Maximum pain is aim of new US weapon

The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed.

"I am deeply concerned about the ethical aspects of this research," says Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, UK. "Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown."

According to a 2003 review of non-lethal weapons by the US Naval Studies Board, which advises the navy and marine corps, PEPs produced "pain and temporary paralysis" in tests on animals. This appears to be the result of an electromagnetic pulse produced by the expanding plasma which triggers impulses in nerve cells.

Amanda Williams, a clinical psychologist at University College London, fears that victims risk long-term harm. "Persistent pain can result from a range of supposedly non-destructive stimuli which nevertheless change the functioning of the nervous system," she says. She is concerned that studies of cultured cells will fall short of demonstrating a safe level for a plasma burst. "They cannot tell us about the pain and psychological consequences of such a painful experience."

source:

newscientist

so the "quest" for non-lethal weapons goes on.
but the real question is, how "non-lethal" this weapons really are?
is it ok, that you survive this "pain blast" and after that suffer long term neural damage?
is it better than a water cannon used to disperse massive crowds?
this could be a very powerfull weapon, since it has a blast radius up to 2 km, and the real effect is not yet known.
it could clearly be used as torture, which delivering ammounts of pain really is.


torture:
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Sounds like torture.

Its like stun guns, once you being stunned by someone you are totally at their mercy. You would think that maybe something that renders someone absolete WITHOUT causing pain is a better weapon then torturing someone WITH pain.

Nice world we live in.

Already being discussed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by skippytjc
Already being discussed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Little confused that topic was about EMP, dunno if EMP cause any damage to human expect if from A-bomb.

Anyway this type of weaponry is taking US futher away from rest of the world majority, same time looking for human rights and making weapons that break their own rules. Im not saying bullets doesnt cause pain, but isnt NATO rounds still meant to kill instead leaving someone to suffer in engagement, so now US develops weapon that disables everyone in radius and leaves em "unharmed" so they can get prisoners and interriogate or do what ever in this overhelming position. Hard to buy this as ethical as i doubt it would be used vs riots and as said its long term effects are unknown so instead leaving corpses we got living nervdamaged people and what to hear about people who suffer nerv damage example cripled ghost pain and that sort and its hell to em. Sure theres drugs for it, but human comes in time immune and need more and more and still wont get away from pain, so who deserve that faith for rest of his life? I might have gone a bit too long ahead to assume its possible effects, but if its even close then such program in my opinion should be closed.

Wasnt there some heat using system used in Iraq for crowded control, would say it was closer to be compared vs water cannon than this one, its effect caused cells to boil or something similiar if stand before the array, those humvees that used it were called Sheriffs. So after weapon that hurt single target at once and might increase changes of cancer they are going to total crowded control bomb that even easily harm own ones if at radius?

How many "non-leathal" weapons do you know of that don't cause at least some pain? That's how they work. Pepper Spray (Mace) and stun guns for personal defence do, even the water cannon would cause some pain (ever been hit by a high pressure water stream? It probably isn't something people do for fun.)

That's just my 2 cents

[edit on 3/11/2005 by SwitchbladeNGC]

Personally I like rubber bullets and shot gun bean bags.

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
How many "non-leathal" weapons do you know of that don't cause at least some pain? That's how they work. Pepper Spray (Mace) and stun guns for personal defence do, even the water cannon would cause some pain (ever been hit by a high pressure water stream? It probably isn't something people do for fun.)

That's just my 2 cents

[edit on 3/11/2005 by SwitchbladeNGC]

How many non lethal weapons were in existance in the MIddle Ages?

Just because the right things havent been developed yet, doesnt mean they wont ever be.

Logic score for SwitchBlade = -1.

They used nets to capture people before the Middle Ages also you have those weighted ropes, that can wrap arond someones ankles and trip them.



Also, a watercannon can rip skin off of you - depending on how near you are to it.

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
How many "non-leathal" weapons do you know of that don't cause at least some pain? That's how they work. Pepper Spray (Mace) and stun guns for personal defence do, even the water cannon would cause some pain (ever been hit by a high pressure water stream? It probably isn't something people do for fun.)

That's just my 2 cents

[edit on 3/11/2005 by SwitchbladeNGC]

How many non lethal weapons were in existance in the MIddle Ages?

Just because the right things havent been developed yet, doesnt mean they wont ever be.

Logic score for SwitchBlade = -1.

If I understand the premise behind "non-lethal" weapons, is to cause the enemy to be incapacitated without killing them. But even the whole rope net wit weights has the potential for harm. I would like to know what you would suggest doing that would not harm anyone. Note, I am not condoning "excessive harm" or "torture" in any way, I just don't see how it would be possible, save mind control, which could still be argued that there is potential for lasting effects or harm. By the way, there is no such thing as "non-leathal" weapons, they are "less lethal" weapons, since there is still possibility of death, allbeit small.

Tranquilizers?

Non Painful taser weapons?

Use your imagination. Dont have me try to reaffirm common sense for you.

Originally posted by Ritual
Tranquilizers?

Let me see here, darts, filled with toxins, penetrating my skin. I would have to say that that would at the very least cause at least mild pain (especially depending on where you were hit), not to mention any side effects of the toxin used (or unforseen alergic reactions)

Originally posted by Ritual
Non Painful taser weapons?

Electric "shock", again I see a slight bit of discomfort (and if not, what does it do for the user of said taser?). Other than that, possible effects on pacemakers, or even the central nervous system (interfearing with all those electrons fireing to tell your brain things)

Originally posted by Ritual
Use your imagination. Dont have me try to reaffirm common sense for you.

Again, let me state, I am not condoning weapons designed to cause great pain to the victim, but don't see how you can have a successful deterant with out, at the very least, the possibility of some pain.

I would love to see things along the lines of a "forcefield" you could contain someone in, but even that would have risks, depending on how it worked.

What would be even better is a world where things like that aren't needed, but I don't see that happening, at least not anytime soon.


As for the specific case mentioned at the begining, I can't see it being anything more than mass torture. First of all, a 2km radius is a little overkill. You wouldn't use it in riots because the people fireing it would be affected as well. Also, in that 2km radius I'm sure that there are probabl innocent people, maybe even babies that that kind of trauma may cause long term problems on. The only practical use I see for this is a weapon of war, and then you are still going to be getting innocent civilians as well. I say go with the more individual ones instead of attacking the masses.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say Ritual. I always enjoy a good, healthy, civilized, discussion of differing views.

[edit on 3/12/2005 by SwitchbladeNGC]

You dont think there can be non painful weapons of detterrence? Anything is possible.


The title of the topic was "maximum pain the goal of new US weapon".

Then you say "Well what could possibly be you can invent that wouldnt cause pain".

I said "Perhaps a painless tranquilizer or taser".

You said "tranquilizers or tasers arent painless".

Now I have to enlighten you. I was saying that the goal would be to develop tranquilizers and tasers that dont cause pain. Im not saying taser guns dont hurt because they do, and im not saying being shot with a tranq doesnt hurt. This is why you have to develop these things.

I think sleeping gas if it exists is better then a "Maximum pain" field.

If your willing to inflict 'maximum' pain on somebody, you obviously dont like them and are exercising extreme measure. One that probably warrants the authority to kill the person anyways. So I think instead of torture, should just kill them. They are already quilty to deserve the "maximum pain field"

Originally posted by Ritual
Now I have to enlighten you. I was saying that the goal would be to develop tranquilizers and tasers that dont cause pain. Im not saying taser guns dont hurt because they do, and im not saying being shot with a tranq doesnt hurt. This is why you have to develop these things.

I think sleeping gas if it exists is better then a "Maximum pain" field.

Ok, I see your point about developing them and I can potentially see the development of a non painful delivery method of tranquilizers (but the meds are still an issue there since they obviously do something to the body there is always the possibility, even if it is slight, that it may cause permanent problems. As for the painless tazer I don't see, unless I misunderstand the premise behind tazers, how running high voltage through someone could ever be "painless" (unless ofcourse they are dead in which case my question would be "WHY?").

And I also agree with you on the point that you don't have to try to cause pain. If it can be done in a less painful way I say do it that way.

I hope I cleared up my views for you.

cough*jealousy*cough*envy*cough

Everytime the U.S developes a new weapon of any type and its 20 years ahead of what everyone else has, its a bad thing...

Originally posted by Ritual
Sounds like torture.

Its like stun guns, once you being stunned by someone you are totally at their mercy. You would think that maybe something that renders someone absolete WITHOUT causing pain is a better weapon then torturing someone WITH pain.

Nice world we live in.

really! It's not neccesary. If it is possible to subdue someone with the least amount of pain and struggling, then that is the kind of weapons that should be used. The whole Idea is to stop any fighting in a riot, so why be the one to cause the pain???

It cause pain and temporary paralyses there for it cause the individual to stop what they are doing. Its simple if you don't want to get “beamed” stop rioting, i think it will work well wit the other non leather weapons. Especial the one the U.S. army is developing which causes your exposed skin to feel as if its being burned.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

I think they should make croud diperseing guns that get turned up in nothches.
Like at first they shoot a been bag that hurts not much at all. Then turn it up a notch, and so on.

you think the government could eventually use this as a means of nationwide pacification?

Originally posted by CaptainMooPoo
you think the government could eventually use this as a means of nationwide pacification?

we're dealing with the US government of course they would

oh, like they've done that dozens of times in the past?

besides, which would you rather they used-- a weapon that inflicts a lot of pain but doesn't harm you, or a bullet?