BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


"Non-Lethal" Weapons

 
 
Haloquin
19:22 / 12.06.07
On the radio today I heard that there was a plan for a 'gay-bomb'. Basically a chemical weapon that would induce overwhelming feelings of sexual attraction between enemy troops and cause them to lose interest in fighting.

Article on 'Gay-bomb'

Sounds like a good idea, but it was scrapped.
My immediate response, however, was disgust. The project was presented as a weapon that would turn the soldiers 'gay'. This is clearly not how the weapon was meant to work, but was how the popular media presented it. So, thought one; what are the ethical implications of the media presenting a weapon like this as capable, or planned to be capable, of altering individuals sexualities?

My next thought was; how much could it mess someone up if you were to drop chemicals that had no other effect than to alter who they are attracted to?

Presumably, to get them away from fighting, which is what I assume the aim is, it would have to be strong enough to force them to do something else... if it chemically forced them to 'advance sexually' on each other, how is this different from forcing people to rape each other?

Also what other applications would such a chemical have?

Beyond this I wonder about other non-lethal weapons. What is there and what is being developed? And what, more to my line of interest but possibly better in headshop, are the ethical implications of the techniques that could be used and are being developed?

Website on biological weapons I haven't had a chance to look at this but it was recommended here.

Mods; please feel free to move this if it is better suited elsewhere.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
19:51 / 12.06.07
Hell, no, don't move it! I recommend, as before that you all check out the sunshine project. Strong truth, as we say in these parts. But, yeah, I vote to stay so we can have a thread for both the technical/speculative and the military and medical ethics of these types of armaments.
 
 
Nocturne
18:34 / 18.06.07
The gay bomb seems to make men desperate for sex - desperate enough to accept it from other men instead of women. I think Lawrence of Arabia mentioned something about turning to men for sex in desperation, but he also seemed to enjoy it. So maybe he was always gay and never realized/admitted it until then. I don't know. I'm no expert. Feel free to correct me.

A Gannett News Service article on the subject mentions a laser beam intended to temporarily blind someone to prevent them from attacking. According to the article, Special-forces units in Somalia in 1995 had considered using these, but decided the risk of permanent blindness was too high. I'm rather confused: isn't the risk of permanently blinding someone preferable to the risk of permanently killing someone? Just because the technology isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.
 
 
*
18:53 / 18.06.07
That, I think, Nocturne, is the crux of the question.

Is killing so terrible that any outcome other than killing is more humane? In order for the sexual arousal weapon to work, it would have to induce chaos and confusion, presumably through triggering mass rape. There would likely be some fatalities as a result, but even if not, there would certainly be serious injuries and lasting harm. Is this better than killing? Is causing someone to be permanently blinded while they are on a battlefield surrounded by people likely to kill them better than killing them? It's an open question.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:30 / 21.06.07
"Gay Bomb" = incredibly bad idea. Causes rape. Whole concept based around the idea of "gay" as "weak". Violates sexual rights of those it is used on. Horrible, disgusting idiocy dreamed up by idiots who read too many of the wrong kind of comic books.

Further, I'm dubious about the whole idea of non-lethal weaponry, not because I like the idea of people getting killed, but because it seems to be presenting a radical way forward but actually still assumes a conflict situation, and an imbalance of power. Also, just because your army isn't killing as many people doesn't mean you still have a right to prosecute whatever campaign you're on - it doesn't make a war or coup any less of a bad thing.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
14:31 / 21.06.07
This baffles me - this was floating around on the web about two years ago, and in book form before that (The Men Who Stared at Goats). It's a bizarre, reprehensible and plainly stupid idea, but I'm just bemused why it's resurfaced again.
 
 
grant
16:08 / 21.06.07
Because someone in the military just admitted that they really *were* considering developing it.

"But not seriously," he hastily added. (or similar).
 
 
petunia
09:11 / 22.06.07
Further, I'm dubious about the whole idea of non-lethal weaponry, not because I like the idea of people getting killed, but because it seems to be presenting a radical way forward but actually still assumes a conflict situation

I agree with you in that i want the fuck rid of war and conflict. However, it seems rather unlikely that such things will end soon. If governments are going to hold military power, i would much rather that power is non-lethal. Two evils and all that...

If we could imagine a situation where a country invades another, kills nobody and replaces the government with minimal distruption to the lives of all involved, surely this would be better than current conflicts?

Obviously, when these non-lethal weapons take the shape of blindings or mass rape, it's still going to be shit. Maybe we need to invent spidey web sooner.

But yes. People's energy would be better spent working out how not to have war in the first place...
 
 
Spaniel
17:21 / 22.06.07
Out of interest, Tramps, have you read The Men Who Stare at Goats? I finished it this week and it's fucking great and scary and completely insane, and I'm not sure I'll ever be able to think about non-lethal weaponry without shuddering a little thanks to Mr Ronson.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
17:35 / 22.06.07
Bo'

I think John Alexander was one of the blokes centrally involved in the first, or one of the first US military engagements with these kinds of weapons. See here, about two thirds down the page, for a brief statement on his involvement.

There's more, I just can't be bothered to type it all in here. Sooooorrry.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
17:38 / 22.06.07
Oh sorry, just remembered that he figures quite prominently in the book (and the TV docu). Ignore teh abuvv.
 
 
Spaniel
17:41 / 22.06.07
(Just for the record, above post purely in service of promoting the book)
 
 
Closed for Business Time
17:55 / 22.06.07
AHA! You are Jon Ronson and I claim my goat back!
 
 
petunia
18:02 / 22.06.07
Boboss - i haven't read the book, but read an article about it once. It sounds amazing.

The article may have added info about things that weren't in the book, but i remember someone's ideas for designing 'peace troops' who would play music designed to make the enemy cry and feel safe. The peace troops would walk across teh battlefield holding a lamb in their arms. Overthetop weird.

There was also a classic quote describing an ultra-secret squad who trained themselves in the paranormal. The first level of training involved walking into a room and being instantly aware of everything in it. It got cooler and cooler until the final stage, which was becoming invisible. The quote (paraphrase really) went 'but this turned out to be too difficult, so we changed it to being really good at hiding'.

Silly military hippies.
 
 
Spaniel
18:07 / 22.06.07
Readthebookreadthebook
 
 
petunia
18:29 / 22.06.07
What's that, boboss?

Is there a book you've read?

Is it any good?

Should i read it?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
09:21 / 23.06.07
The Bomb had Stanley Kubrick's (A Clockwork Orange, Lolita) Doctor Strangelove, the Gay Bomb has... Matthias von Fistenberg’s'* (Fisting Underground, 20 Fist Weekend) The Gay Bomb (contains NSFW links):

Gay Bomb will take us into the future and the year 2012. George the Second has refused to step down as leader of the “free world,” and the nations of Europe have banded together to fight the new American military dictatorship. Desperate to fend off its attackers, the US launches the experimental “gay bomb,” designed to make the enemy forces drop their guns and turn fag. But the winds of fate blow in a different direction, and soon America is brought to its knees.

This movie is going to be da bomb.... da GAY BOMB!

*=Do you think he is of the Boston Von Fistenberg’ses?
 
 
Benny the Ball
10:09 / 28.06.07
I've had the Jon Ronson book lying around for a while now, and haven't gotten round to reading it - but just finished The Road, so will get to it now.

Meanwhile;

British troops and LSD
 
 
Closed for Business Time
09:21 / 13.07.07
Taser International, makers of - you guessed it! - Tasers, have unveiled, or possibly unleashed, new and upgraded versions of their electric stun weapons. Link here.

One is a long-range piece called XREP designed to be fired out of a shotgun(!) with a range of about 30 metres, the other is a "scattering" six dart launcher called [drumroll] Shockwave which fires darts in a 20 degree arc.

From the article in New Scientist:
Neil Davison, head of non-lethal weapons research within the peace studies department at Bradford University, UK, points to potential hazards of XREP. "It combines the well-known dangers of impact projectiles – inaccuracy, potential for serious injury – with a Taser shock four times longer than usual, which also carries an increased risk to the health of the victim," Davison says.

and he says of Shockwave:
Again, Davison sees a risk that targets may be hit more than once. "My overall concern with all three developments is that they would further remove the process of human interaction, negotiation and reasoning from the decision by police to use force," he says.

Dr. Davison can be found in the U of Bradford's Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project. They've got what looks like very interesting papers on this topic. Peruse at your leisure, folks.
 
 
Ridiculous Man
20:29 / 14.07.07
Non-lethal weapons sound like a good (or at least better) idea in theory, but you have to keep in mind that they're not really being designed for combat situations.

Because tasers or rubber bullets or whatever aren't designed expressly to kill, it suddenly becomes okay for governments to use them on citizens.
 
 
jeed
16:38 / 17.07.07
As well as that shotgun taser, theres a few more in development. My personal least favourite are the liquid tasers that are currently being tested. Essentially you can spray an entire crowd and then shock everyone that has been soaked with the conducting fluid. Fairly unpleasant, and just the thing for dispersing pesky protesters.




As are the
sonic and electromagnetic weapons that have been around for a couple of years now (the NYPD used them in 2002, as far as i remember). The particularly nasty one is the Active Denial System, that fires electromagnetic radiation at the particular frequency that makes water molecules in the skin vibrate, causing the sensation of burning, without burning.



Nasty enough in tests "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain", but then you note that the volunteers were asked to remove any metal objects, glasses, or contacts before the test, as these would cause 'hotspots'. Of course, out in the real world it's doubtful that there would be a warning given to those about to be fired on to remove these 'in case of injury'.

Non-lethal, but pretty damn painful - and as R.M. mentioned, much more likely to find their way into the hand of the police than the army. Coming soon to a G8 protest near you...
 
 
Ridiculous Man
16:42 / 22.07.07
Taser's marketing a relatively cheap "personal weapon" to women now. While the police version issues 5 second zaps, this one does 30 seconds of 50,000 volts.
 
 
Dutch
13:30 / 03.08.07
I remember once watching a discovery channel documentary on new non-lethal weapons. In it, they were describing how acoustic weapons could be used in case of say, a violent protest, to incapacitate demonstrators by bombarding them with a certain range of sound. The very low frequency sound emissions would cause balance problems and abdominal pains/vomiting, or possibly even be set as high to cause vibration of the bones themselves in a very painful manner

I've read rumors about "poppers" (VLF weapons) being used in Iraq to try and pacify the population. - Has anyone got some decent (as in non-conspiracy-nuttist) evidence to corroborate this? I would find it interesting to know what kinds of weapons are being used to fight the war over there about which we are not being told so often.

I'd rather see the use of weapons cease altogether, but faced with the choice between landmines, missiles and rifles on the one hand, and non-lethal weapons on the other, I'd be glad (if not entirely overjoyed) if the latter were used. Although war and imbalance of power would remain, a lot less people would be killed by them.
 
 
lille christina
08:01 / 25.08.07
Meanwhile;
British troops and LSD



Paintballs laced with mind-altering drugs and drug-spraying robots - The idea came from the nicotine patch.

Psycho Paintballs
 
 
wicker woman
04:10 / 27.08.07
Here's a really surreal bit for you.

A group of three people in Denmark started a weapons manufacturer, Empire North, back in June 2002, with the express intent of creating fake weaponry. One of these things was the ID Sniper Rifle, which was ostensibly designed to fire a GPS microchip into an unsuspecting target, allowing that 'target' to be tracked later and 'taken care of' at a more discreet time.

One week after this, Jakob S. Boeskov (a Danish artist and one of the founders of E.N.), used a mockup of the ID Sniper and some business cards to get booth space at China Police 2002, an international arms bazaar.

The story in its entirety, plus spooky fake promotional material for the weapon, can be found at Jakob's website here: http://www.backfire.dk/JB/#
 
 
grant
14:14 / 27.08.07
Those paintballs are... dude.
 
 
jentacular dreams
19:10 / 27.08.07
Do none of them see how easy it would for a target to OD? And things like liver disease might be fatal.
 
 
coweatman
15:58 / 29.08.07
supposedly pepperball guns are "less lethal" but we had someone get killed by them in boston a few years back when our local baseball team finally started, you know, winning.
 
 
grant
19:51 / 31.08.07
Taser test videos

Or: not lethal, still *weapons*.
 
 
Grey Cell
20:03 / 01.09.07
"Do none of them see how easy it would for a target to OD? And things like liver disease might be fatal."

As usual, the classical response in such a case will be something along the lines of "It's their own fault, they shouldn't have been protesting in the first place."
 
  
Add Your Reply