If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   As you sit there loading clips for your AK-47 and Glock, why don't you take a look at some of these impressive non-lethal weapons the military has developed. (Bonus: It's not a slide show)   (businessinsider.com) divider line 75
    More: Cool, non-lethal weapons, Benghazi, military  
•       •       •

5571 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Dec 2012 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 06:41:41 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.



The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?
 
2012-12-20 06:48:01 PM

Sherman Potter: DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.

You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?


This is the problem that no one seems to pick up on.

If you are building an army to use against your enemies, you buy weapons to destroy the armor and people who stand in your way. You don't mind a little ruination, but you have to deal with technical threat.
If your buying non lethal weapons (which are often banned or restricted by international rules) or automated drones (which have little value against a proper military force) it becomes obvious that your target isn't some foreign government.

You need to put down a threat that is very politically unpopular to kill.
These are toys for the home front.
 
2012-12-20 06:51:33 PM

way south: Sherman Potter: DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.

You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?

This is the problem that no one seems to pick up on.

If you are building an army to use against your enemies, you buy weapons to destroy the armor and people who stand in your way. You don't mind a little ruination, but you have to deal with technical threat.
If your buying non lethal weapons (which are often banned or restricted by international rules) or automated drones (which have little value against a proper military force) it becomes obvious that your target isn't some foreign government.

You need to put down a threat that is very politically unpopular to kill.
These are toys for the home front.


Maybe we get to see it in action after Obama's big Gun Grab. A million corn syrup junkies with misspelled t-shirts, puking on their Bushmasters and shiatting their pants.
 
2012-12-20 06:57:48 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.

The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?


From Wiki:



 


The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued by the United Nations on 13 October 1995. It came into force on 30 July 1998.[1]
Text
Article 1

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2

In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3

Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4

For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.
 
2012-12-20 07:01:16 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.

The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?

From Wiki:


The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued by the United Nations on 13 October 1995. It came into force on 30 July 1998.[1]
Text
Article 1

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2

In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3

Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4

For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.



The strobe bomb I remember was an explosive chemical device, if I remember correctly. I read about it in the 80s in some defense traderag my dad used to read. It was meant to be used against the Russian hordes we feared would overrun W. Europe. This anti-laser thing is from 1998. I was just curious if it is just lasers that are illegal to blind people or what.
 
2012-12-20 07:09:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I like rubber bullets, they make hippies cry.

[img545.imageshack.us image 478x640]


Is there an intended implication from that photo? Because as others have pointed out, that's not a particularly bad bruise. Hippies spend a lot of time outside and doing physical stuff, if you're working a field (say, in a commune growing radishes) you'll get worse on almost a daily basis, especially if you're handling animals.

Hell, just having children and/or younger siblings is going to give you worse than that on a regular basis.

//Or are you confusing hippies with "hipsters", who are delicate urban snowflakes?
 
2012-12-20 07:30:08 PM

Jim_Callahan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I like rubber bullets, they make hippies cry.

[img545.imageshack.us image 478x640]

Is there an intended implication from that photo? Because as others have pointed out, that's not a particularly bad bruise. Hippies spend a lot of time outside and doing physical stuff, if you're working a field (say, in a commune growing radishes) you'll get worse on almost a daily basis, especially if you're handling animals.

Hell, just having children and/or younger siblings is going to give you worse than that on a regular basis.

//Or are you confusing hippies with "hipsters", who are delicate urban snowflakes?


When I was a kid, my Grandfather taught me that a Hippy is somebody who spends all of their money on music.
 
2012-12-20 07:32:07 PM

Insatiable Jesus: way south: Sherman Potter: DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.

You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?

This is the problem that no one seems to pick up on.

If you are building an army to use against your enemies, you buy weapons to destroy the armor and people who stand in your way. You don't mind a little ruination, but you have to deal with technical threat.
If your buying non lethal weapons (which are often banned or restricted by international rules) or automated drones (which have little value against a proper military force) it becomes obvious that your target isn't some foreign government.

You need to put down a threat that is very politically unpopular to kill.
These are toys for the home front.

Maybe we get to see it in action after Obama's big Gun Grab. A million corn syrup junkies with misspelled t-shirts, puking on their Bushmasters and shiatting their pants.


This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.
 
2012-12-20 07:44:55 PM

Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.



Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.
 
2012-12-20 08:21:15 PM

Insatiable Jesus: kg2095: Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.

You have obviously never killed anyone.

My boss is a former SAS soldier and has had to kill in the course of his duty. He is still tormented by nightmares about it.


Shhh, don't interrupt Dr. Gunfap while he is engaged in homicidal ideation and violent fantasy.


Sounds simultaneously exciting and dangerous.
 
2012-12-20 08:32:59 PM

Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.


They also can't sue you if they don't survive.
 
2012-12-20 08:55:33 PM
These weapons are designed to be used against citizens of this country.
 
2012-12-20 09:30:37 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.

The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?

From Wiki:


The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued by the United Nations on 13 October 1995. It came into force on 30 July 1998.[1]
Text
Article 1

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2

In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3

Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4

For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.


The strobe bomb I remember was an explosive chemical device, if I remember correctly. I read about it in the 80s in some defense traderag my dad used to read. It was meant to be used against the ...


It is my reading of things that any mechanism whose sole purpose is permanent blindness is a no-go. I don't think lasers are particularly special in this regard, they are just the easiest way to get that particular job done. I would wager that these rules are in place simply because blinding everyone is just such a dick move
 
2012-12-20 09:59:19 PM
Hijacking an enemy aircraft via pulse laser? That's it, I'm starting a new career developing fantasy gadgets for the military. "No General, the LTF-3000SK is not working yet, we need a few millions dollars more, otherwise the Chineses will develop one first."
 
2012-12-20 10:03:05 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Great Janitor: As for the lawsuit thing, we live in a sue happy nation. This is a nation where home intruders can hurt themselves breaking into a place and sue the home owner for injuries. I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him. Just fire two shots in the chest and let that be it. A bit difficult for the intruder's family to say 'wrongful death' when they die during a home invasion.


I would believe this except the only place I have ever heard this before was AM radio and in FW FW FW emails from elderly relatives.


I'm sure a google search will turn up plenty, but I'm too lazy. In the 80's my best friends dad who was a cop told us about a little old lady getting sued (successfully I might add) by a burglar who slipped on her freshly waxed or mopped floor and hurt himself. Given all the stupid shiat that happens in our society I have zero trouble believing that shiat like this happens all the time.
 
2012-12-20 10:24:36 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.


Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.


My point is, I'm not bringing this up because I'm some sort of wing-nut. I'm not. I absolutely believe that's the intended use of much of this technology.

Just look at what they (the "authorities") have done at the last few R/D national conventions, or G-10 summits.

These aren't weapons, they're instruments of control.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:54 AM

Sherman Potter: Insatiable Jesus: Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.


Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.

My point is, I'm not bringing this up because I'm some sort of wing-nut. I'm not. I absolutely believe that's the intended use of much of this technology.

Just look at what they (the "authorities") have done at the last few R/D national conventions, or G-10 summits.

These aren't weapons, they're instruments of control.


And that is what is so stupid about the whole thing. The Europeans seem to understand that if you let people assemble and air their grievances it acts as a sort of societal escape valve. In the US? God forbid traffic is disturbed! We're going to have to assault you with police. Thing is, in the long run its got to blow up in their faces at some point. Stupid authoritarians.
 
2012-12-21 05:55:23 AM

Medic Zero: Sherman Potter: Insatiable Jesus: Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.


Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.

My point is, I'm not bringing this up because I'm some sort of wing-nut. I'm not. I absolutely believe that's the intended use of much of this technology.

Just look at what they (the "authorities") have done at the last few R/D national conventions, or G-10 summits.

These aren't weapons, they're instruments of control.

And that is what is so stupid about the whole thing. The Europeans seem to understand that if you let people assemble and air their grievances it acts as a sort of societal escape valve. In the US? God forbid traffic is disturbed! We're going to have to assault you with police. Thing is, in the long run its got to blow up in their faces at some point. Stupid authoritarians.


I think the difference is that Europeans are more easily ignored by their government. They have riots all the time but it doesn't translate into much political action.

Public shows of force in the US are very influential. They can cause major policy shifts and get politicians dumped out of congress.
If the tea bagged and OWS platforms ever aligned, you are going to see one hell of a fireworks show.

On the other hand if the fed can chase those people back into their homes (where the state controls the television) things resume being normal.
No casualties means no need to report anything.
 
2012-12-21 09:30:59 AM

Insatiable Jesus: A magazine is Guns and Ammo, which anyone who knows the difference between a clip and a magazine faps to.


Oh how awesome... you're here with your collection of masturbatory fantasies.

Insatiable Jesus: Great Janitor: As for the lawsuit thing, we live in a sue happy nation. This is a nation where home intruders can hurt themselves breaking into a place and sue the home owner for injuries. I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him. Just fire two shots in the chest and let that be it. A bit difficult for the intruder's family to say 'wrongful death' when they die during a home invasion.


I would believe this except the only place I have ever heard this before was AM radio and in FW FW FW emails from elderly relatives.


Just because you don't want to accept things doesn't mean they don't happen...

Link

I'd continue reading what other completely wrong BS you've posted here but I don't think I want to spend the whole day reading your complete nonsense like I did yesterday.

Have fun trolling people, little guy.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:27 AM
List missing Herkimer Battle Jitney.
 
2012-12-21 02:15:54 PM
Nano-Second Electrical Pulses, designed for crowd control and offensive operations, emit electrical waves to incapacitate targeted individuals by causing them to lose voluntary muscle control.

The sphincter is a voluntary muscle.

/All the rioters just pooped themselves.
 
2012-12-21 06:03:45 PM
I was hoping to see a Blamethrower, an Air Cannon, some Feet Seeking Missiles, and a Canned Tornado!
 
2012-12-21 06:25:27 PM

mwburden: I was hoping to see a Blamethrower, an Air Cannon, some Feet Seeking Missiles, and a Canned Tornado!


I think my pants are shrinking...

/don't recall feet seeking missiles
 
2012-12-22 09:13:12 AM
I got that part out of this Mystery Men script. It's possible that one didn't make it into the film, because I don't really remember them either.
 
2012-12-22 08:37:37 PM

mwburden: I got that part out of this Mystery Men script. It's possible that one didn't make it into the film, because I don't really remember them either.


I'll take your word for it on the script. No biggie, just an odd feeling when you think you know something really well and someone mentions something of that nature.
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report