From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 02:15:57 MDT
retroman wrote:
>While I share your ideal, I have the caveat that an enemy you don't
>kill, is still alive to come at you (or someone else) again. Considering
>that most crime is committed by repeat offenders, I think this argument
>needs weight here. I just don't care about the life of someone who
>values my life so little as to attack me, so my transhumanist ideals do
>not factor in...
I see your point, but I think that overall there is no problem with
using an effective nonlethal weapon on an enemy you may wish dead for
several reasons. The purpose of a nonlethal weapon would be to incapacitate
an attacker. Once incapacitated, further measures could be taken, up o and
including execution if that were necessary. The good thing about using a
ranged nonlethal weapon would be that it would allow you to incapacitate your
attacker, but gives some leeway for mistakes (for example, missing and
hitting an innocent bystander, a case of mistaken identity and/or
misidentification of intention). I would suggest that this would be in all
of our best interests as Transhumanists as it could be you or me who were
that bystander or misidentified assailant. Friendly fire is a real danger,
and I think it worthwhile to postpone execution of an enemy to avoid such
tragedies.
>My personal ideal is some sort of accurate squirt gun that fires a
>liquid that evaporates (to be breathed in) or soaks through the skin, to
>put an assailant to sleep.
An inhaled anesthetic (or one that could be absorbed) would be a good
candidate, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that would be that
effective without risking lethal respiratory depression. Can anyone else?
>My caveat against this technology is that it
>will make kidnapping and rape crimes that will be much safer for the
>assailant to commit with such weapons. It will be more difficult to
>convict if the victim has not been physically harmed at all, so we would
>either have to a) be much more prepared to be victims, and b) much more
>prepared to convict someone on a lower threshold of evidence.
Yes, it would make abductions somewhat more easy; but they're already
pretty easy for those who would do so (rohypnol comes to mind), but I think
it is a downside that might be worth accepting. As for it making crimes more
difficult to convict if the victim is not physically harmed....although I too
am frustrated by how hard it is to convict rapists, I would never wish more
harm on their victims. Another option would be to include in our list of
qualifications for a nonlethal weapon some sort of flashy effect, like a
large flash of light or loud sound, so the weapon could not be used in a
stealthy manner, but I think this requirement is likely unrealistic.
>Any chemical solution will degrade with time. Any electrical charge will
>dissipate over time. We've had this discussion before as well. My
>conclusion was that any shock that you could deliver to a 300 lb.
>linebacker enough to knock him out would likely kill a 90 lb. kid or
>woman. being able to vary the shock at the point of impact by active
>measures on the projectile is very expensive and prone to unreliability
>(remember how many years it took to make AA missiles accurate).
True, any chemical solution will degrade and electric charge dissipate, but
the question is how long? I was checking out one weapon on the web that used
a lithium battery they claimed would hold its charge for 10 years, which if
true I would find a reasonable amount of time. As far as shock goes in stun
type weapons, I think the problem will more likely be that of needing
differring strengths for different ranges as opposed to body mass.
>No, well built weapons with wide design tolerances are reliable weapons.
Point taken, but I think it might be easier to achieve wide design
tolerances in simpler weapons.
>yes, a smart projectile, variable in impact based on body mass of
>target.
Could you elaborate on this idea; how would the impact be controlled?
Thanks for the response.
Glen Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST