw it on the Discovery Channel a few months ago. It's very interesting stuff and could redefine war as we know it.

[NappyK]

It sounds very interesting, but I don't think it'll work out. On top of that it sounds like it would make war even more expensive than it already is.

Now don't get me wrong, lazor guns are cool and all, but nothing does the job like a white-hot 5.56mm piece of steel moving at 3000 feet per second.

[Cain]

A recent issue of _New Scientist_ reports on some crazy new non-lethal gadgets (wireless electric shock weapons).

The major problem with these devices is that they enable systematic human rights abuses. Corporations from all around the world that develop these devices, including the US (especially the US) sell them authoritarian governments who use them to torture dissidents.

[MindFlare]

Yeah, its true, there are already non-lethal weapons. Especially in law enforcement. But the difference is, they're not called "non-lethal" weapons. They are called "less-lethal" weapons.

Some of the nastier ones include modified grenade launchers to shoot large rubber slugs, a sort of air gun that shoots capsules of stink. (Yes stink, essence of feces, skunk, and who knows what else). Tear powder, etc, etc.

[Obscure]

The problem is that people will think of all kinds of ways these supposedly "non-lethal" weapons can kill people. For example, what if you used that blinding laser to blind a pilot and make him crash his airplane? You didn't actually kill him, but you did bring about the circumstances of his death making you equally responsible. People are very creative.

[DeathinaCan]

It's all about the sonic weapons.

Other than that, the Army actually prefers to use less than lethal force, as it takes more men, and therefore more resources to move wounded or ineffective troops off the frontlines. After the casualties have been moved to rear echlons, they still need to be fed, clothed and have shelter provided.

annexing an entire army is best, destroying it is second best - SUN-TZU

Basically, winning without actually killing anyone benifits everyone. I guess politics are the best non-lethal weapon afterall. :rolleyes:

[Thrash]

Originally posted by DeathinaCan
Basically, winning without actually killing anyone benifits everyone. I guess politics are the best non-lethal weapon afterall. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see all the politicians who cause all the wars and problems, go deal with them theirselves.

[eriddy]

the coolest non lethal weapon ive seen is this big microwave generator that loosens the intestines of people standing in its way. it makes people take a shit immediatly. also causes nausea. used for crowd control at riots.

[Cyberjoker]

Use of non-lethal weapons for law enforcement.....good.
Use of non-lethal weapons for war.....very bad.
War is not a nice thing. By using waepons that dont kill, we'd start seeing "clean" wars. Instead of wars it'd be like challenging the enemy to a game of paintball or something :rolleyes: Although this would be way kooler than actual war, it's not gonna happen.

[Obscure]

They use blind people to assemble pens for the government. My dad used to joke that blind people have no incentive to make a good pen.

[freeo]

Originally posted by Cyberjoker
War is not a nice thing. By using waepons that dont kill, we'd start seeing "clean" wars. Instead of wars it'd be like challenging the enemy to a game of paintball or something :rolleyes:

I can't tell whether you think that's a good thing or bad thing.

[QBert]

just figure out the world's funniest joke and you can teach it to our soldiers in a foreign language and storm past the enemy.

freaking great sketch, you old-schoolers will know what i'm talking about.

Originally posted by eriddy
the coolest non lethal weapon ive seen is this big microwave generator that loosens the intestines of people standing in its way. it makes people take a shit immediatly. also causes nausea. used for crowd control at riots.


id like more info on that plz

[-Wolvy-pb]

if they fight us they should die.

[snaggle]

Originally posted by eriddy
the coolest non lethal weapon ive seen is this big microwave generator that loosens the intestines of people standing in its way. it makes people take a shit immediatly. also causes nausea. used for crowd control at riots.

Heh, the concept was what gave birth to the "Sick Stick" in Minority Report. I'm really interested in what they've got cooking in the sonic weapon department..another weapon featured in Minority Report was the sonic gun that saw quite a bit of screen time in the Lexus factory.

a really nifty weapon that they use in prison is a green laser gun that instantaneously makes the target nauseous to the point of violent vomiting. neato. ;)

[crz]

Originally posted by QBert
just figure out the world's funniest joke and you can teach it to our soldiers in a foreign language and storm past the enemy.

freaking great sketch, you old-schoolers will know what i'm talking about.

but of course, each part would have to be developed seperately, to save the scientists.

the blind would be far more of a burden to a defeated country than the dead, because you dont have to take care of the dead.

[agent_ze]

A war can't be turned into something peacefull, and that's why they must be avoided at all costs.

Honestly I think blinding enemy soldiers would be so cruel you might
as well kill them.


Also I read an article somewhere that the british police is being equipped with pistols that deliver a very powerfull electric shock. The idea is good but that type of guns are usually very very painfull to the target.

why cant the politicians and people who want the war just like get guns and stuff and go fight the people they want to get war with shit i bet theyd have a different answer then hey lets bomb everyone because we can

[snaggle]

Originally posted by agent_ze
A war can't be turned into something peacefull, and that's why they must be avoided at all costs.

Honestly I think blinding enemy soldiers would be so cruel you might
as well kill them.


Also I read an article somewhere that the british police is being equipped with pistols that deliver a very powerfull electric shock. The idea is good but that type of guns are usually very very painfull to the target.

That's generally the idea behind non lethal weapons. They're painful, effective, and they don't kill the target...who is usually a lawbreaking criminal...who took it upon themself to forfeit their right to avoid pain once they crossed the line into criminal activity.

[snaggle]

Originally posted by ElJosho
imagine having to be the guy who tests it for effectiveness :(

They generally test them on animals. :)

I'm surprised PETA hasn't had a field day with it yet...

[PurpleHaze]

Jack Ass. Johnny Knoxville took a shot from a "less-lethal" weapon. It was a bean bag fired from a 12-gauge shotgun. They had him wearing a bullet proof vest because they aren't "non-lethal" only "less-lethal" meaning they can still kill if they got him in say the throat or heart.

I don't think weapons like that would have any use in war. So you incapacitate these soldiers and then...what? Either you have to capture them and deal w/ them (huge resource drain) or you let them get up and walk away with a huge bruise to fight another day (impossible to win).

That blinding shit is just inhumane. Mustard gas anyone?

[ElevatioN]

Originally posted by Jesus!
Errm, so if they used something to blind all of their soldiers they would have a country full of worthless people. No offense to the blind people, I know there are some who have actually done incredible things, but generally if you want a job done you are going to pick a person who can actually see over a blind person

lol its not like they can read it

[foLtage]

One of the last things that this world needs is clean warfare. One of the biggest deterrents to war is if the general population knows exactly what the results of the war will be. Take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for example, in both wars the public (in the western world anyways) was shown pictures of bombs exploding, yet no photographs of the results of these explosions. As such it was far easier for the world to dismiss the tragedies visited on all those who died. The reality of war is that it kills, maims and destroys. People should be faced with that reality, not blinded by concepts such as "smart weapons" and "nonlethal warfare".

[DeathinaCan]

Originally posted by foLtage
One of the last things that this world needs is clean warfare. One of the biggest deterrents to war is if the general population knows exactly what the results of the war will be. Take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for example, in both wars the public (in the western world anyways) was shown pictures of bombs exploding, yet no photographs of the results of these explosions. As such it was far easier for the world to dismiss the tragedies visited on all those who died. The reality of war is that it kills, maims and destroys. People should be faced with that reality, not blinded by concepts such as "smart weapons" and "nonlethal warfare".

You're contradicting yourself a bit. If non-lethal means were used to achieve the same goals that normal warfare would achieve ordinarily, there wouldn't be the mess (or at least less of a mess) that combat generally leaves behind.

For example, if I were to destroy, or at least disable, your armed forces in their entirety, armed conflict would not result, as you would be lacking the ability, and resources, to fight back. Very rarely does a country go to war in an effort to destroy another country or it's population outright. Usually warfare is used to achieve a specific goal, or goals. If I can achieve my set goals (example: stopping the invasion of a friendly country by a hostile force, or securing precious oil fields for my personal use) without armed contention, all the better for me.

Just think of the army as insurance. Insurance for your country's investments. Big, pointy, mega-death inducing insurance. That's all.

[Peltito]

In war it has been discovered that it is FAR preferable to cause casualties for the enemy to deal with, than death. The enemy now must deal with the huge resource and morale drain they cause (Not only that but casualties are, generally, a non-mobile objective. That is, the enemy will advance troops to retrieve/rescue those casualties resulting in a chance for ambush, causing even greater casualties, etc). With this in mind, the military tries to push the envelope in weapons that will NOT kill but maim while maintaining the facade of 'civilized' warfare (Where there is NO such thing as civilized warfare).

Causing the greatest injuries that cost the most resources to the enemy, without killing the soldier, is the most desirable outcome.

[Halfbreed]

Originally posted by Frostbyte
The idea for this thread came from the following, in another thread:



Perhaps meant as a joke, but it got me thinking.

What if we could invent weapons that were non-lethal, but still effective?

If you could fire a laser at someone and blind them, would that not be enough for them to be taken out of the equation? For the most part at least?

Whether the damage was permanent, or able to be corrected through surgery, it would seem to be a way to disable the enemy without killing them.

Would a country rather have 10,000 dead troops or 10,000 blind veterans?

Just a few of the questions that come to mind.

I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Pros
----
Loss of life is reduced
Emotional strain on friendly troops is reduced (?)
If surgery will not correct it, their military will be weakened just as much as if the troops were killed

Cons
----
Blind soldiers may not simply surrender or stop fighting on the field.
Possible deception by the enemy, pretending to be blinded. How could we tell?
Possible future suicide attacks by blind veterans(?)
If surgery will correct it, they still have a fully functional military.. now more experienced.

So what your saying is its better to have innocent people being blinded by having their retinas burned out rather then being killed?

[foLtage]

Deathinacan, what I was trying to say is more that simply writing off any casualties as justified because nonlethal means were used is a dangerous mindset. No matter how "safe" these weapons could be, soldiers and civilians will still be killed, maimed and disposessed. This should only be done as a last resort.

And as was stated before, in the long run blinding entire military forces could be far more damaging to that army's society than simply killing them. Suddenly what was the youngest strongest members of society are now cripples, creating a huge drain on that society's productivity.

[Frostbyte]

Knockout, the thing to consider is that these are people that would likely be dead or, at the very least, wounded by gunfire.

Is it worse to be blind than dead? Or paralyzed from a gunshot to your spine?

What if the blindness could be reversed through surgery?

I don't know where I stand on the issue. Strange to think of though.

[SithDrummer]

Originally posted by knockout
So what your saying is its better to have innocent people being blinded by having their retinas burned out rather then being killed?

If by innocent people you mean enemy soldiers with guns in their hands, looking to shoot YOU, then yes.

[snaggle]

Originally posted by knockout
So what your saying is its better to have innocent people being blinded by having their retinas burned out rather then being killed?

It's war...there's no such thing as innocent people.

[othell]

Originally posted by dys
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,448832-3,00.html

That's one brave reporter. Not sure if I'd willingly subject myself to that.

[Frostbyte]

Originally posted by othell
That's one brave reporter. Not sure if I'd willingly subject myself to that.

I would in a heartbeat. That sounds awesome.

In a small building half a mile away, a young Air Force technician, using a joystick and video monitor, aimed crosshairs at my back.


Pfft joystick. Should have used mouse and keyboard. :D

id rather be dead than blind