Solving The Problem of War, Terrorism, Mass Murder and Gun Control

[David Sklansky]

Normally I wouldn't tackle a problem like this during tournament time as it disrupts my concentration. But there is a day off between day one and day two of the Bellagio tournament.

Anyway the thing to do is to develop major non lethal weapons. Whether they be gunlike, bomblike or chemical. So many of our problems are caused by our horror with the idea of innocent people dying. That's a good thing to be sure. But it ties our hands. Whether we are trying to prevent school shootings, suicide bombings, or Iran's nuclear capabilities. Because we don't want guns in schools, we don't want to bomb and kill innocent Iranians, or shoot suspected terrorists who might be innocent.

But nowadays I'm quite sure that we have the science to develop weapons that will only incapacitate. Maybe make someone horribly nauseaus, cause great pain or partial pralysis, or give them an insatiable desire to recite Mary Has a Little Lamb. Whatever. Even something that would make the land incredibly slippery for a month might do the trick. I'll leave the details to others.

But the bottom line is that it changes the risk vs, reward equation. In emergencey situations Americans would be a lot more accepting of putting innocents at risk as long as they weren't killed or badly injured. That's not to say that the weapons should be readily used. In fact if they were personal weapons, using them for any reason except for emergencies should be a felony.

I'll let others elaborate.

[arahant]

I agree completely, but I think it's a harder technical problem than you imagine. LOTS of people are working on these things. The military has a large research program, and for civilian use, people like taser are always looking for something better. The good news is, we have already made some good progress. It will probably be awhile before we have something as effecient as a 'total instant paralysis gun'. Hell, they can't even come up with a good knock-out gas yet.

[Doug Funnie II]

Discovery Channel runs a show called "Future Weapons" where they recently featured some non-lethal large scale weapons. One of them emitted some form of energy which penetrated the skin and made the victim feel as if they had sustained a very severe sunburn. Once the weapon was turned off the feeling went away. This thing could be shot at pretty long range, I think 1000 yards, and was mopunted on top of a truck.

I've also heard of emitting a very low frequency soundwave which makes you instantly feel sick, and eventually puke.

These things are definitely out there, but I think the mentality of our military needs to change before they will be utilized properly. There seems to be this feeling that if our enemies are shooting at us trying to kill us, we should respond in kind.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Discovery Channel runs a show called "Future Weapons" where they recently featured some non-lethal large scale weapons. One of them emitted some form of energy which penetrated the skin and made the victim feel as if they had sustained a very severe sunburn. Once the weapon was turned off the feeling went away. This thing could be shot at pretty long range, I think 1000 yards, and was mopunted on top of a truck.

I've also heard of emitting a very low frequency soundwave which makes you instantly feel sick, and eventually puke.

These things are definitely out there, but I think the mentality of our military needs to change before they will be utilized properly. There seems to be this feeling that if our enemies are shooting at us trying to kill us, we should respond in kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently did some work with the military and they were talking about that "heat" weapon. Apparently, there's a video out there of a badass marine trying to pick up a gun wile under the effects of that weapon, and he's absolutely unable to pick anything up.

And that mentality you'd like to change is necessary without "futuristic" weapons, as it's the only defense. If you don't have an extreme technological advantage, and only a marginal one, you pretty much have to kill the other guy to prevent him from killing you. The only question - in that context - is who you'd rather like to live.

[Zeno]

"Solving The Problem of War, Terrorism, Mass Murder and Gun Control"


Intractable problems as the above do not have simple one-solution resolutions.

Development of non-lethal weapons is only a band-aid that does nothing to heal or deter the underlying problems, which are multileveled, multifaceted, and complex. Also in your purposal all weapons must be owned, deployed, and used by some authority, can always be modified or abused by people in charge and also always fall into hands of antagonists, instigators, rebels, or others with competing agendas.

So unless you wish to have some absolute world totalitarian police state the proposed measure is doomed to failure – as also is a totalitarian police state – eventually.

Some of the OP remains me of a line in a blue songs:

I got my mojo working - it just don’t work on you.

-Zeno

[Butso]

if US uses non-lethal weapons then potential attackers have less of a disincentive.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
if US uses non-lethal weapons then potential attackers have less of a disincentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but that doesn't matter.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Normally I wouldn't tackle a problem like this during tournament time as it disrupts my concentration. But there is a day off between day one and day two of the Bellagio tournament.

Anyway the thing to do is to develop major non lethal weapons. Whether they be gunlike, bomblike or chemical. So many of our problems are caused by our horror with the idea of innocent people dying. That's a good thing to be sure. But it ties our hands. Whether we are trying to prevent school shootings, suicide bombings, or Iran's nuclear capabilities. Because we don't want guns in schools, we don't want to bomb and kill innocent Iranians, or shoot suspected terrorists who might be innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are totally wrong on this one David, from both a moral standpoint and a tactical military standpoint, and both of them for the same reason, shortsightedness. Both on the effect end of these actions, and on the causal end.

[ QUOTE ]
In emergencey situations Americans would be a lot more accepting of putting innocents at risk as long as they weren't killed or badly injured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Encouraging acceptance of violence isn't going to help the problem long term, largely because the majority of problems from the US standpoint are directly attributed to actions that we, and our allies, took in the past. Weather its the overthrow of popular leaders in Iran to install a friendly(er) government, the cramming together of three sects that historically don't get along under brutal conditions (Iraq), or the stationing of troops on holy ground (Saudi Arabia) it our actions in the past that are directly responsible for the [censored] that follows. Making military "solutions" more palatable in the shorterm will lead to an increase in use, and an increase in backlash down the road.

[BCPVP]

This is the microwave weapon Doug's talking about:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/active_denial_system.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
These things are definitely out there, but I think the mentality of our military needs to change before they will be utilized properly. There seems to be this feeling that if our enemies are shooting at us trying to kill us, we should respond in kind.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have to keep in mind that these weapons only deter people from entering into the beam. That person who runs from this thing can still fight another day.

[chezlaw]

May help with school type problems, but I guess the solution will be worse than the problem.

People go on and on about terrorists, criminals and loonys but the overwhelming majority of heinous non-war acts are carried out by governments on their own people. I don't think governemnts with the ability to supress their people with non-lethal weapons will be fun - its good that, as you put it, 'their hands are tied'.

chez

[Butso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if US uses non-lethal weapons then potential attackers have less of a disincentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but that doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHY?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if US uses non-lethal weapons then potential attackers have less of a disincentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but that doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because its such an effective defense. Thats the premise we are working with here. Who cares if they are no longer disincentivized by the fear of death? They won't be able to do jack [censored]. If disincentivizing is a concern at all, then the whole program is flawed, and we don't need to have the discussion.

[Butso]

Because its such an effective defense. Thats the premise we are working with here. Who cares if they are no longer disincentivized by the fear of death? They won't be able to do jack [censored]. If disincentivizing is a concern at all, then the whole program is flawed, and we don't need to have the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this premise just trivialises the whole problem. The nonfatal weapon is only useful in a traditional old school battle in which the good guys knows both who and where the bad guys are.

What use are these weapons in actual contemporary situations? How do they solve the problem of terrorism if the US don't even know where Bin Laden is? What about a 10% chance of a nuclear attack from a country like Iran?-just zap the whole country anyway? Virginia Tech when the problem was that the authorities were just too slow to react and communicate?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Because its such an effective defense. Thats the premise we are working with here. Who cares if they are no longer disincentivized by the fear of death? They won't be able to do jack [censored]. If disincentivizing is a concern at all, then the whole program is flawed, and we don't need to have the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this premise just trivialises the whole problem. The nonfatal weapon is only useful in a traditional old school battle in which the good guys knows both who and where the bad guys are.

What use are these weapons in actual contemporary situations? How do they solve the problem of terrorism if the US don't even know where Bin Laden is? What about a 10% chance of a nuclear attack from a country like Iran?-just zap the whole country anyway? Virginia Tech when the problem was that the authorities were just too slow to react and communicate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if they aren't uber-effective, they won't be used, and they won't disincentivise our enemies. Thats why the premise has to be their supreme efficacy in whichever situations they are going to be used in.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
Normally I wouldn't tackle a problem like this during tournament time as it disrupts my concentration. But there is a day off between day one and day two of the Bellagio tournament.

Anyway the thing to do is to develop major non lethal weapons. Whether they be gunlike, bomblike or chemical. So many of our problems are caused by our horror with the idea of innocent people dying. That's a good thing to be sure. But it ties our hands. Whether we are trying to prevent school shootings, suicide bombings, or Iran's nuclear capabilities. Because we don't want guns in schools, we don't want to bomb and kill innocent Iranians, or shoot suspected terrorists who might be innocent.

But nowadays I'm quite sure that we have the science to develop weapons that will only incapacitate. Maybe make someone horribly nauseaus, cause great pain or partial pralysis, or give them an insatiable desire to recite Mary Has a Little Lamb. Whatever. Even something that would make the land incredibly slippery for a month might do the trick. I'll leave the details to others.

But the bottom line is that it changes the risk vs, reward equation. In emergencey situations Americans would be a lot more accepting of putting innocents at risk as long as they weren't killed or badly injured. That's not to say that the weapons should be readily used. In fact if they were personal weapons, using them for any reason except for emergencies should be a felony.

I'll let others elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would offer your assertion is the tip of the iceberg. Spending half a trillion dollars fighting a war to maintain a stable supply of oil, the purchase of which provides funding to the very forces we are fighting, is a monumental catch-22. If instead, what will ultimately be, the trillions of dollars were re-directed into R&D for alternative energy sources and technological advancement, over-night we would turn the Middle East into another Africa.

The result of that kind of investment in our future would create an insurmountable technology gap that would do more to protect and insulate us from our "enemies" than a thousand ill-conceived wars.

[PLOlover]

a universal implantable chip that can be remotely controlled to incapacitaye\\te would do the job.

[Friedrich888]

We hit them with a stun bomb, they get pissed and hit us with real bombs. It doesn't really solve anything on large scale, although on a tactical level it could help with police type activities.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
a universal implantable chip that can be remotely controlled to incapacitate would do the job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Use psychological warfare instead.

[TheFaucet]

Yeah instead of live rounds why don't we start fight the Iraqis with Nerf guns LOLLL
Is Sklansy trying to level us or is he really this naive?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah instead of live rounds why don't we start fight the Iraqis with Nerf guns LOLLL
Is Sklansy trying to level us or is he really this naive?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that David has a significant position in the stock of TASR, leading maker of Taser Devices, can be taken two ways. His ownership of the stock may bias his opinion on this issue. Or, he owns the stock because of his opinion in the OP, in which case he is putting his money where his mouth is. Maybe he's not Warren Buffet, but when Sklansky puts his money down on something I think you have to take notice.

PairTheBoard

[Jetboy2]

plama shield (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn11723&feedId=online-news_rss20)

or

laser thingy (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/darpa_countersn.html)