The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
U.S Army Developing Paralysis Beam
livescience.com — "...design and fabricate a light-based immobilisation system/deterrent device and integrate it with an unmanned aerial system. This will include any necessary medical research on frequency and amplitude modulation of high-intensity light that will cause immobilisation to all those within the beam."
djm0ther- 815 diggs
- digg it
- robotsongs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Don't Japanese cartoons do this already? I thought this was old news...
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38"will cause immobilisation to all those within the beam"
dear diary: JACKPOT! - TechknoPagan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27The US system is much more effective, inducing paralysis by making the target an honorary member of congress.
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4Japanese cartoons also do gay tenticle sex and hardcore child school-girl rape fetish.
- nathanwalker, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4@nixonrichard
Gigidy-gigidy-gigidy-goo... - Willy99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1or Christopher Walken in Mind Snatchers - 1972. The Brain Police!
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?channel=1062&format=movie&theme=guide - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Set phasers... to awesome.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10Vladimir Putin said it best (yea I know, he's the last to talk):
"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way,"
"This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons," Putin said.
Unfortunate, but true.
Creating extremely powerful, tactful weapons, all while maintaining a steady number of enemies, is an excellent way to keep arms-dealers and nuclear-chemists happily employed. - bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yay seizures for everyone! :D
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19'"This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons," Putin said.
Unfortunate, but true. '
We're nourishing an arms race in an effort to find non-lethal weapons. We're such bastards.
Honestly, as much as I wish it weren't true, you will always need weapons, people will not tolerate peace because it would require them to be content with everything, there will always be disagreements that flare into conflict.
When a conflict escalates, you have to stop your enemies.
We could a.) kill them, which people bitch about, or b.) stop them without killing them, which apparently people will also bitch about.
You people need to decide which one you hate more, killing your enemies or stopping them. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6When you think of it in terms of today's war, this is very ideal.
Imagine you are a soldier working a check point or a post. A suspicious character approaches and won't stop even though you've tried many different ways to tell him so. Once this can be put into a more portable form you can give the guy a seizure as opposed to killing him. It's not the best solution in the world but this will definitely save a lot of lives. - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This will ruin the show, 'Cops'.
- bsmeteronhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How to foil their evil plan!
Checklist: 1. Hat made of aluminum foil. Check. 2. Pocket mirror to bounce light back at source. Check 3. Iron Butterfly In A Gadda Da Vida CD and Player. Check. 4. Really, Really Dark Sunglasses/Welding Goggles. Check. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Come on... They want to induce epileptic seizures in healthy people with strobing strong light? Yeah, right, whatever.
Blind as a bat for several minutes, yes. Paralysed? No. - Archimboldo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@otheruser "Creating extremely powerful, tactful weapons ... is an excellent way to keep arms-dealers and nuclear-chemists happily employed."
If the weapons are tactful enough, they won't offend the people they're used on. Think of the possibilities. "Bzzzz ... Say, I'm really concerned about your hyperactivity ... bzzz ... let me help you with a little paralysis."
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38"will cause immobilisation to all those within the beam"
- Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17The idea itself looks pretty great assuming it's used right. Unfortunately, l can see this ending up as a "shoot first ask questions later" form of crowd control for cops and such. I guess it's still an improvement over the tazer.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14People just need to remember to bring a DJ when they riot..Insta-dance party
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It is a vast improvement over the Army's attempt at "Crowd Control" at Kent University in 1970 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings for those of you who were not around then.
- Euph0rik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@catalysis
"People just need to remember to bring a DJ when they riot..Insta-dance party"
That's the most intelligent post on this article - indeed when last night a DJ truly saved your life.
Long live DJ's, live long in PLUR. - LordSnooze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It will cause immobilization to people, not objects. So people who are driving cars, planes and people who are barbecuing over a hot pit are screwed.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Set phasers to stun?
- ajcbrooklyn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1where do i sign up?
- WRXHokie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Sweet... my office is famous!!
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Set paralyzer beam to catatonic schizophrenia... We finally have the power to invade Mexico!
- bfaulk04, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8gun to make you completely lose control of your bowels >
- jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"the brown note" on an 88 cent recorder/flute from wal-mart.
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0*92 cents ... ;)
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Ok, when are the nay-sayers gonna show up.
A potentially true non-lethal device that could drastically cut the deaths due to military action...
Oh, that's right... the military is evil, and we don't need it.- SKick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You're mounting a defense against an argument that hasn't even been brought up? Need a hobby?
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Well, okay, I'll say it. It is a bit troubling that we're developing all these non-lethal weapons. It may well protect our troops when they can fire heat rays and paralysis rays to disperse hostile crowds. But these are also the kind of weapons that could easily be used to completely subdue a populace if placed in the wrong hands. The non-lethality of the weapons encourages their use, because after all, nobody's really getting hurt. It would allow tin pot dictators to crush non-violent resistance without getting their hands dirty, and it would allow police officers to have a rather frightening first line of attack against peaceful demonstrations. Events like Tiananmen Square provoke international outcry because of the blood-and-guts results -- a paralysis ray with no lasting consequences makes oppression a lot cleaner.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Gerz think about your agrument. How do non-lethal weapons have more potential to be used improperly than lethal ones.
Your, very common, argument relys on the answer to that question.
Governments are not above wholesale slaughter of their people, that is a fact that has been demonstrated time and again. If they want to control you, then yes they could use non-lethal weapons to do so. That is bad, but the alternative, if they want to control you is killing you.
This isn't going to make it any more likely or any easier than just slaughtering a crowd. - mikejna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It seems that what the military does best is blow things up and kill people. That's their job right? That's why they carry guns as opposed to billy clubs. Would this really be applied to military uses or say police uses? I think the people that will be using these kinds of weapons will more likely be wearing police uniforms than military uniforms.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@noahhoward -- I demonstrated the ways in which non-lethal weapons can be worse than lethal ones. Obviously guns and bombs and missiles exist and will exist until the end of time. I'm particularly concerned with the comfort level our society will have with the widespread deployment of non-lethal weapons to police. During a non-violent protest, cops and guardsmen are highly averse to using physical force -- doing so winds up on the news. When they open fire into a crowd, it's a national tragedy. I worry that law-and-order conservatives will point to data proving there's no permanent damage with these weapons, and allow them to infiltrate every level of law enforcement. The cleanliness of these weapons masks their oppressiveness while inviting sadistic overuse. That's actually my main concern. As a lesser concern, totalitarian governments that have no qualms about killing large groups of people nonetheless like to keep their oppression hidden. They don't like bad international press. These weapons allow such governments to torture and control invisibly. At least when they use conventional tactics, they must to a certain extent eliminate all pretext.
- BellaOxmyxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hand-held paralysis beam flashlight: $10,000. Four D batteries: $5.00. Masking your oppressiveness while sadistically overusing said weapon to torture and control invisibly: Priceless.
- drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sounds like another one of the Pentagon's "dream-weapons" that sucks up a ton of taxpayer revenue, but will likely never produce a real device.
- SKick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You're mounting a defense against an argument that hasn't even been brought up? Need a hobby?
- ctishman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I can see some sort of wave generator that works on a similar principle to noise-cancelling headphones being standard equipment for protesters in the future.
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yea, goggles are AWSOME!
- kcap122, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1you don't need to hear or see the beam, the article said (RTFA). Apparently, they don't know for sure how it works, but evidence points to the beam ultrasonically stimulating nerve endings under the skin.
The best defense? A lead coat.
- FIGJAM, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Sounds very cool to me.....and here's the perfect venue for testing it:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/26/18369321.php- TheOther1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I was thinking more along the lines of this event.
http://www.denverdnc2008.com/
- TheOther1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I was thinking more along the lines of this event.
- blynder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If the government was going to spend that much money, they would just kill you.
- cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Since when does the gov give a ***** how much money (that they don't even HAVE) they spend on anything?
- blacktone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10You all know Aliens have been using that junk on us for years. Old news..
- 72doubledown, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"U.S Army Developing Paralysis Beam"
...digg users developing giant friggin mirror - bitmanx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+94 double AA batteries not included...
- mikehill33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4they show you your expected social security payout?
- kazersoza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16STILL . how will we attach them to the sharks!
- timmysaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1YEAH--Phasers set to "STUN"!
- Thunderrock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can also blast the song "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" out of a 4in speaker for only $9.99 more!
- bigspruce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5who knew that a tin foil hat would actually come in useful some day?
- realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How does this work? I can imagine using high intensity light on a subject would do more than paralyze them. Wouldn't it cause blindness?
- markingtime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hammer of Dawn anyone?
- SubjectX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This was written about in a commentary over 6 years ago which can be found here: http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/523.htm
- SxualVnilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is from 2005
- machinegunopera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Scary
- SxualVnilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0wrong topic, my bad
- face05, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this was adopted from alien technology
- djphatjive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its like a mini death star!!!!
- SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sweet... stand there helpless while I fondle your pretty girlfriend!
- CornrowWallace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ender Wiggin!
Just paralyze Bean at the start and use him as a shield.
The enemy's gate is always Down. - nightwing2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Stupid idea - a "stun beam" that is basically a blindingly bright light pulsing at the right frequency to induce epilpsy-type paralysis on anyone close - obviously more useful on a remote drone than a military checkpoint where everyone in visual range gets the same effect. If the light is that bright, why not go for the Tom Clancy - Bear and Dragon - super-blinding light to incapacitate"targets"? (Except the ones wearing welder goggles.)
Oh, and the strobe is also easily defeated by donning night-vision type headgear. While guaranteeing anyone without this equipment is not a threat. Except blind people. (Kinda like the joke Q: Why do (*insert minority here*) people stink? A: So blind people can hate them too.)
This is also like the earlier Pentagon idea of using sub-lethal microwave doses to induce a burning sensation to incapacitate the "target". You gotta wonder what a tin-foil suit (or survival blanket) will do against that, and whether nice mirror-smooth shield makes an efective counter-weapon. - bmdhacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I heard they gave the contract to Doctor Thaddeus Venture, son of the great Dr. Jonas Venture.
- anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All this crowd control technology makes me worry about democracy. Democracy depends on protest.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
I know what you're saying here but for now it's either this sort of non-lethal technology...or the alternative of deadly force. Given the option between the two which do you find more humane?
I think a complete transition to non-leathal force would send the right message to humanity....that we still do care about human life. Plus I think it adds to our security since it would be harder to hate Americans if we stepped away from our tough guy six shooter stereotype.... towards going out of our way to save lives. - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@there
Good point but they can also get away with tyranny and say "hey at least we didn't kill you". Mass murder would be looked upon very negatively domestically and internationally to the point of sparking mass disobedience and trade sanctions from other countries; but with non lethal technology they can have the effect of shutting people up and looking humane enough for people & other countries to go on with their lives. So I think non-lethal crowd control is actually worse for democracy.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
- technique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Soon they'll add this to every PC and Mac built so you can play actual freeze tag over the 'net.
- heavyal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting read. I remember a few years back talking to this old guy out in the armpit of California who used to go gold-panning out in the surrounding hills of the place he lived in (near Yuba CIty I believe). Apparently there are several army bases in that region and I guess near one of them during the evening hours he witnessed an intense beam of light in the distance along with an audible 'shock wave' as he described it. Being the crazy old coot that he is known as he investigated where he thought the light had hit and found several dead and dying birds in the area.
I figured he was just a whacko trying to get attention but after seeing this article it makes me wonder if this was some kind of early test model that he observed in action. - Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great, now let's see _them_ poison our nation's water supply with fluoride. We'll paralyze your asses then draw evil twirly mustaches on your faces.
- Hidama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Mass control makes me uneasy.
- happyponcho42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This just further fuels the chain of "every action has a reaction". The more time and money we devote to developing more dangerous weapons, the more dangerous the weapons will be from other nations who seek to react to the development. All you eskimos out there should remain calm, I think the end to humanity as the result of warfare is more likely then global warming killing us all.
- Crowforge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since when did bullets become not enough?
- Meowbiusfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know,There's still something romantic about
eating the heart of your enemy while it's still beating
after you ripped it out of their chest.
Sincerely,
Attilla the Nun - librejustitia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, bullets and rockets abroad to kill the "terrorists", non-lethal weapons at home to shut the mouths of those pesky anti-war demonstrators and others that don't fit the profile of a compliant pacified citizen.
I can't wait to see these weapons in the hands of law enforcement and on street corners combined with CCTV and loudspeakers telling you to comply with laws and regulations. Finally we can live in an utopian paradise where we're monitored everywhere and punished instantaneously for "crimes" we commit. It'll be bliss! - COMPACTION, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The freedom to protest is what you defend. Weapons against protesters are meant to be to used against peaceful peoples not criminals.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is