6 ms·

Just imagine living in the neighborhood and watching your child's skin start turning red in the living room. Using war crime weapons on US soil (tear gas is on

Just imagine living in the neighborhood and watching your child's skin start turning red in the living room. Using war crime weapons on US soil (tear gas is one) is something political leaders have no problem with.

bsagdiyev 6y ago
I’m not a smart guy, but I’m pretty sure microwaves don’t work like that through walls.
- rkhassen9 6y ago
  The kid could be on the porch.
  - bsagdiyev 6y ago
    But the parent post specifically said in the living room.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      Literally true, but that isn't very charitable to the point they were making.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Window could be open.
- staplers 6y ago
  What about through windows? Screen doors? Front yards? Microwaving the plants and animals in my front yard seems like a violation of personal property. But laws are abstract and regularly unenforced so who knows.
  - bsagdiyev 6y ago
    Sure, but I’m still sure microwaves don’t work that way through glass and especially not at the power these “less than lethal” weapons work at.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      The term is "less lethal", not "less than lethal". Meaning they kill fewer people per use, not that they never kill people.
    - liability 6y ago
      I'm not sure how these particular devices work, "microwave" is anything from a meter to a millimeter which is a pretty broad range (300 MHz to 300 GHz.) Certainly some lengths of microwaves go through glass though, otherwise microwave ovens wouldn't have that metal mesh behind the glass window. Also I know that microwave ovens normally don't heat glass, which suggests to me they're either very reflective or very transparent to microwaves in the low GHz range. I've cooked enough food in glassware to think it must be the later. (Interestingly if you heat a small portion of glass to red hot with a torch before microwaving it, you can melt the entire piece of glass as the oven heats and spreads the hot spot.)
      - bsagdiyev 6y ago
        So these operate around 95ghz, roughly, from what I can gather. Sure you’ll get some window penetration but I still take issue with the “but the kids” tone of the OPs argument. I don’t agree with use of these weapons, having been on the receiving end of RF burns accidentally myself, but pretending it’s because you care about kids is sick and seems to be a default go-to for most things. If I’m not being charitable in my interpretation of OP, then roast me, but I get the feeling the sentiment isn’t particular about caring for kids and using it as a “but... but... but...” argument.
- rsfern 6y ago
  If the walls are metal, sure, but wood or glass isn’t likely to attenuate microwaves that much. Example: WiFi signals are transmitted on a microwave frequency (at low power compared to this device), and the signal propagates through ceilings and walls without much issue
  - bsagdiyev 6y ago
    I take issue with that only due to the fact that WiFi doesn’t actually travel that well. If you are aiming one of these weapons at a wall, behind which there are people, from a distance of say 100 feet it isn’t very likely to penetrate and cause harm. Seeing as how these weapons operate at 95ghz, their penetration capability is basically nil. Attenuation is a real issue with that frequency and those distances. WiFi works on 2.4 and 5ghz which already have some issues with penetration.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
This is a common misconception, but the reason that they're war crime weapons isn't that they have some particularly dastardly effect. For example, police agencies across the world use hollow-point ammunition that's banned in warfare - not because they're trying to inflict unnecessary pain, but because the context of policing requires hollow-points to avoid collateral damage.
- lurquer 6y ago
  Quite right. Don’t know why the downvotes. Ammo is a good example... as absurd as it sounds, the intent in warfare is not to kill the enemy; merely to wound them. Consequently, full metal jackets are used as these increase the likelihood of survival. Police, on the other hand, shoot to kill. Not to wound. Hence, hollow-points. (In addition, the rounds won’t penetrate and keep traveling after impact with the perp and kill bystanders as military wounds are apt to do.)
  - rblatz 6y ago
    How you just brushed over that police shoot to kill and the military in a war shoots to wound completely baffled me. How is that a defensible position?
    - pseudo0 6y ago
      To the best of my knowledge, that claim is not accurate. Police are issued hollow points because over-penetration is a much bigger concern in an urban, civilian area. In a military context, over-penetration is less of a concern, FMJ ammo is much cheaper, and the 1899 Hague Convention (which the US did not actually sign, but most other major powers did) technically forbid it. Special forces have been using hollow points for a while though, and they were adopted for general use by the US Army in 2015 along with the new M17 (Sig Sauer P320) sidearm.
    - lurquer 6y ago
      The ‘Laws of War’ serve different purposes than the law of policing. Feigning outrage that soldiers are prohibited from something police are not, or vice versa, is silly. Some — but not all — of the differences arise from a general principle that the use of weapons in war is to remove enemy soldiers from the battlefield. A wounded enemy soldier requires far more enemy resources than a dead enemy soldier. Police are different. If they are going to shoot it should be in circumstances where there is an immediate threat to their own (or another’s) life. The threat should be so imminent and deadly that multiple shots without consideration of whether the perp will likely die or merely be injured is the rule. Stated differently, if a cop has the time and presence of mind to ‘shoot at a leg’, he shouldn’t be taking the shot in the first place.

bsagdiyev 6y ago

I’m not a smart guy, but I’m pretty sure microwaves don’t work like that through walls.

rkhassen9 6y ago
The kid could be on the porch.
- bsagdiyev 6y ago
  But the parent post specifically said in the living room.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Literally true, but that isn't very charitable to the point they were making.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Window could be open.
staplers 6y ago
What about through windows? Screen doors? Front yards? Microwaving the plants and animals in my front yard seems like a violation of personal property. But laws are abstract and regularly unenforced so who knows.
- bsagdiyev 6y ago
  Sure, but I’m still sure microwaves don’t work that way through glass and especially not at the power these “less than lethal” weapons work at.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    The term is "less lethal", not "less than lethal". Meaning they kill fewer people per use, not that they never kill people.
  - liability 6y ago
    I'm not sure how these particular devices work, "microwave" is anything from a meter to a millimeter which is a pretty broad range (300 MHz to 300 GHz.) Certainly some lengths of microwaves go through glass though, otherwise microwave ovens wouldn't have that metal mesh behind the glass window. Also I know that microwave ovens normally don't heat glass, which suggests to me they're either very reflective or very transparent to microwaves in the low GHz range. I've cooked enough food in glassware to think it must be the later. (Interestingly if you heat a small portion of glass to red hot with a torch before microwaving it, you can melt the entire piece of glass as the oven heats and spreads the hot spot.)
    - bsagdiyev 6y ago
      So these operate around 95ghz, roughly, from what I can gather. Sure you’ll get some window penetration but I still take issue with the “but the kids” tone of the OPs argument. I don’t agree with use of these weapons, having been on the receiving end of RF burns accidentally myself, but pretending it’s because you care about kids is sick and seems to be a default go-to for most things. If I’m not being charitable in my interpretation of OP, then roast me, but I get the feeling the sentiment isn’t particular about caring for kids and using it as a “but... but... but...” argument.
rsfern 6y ago
If the walls are metal, sure, but wood or glass isn’t likely to attenuate microwaves that much. Example: WiFi signals are transmitted on a microwave frequency (at low power compared to this device), and the signal propagates through ceilings and walls without much issue
- bsagdiyev 6y ago
  I take issue with that only due to the fact that WiFi doesn’t actually travel that well. If you are aiming one of these weapons at a wall, behind which there are people, from a distance of say 100 feet it isn’t very likely to penetrate and cause harm. Seeing as how these weapons operate at 95ghz, their penetration capability is basically nil. Attenuation is a real issue with that frequency and those distances. WiFi works on 2.4 and 5ghz which already have some issues with penetration.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

This is a common misconception, but the reason that they're war crime weapons isn't that they have some particularly dastardly effect. For example, police agencies across the world use hollow-point ammunition that's banned in warfare - not because they're trying to inflict unnecessary pain, but because the context of policing requires hollow-points to avoid collateral damage.

lurquer 6y ago
Quite right. Don’t know why the downvotes. Ammo is a good example... as absurd as it sounds, the intent in warfare is not to kill the enemy; merely to wound them. Consequently, full metal jackets are used as these increase the likelihood of survival. Police, on the other hand, shoot to kill. Not to wound. Hence, hollow-points. (In addition, the rounds won’t penetrate and keep traveling after impact with the perp and kill bystanders as military wounds are apt to do.)
- rblatz 6y ago
  How you just brushed over that police shoot to kill and the military in a war shoots to wound completely baffled me. How is that a defensible position?
  - pseudo0 6y ago
    To the best of my knowledge, that claim is not accurate. Police are issued hollow points because over-penetration is a much bigger concern in an urban, civilian area. In a military context, over-penetration is less of a concern, FMJ ammo is much cheaper, and the 1899 Hague Convention (which the US did not actually sign, but most other major powers did) technically forbid it. Special forces have been using hollow points for a while though, and they were adopted for general use by the US Army in 2015 along with the new M17 (Sig Sauer P320) sidearm.
  - lurquer 6y ago
    The ‘Laws of War’ serve different purposes than the law of policing. Feigning outrage that soldiers are prohibited from something police are not, or vice versa, is silly. Some — but not all — of the differences arise from a general principle that the use of weapons in war is to remove enemy soldiers from the battlefield. A wounded enemy soldier requires far more enemy resources than a dead enemy soldier. Police are different. If they are going to shoot it should be in circumstances where there is an immediate threat to their own (or another’s) life. The threat should be so imminent and deadly that multiple shots without consideration of whether the perp will likely die or merely be injured is the rule. Stated differently, if a cop has the time and presence of mind to ‘shoot at a leg’, he shouldn’t be taking the shot in the first place.