Should The Us Use This Or Not?

[Dr T]

This article is about a weapon that is not lethal but disperses crowds. You can read it here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20497575/?GT1=10252

The question is, to use or not to use?

[FrankJL]

Absolutely, its a great system for dealing with COBs (Civlians on the Battlefield). Though this isn't exactly new technology, we've had this thing in development since the late 90's. There is also a system that works with directed sound waves to disperse crowds.

The only other option right now is CS (Tear) gas. Its non-leathal, but can cause long term problems for people with asthma. CS also can really mess up you eyes if you wear contacts.

[Dr T]

Interesting comparison (tear gas). Thanks for that thought Frank

[CrimsonKairos]

It can't be worse than getting shot. Let's ship some to Iraq and see how they work in real situations. What's wrong with the freakin' Pentagon? Then again, after all the crap the military's gotten through this Iraq conflict I can't blame them for being gun-shy.

[Dr T]

feeling like being burned vs. shot... I'd take the former.

[pushka]

I couldn't access the other pages of the article, so I didn't see if there were any dangers of people with heart trouble or other conditions possibly being harmed by this weapon? Sort of like with tazers?

I must admit that it does sound better than using guns in crowd dispersal, but would it be used when it wasn't really necessary?

[CrimsonKairos]

Well I think the guys on the ground are better suited to judge what's necessary or not.

The question is, if they misjudged, and using force in a certain situation wasn't necessary, would we rather it be bullets they dispense, or "heat rays?"

I'll take a sunburn over an exit-wound any day. I'm sure the Iraqis would too.

Of course, unless the manufacturers coat these puppies in bullet-proof ceramic or mesh, a single bullet from an insurgent sniper could damage the no-doubt sensitive circuitry inside and render the "ray gun" useless.

I love the commentary at the end of the article where msn takes a jab at the military, pointing out a supposed incompetency by noting something to the effect of: "If we'd had these ray guns in Iraq years ago, lots of lives could have been saved."

Gimme a break.

[Dr T]

Good point CK. It is quite a target on the field. I wonder how it would do out there and how long it would last? I wonder if that technology will be developed to the point of the Death Star some day?

[pushka]

Well I think the guys on the ground are better suited to judge what's necessary or not.

The question is, if they misjudged, and using force in a certain situation wasn't necessary, would we rather it be bullets they dispense, or "heat rays?"

I'll take a sunburn over an exit-wound any day. I'm sure the Iraqis would too.

Of course, unless the manufacturers coat these puppies in bullet-proof ceramic or mesh, a single bullet from an insurgent sniper could damage the no-doubt sensitive circuitry inside and render the "ray gun" useless.

I love the commentary at the end of the article where msn takes a jab at the military, pointing out a supposed incompetency by noting something to the effect of: "If we'd had these ray guns in Iraq years ago, lots of lives could have been saved."

Gimme a break.

I should have explained my last comment more clearly, about the misuse of this weapon...I was imagining it being used for crowd control at such things as political rallies/demos, where in Italy water canons were turned on the crowds at the G8 summit demos a few years ago, and the police were generally a little heavy handed with the crowds...not only those who really were causing problems, but innocent bystanders too.

I do agree that it sounds safer than the use of guns under any circumstances, however, which I did state in my post.