Article

2007-11-19 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-11-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Another non-lethal weapon. Good idea and it appears not to have cardial effects. The Taser doesn't cause immediate cardial arrest through its low amperage charge, but that can be a result if the subject is experiencing delireum. Taser has signed 11,000 police services, so the market is enormous. But is the ADS good for crowd control only?

Posted by McZoid 2007-11-19 00:25|| 2007-11-19 00:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Just wait until some idiot gets trampled to death by a crowd running away from the active denial system. Then the moonbats will scream about police/military brutality. Of course, firing into the crowd with automatic weapons would be much more lethal, but logic is not the moonbats' strong suit.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2007-11-19 01:38|| 2007-11-19 01:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Mount them on the US Mexico border. Camera to the controller.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-19 02:55|| 2007-11-19 02:55|| Front Page Top

#4 test it in Olympia and at Evergreen College. See if the less sapient are affected

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-11-19 06:07|| 2007-11-19 06:07|| Front Page Top

#5 The aim was to spread the word that the device, nicknamed the Silent Guardian, is neither sinister nor dangerous. In an age when the US military has been dogged by allegations of torture at secret bases, such perceptions are crucial.

If only they'd taken some New York Times reporters to secret bases and tortured them...

Posted by Bobby 2007-11-19 06:32|| 2007-11-19 06:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Wake up, peeps, that crowd they NEED to control is us.

Posted by wxjames 2007-11-19 07:47|| 2007-11-19 07:47|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm worried if the large antenna can sustain a bullet or 3.

Posted by 3dc 2007-11-19 08:55|| 2007-11-19 08:55|| Front Page Top

#8 It's flat plate antenna. It can take quite a few bullets. The vehicle vs. an RPG is another matter.

Posted by ed 2007-11-19 09:02|| 2007-11-19 09:02|| Front Page Top

#9 wxjames, get back on your meds. Your paranoia is showing again.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-19 13:06|| 2007-11-19 13:06|| Front Page Top

#10 I've been targeted and shot at, i.e. "warned", by hidden snipers/shooters numerous times In USA and other places - never been specifically
"lasered" yet although one never knows wid whats coming after the "red/green dot".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-11-19 18:07|| 2007-11-19 18:07|| Front Page Top

#11 After re reading all the comments, I still wonder why such a weapon was developed. Can anyone give me a serious hint beyond guarding the Congressional bunker when the nuke war breaks out ? Crowd control, crowd control...what crowd ?

Posted by wxjames 2007-11-19 18:07|| 2007-11-19 18:07|| Front Page Top

#12 It's to push people back from your perimeter without using batons, tear gas or worse.

Posted by ed 2007-11-19 18:11|| 2007-11-19 18:11|| Front Page Top

#13 More interesting is what happens when we start selling them to our friends in the third world and they figure out how to turn up the heat.

Posted by Iblis 2007-11-19 18:37|| 2007-11-19 18:37|| Front Page Top

#14 wxjames;

The market for non-lethal products is huge. Taser Int has 11,000 clients.

Posted by McZoid 2007-11-19 18:39|| 2007-11-19 18:39|| Front Page Top

#15 Can anyone give me a serious hint beyond guarding the Congressional bunker when the nuke war breaks out ?

Here's a hint. A widely (within some military circles) viewed video from 7 or 8 years ago dramatized concepts for Objective Force Warrior, a partial predecessor to the US Army's Future Combat System. The video consists of a dramatized encounter at a key bridge in a 3rd world country, maybe one of the 'Stans.

The scenario centers on a squad controlling the bridge, with a 2nd squad in overwatch. A mob of local civilians comes down the road from a nearby village and confronts the bridge squad, shouting angry slogans and threatening the soldiers with pitchforks and rocks.

A key exchange between the corporal at the bridge and the sargeant in overwatch:

"Permission to use lethal?"
"Negative."
"Permission to use non-lethal?"
"Do it!"

The non-lethal means of crowd control, combined with nanoarmor that can stiffen on command, allows the soldiers to control the crowd that had (as it turns out) been stirred up by false information spread by agitators .... as cover for an armor and sniper attack. Who were met with distinctly lethal response.

I won't describe the rest of the scenario, other than to say that the technologies in the system each exist at least in prototype form already. And that the end of the video affirms that the soldier is and always will remain at the center of operations. The system is there to support and protect him and to allow him to project force in defined and useful ways.

Which is the point re: non-lethal. We're seen, in Iraq for instance, the deliberate herding of innocent civilians (often kids) in front of insurgent forces and the commandeering of homes by snipers. There are lots of times when we want to control such a crowd with non-lethal measures. Tear gas is outlawed in the Geneva Conventions. ADS is an alternative approach that isn't, at least for now.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-19 19:12|| 2007-11-19 19:12|| Front Page Top

#16 Tear gas is outlawed in the Geneva Conventions. ADS is an alternative approach that isn't, at least for now.

Isn't tear gas and similar chemical riot control agent outlawed by a specific treaty the USa signed, among others? I'm pretty sure it was used until recently (Viet Nam war, IIRC), and I'm pretty sure it is also used on occasion as by french troops (not paramilitary police gendarmes, but plain military) in kosovo when demonstrations around serbian enclaves turn ugly.
Isn't that a case of having bound one's own hands, if that's the case?

Posted by anonymous5089 2007-11-19 19:28|| 2007-11-19 19:28|| Front Page Top

#17 The Chemical Weapons Convention, of which the US is a signatory, forbids the offensive use of tear gas in combat. It went into force in 1997. France is also a signatory. The entire list of original signatories is online here.

Whether and under what conditions defensive use is allowed has been the subject of some controversy.

I spoke too loosely in saying 'Geneva Convention'.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-19 19:40|| 2007-11-19 19:40|| Front Page Top

23:53 WTF
23:41 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:09 Redneck Jim
23:06 Eric Jablow
23:00 Barbara Skolaut
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:58 Zenster
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:53 Redneck Jim
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:48 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:40 Grumenk Philalzabod0723
22:37 DMFD
22:36 The Democrats
22:33 Verlaine
22:32 DMFD