3 ms·

So it's non-lethal to people with pacemakers and dialysis machines?

by oakwhiz 14y ago

ari_elle 14y ago
Interesting thought. Though: 1) According to the animation they can target specific buildings (so i guess a strategic building of the enemy's army would be chosen, no hospital) 2) It's the risk one takes in war. If you think about it all non-lethal weapons bear that risk (for example Pepper Spray on the elderly or people with lung problems || stun guns on people with heart problems). Still better than to shoot them or to just blow the building up.
tsotha 14y ago
You can make the same argument against tasers. But if the choice is getting shot by a 9mm or a taser, I'll take the latter. By the same token, if the choice is getting microwaved a bit or attacked by a 500 lb smart bomb, I'll take the former.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  That's what's known as a false choice. In practice, equipping police with tasers lowers the bar to using force (it's supposed to be non-lethal so there's not so much pressure against being trigger happy). Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased. By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. Setting off a bomb will get everyone's attention immediately, whereas this device would silently disable electronics and could even become standard operating procedure for things like SWAT teams.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    >That's what's known as a false choice. No it isn't. The fact that some officers abuse their equipment doesn't mean the choice doesn't come up. It comes up all the time. >Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased. Oh yes, it was probably just harsh language going through Jean Charles de Menezes's brain pan. You say the wrong thing and splat. Brains everywhere. >By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. In the first gulf war the US dropped bombs that contained graphite filaments in an effort to take power plants offline without destroying them. Didn't work too well, so a few days later conventional bombs were used. In another instance the Iraqis put a command and control installation in a bunker full of civilians. We took that bunker out with a smart bomb. An EMP device sure would have come in handy.
    - andreasvc 14y ago
      It's a false choice because the two options you mentioned are not the only ones, as I argued.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        They're not always the only options, true. But sometimes they are.

So it's non-lethal to people with pacemakers and dialysis machines?

by oakwhiz 14y ago

So it's non-lethal to people with pacemakers and dialysis machines?

Interesting thought. Though: 1) According to the animation they can target specific buildings (so i guess a strategic building of the enemy's army would be chosen, no hospital) 2) It's the risk one takes in war. If you think about it all non-lethal weapons bear that risk (for example Pepper Spray on the elderly or people with lung problems || stun guns on people with heart problems). Still better than to shoot them or to just blow the building up.

tsotha 14y ago

You can make the same argument against tasers. But if the choice is getting shot by a 9mm or a taser, I'll take the latter. By the same token, if the choice is getting microwaved a bit or attacked by a 500 lb smart bomb, I'll take the former.

andreasvc 14y ago
That's what's known as a false choice. In practice, equipping police with tasers lowers the bar to using force (it's supposed to be non-lethal so there's not so much pressure against being trigger happy). Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased. By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. Setting off a bomb will get everyone's attention immediately, whereas this device would silently disable electronics and could even become standard operating procedure for things like SWAT teams.
- tsotha 14y ago
  >That's what's known as a false choice. No it isn't. The fact that some officers abuse their equipment doesn't mean the choice doesn't come up. It comes up all the time. >Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased. Oh yes, it was probably just harsh language going through Jean Charles de Menezes's brain pan. You say the wrong thing and splat. Brains everywhere. >By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. In the first gulf war the US dropped bombs that contained graphite filaments in an effort to take power plants offline without destroying them. Didn't work too well, so a few days later conventional bombs were used. In another instance the Iraqis put a command and control installation in a bunker full of civilians. We took that bunker out with a smart bomb. An EMP device sure would have come in handy.
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    It's a false choice because the two options you mentioned are not the only ones, as I argued.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      They're not always the only options, true. But sometimes they are.