From: O'Regan, Emlyn (Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au)
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 02:43:25 MDT
I'm pessimistic about non-lethal means of self-defense (that's unlike me, I
know). I think that it's very difficult to design a "self defense" mechanism
which is not a form of attack, no matter how softly softly it works; these
things can be used on non-attackers as easily as attackers.
Glen Finney put forward 9 qualities of a non-lethal weapon. I have tacked
them on the end of this message; if you haven't read them, go have a look.
There is an assumption which must be made when designing this kind of
all-purpose non-lethal weapon, which is that lethal weapons are also
available. Glen works under this assumption - I'm just making it explicit.
A corrolary is that non-lethal weapon must be able to defeat the best lethal
weapons, or make a good stab at it (ha ha). The kind of nice-gun style
weapon described in Glen's post seems doomed to be second rate, because
pushing a bit of speeding lead real fast is easier than any of the
round-about nice-gun solutions, which also involve firing a (perhaps
complex) projectile, with all kinds of other burdens (like non-lethality) to
contend with.
My other objection to the idea of non-lethal weapons is that they are still
weapons. A weapon with the qualities that Greg described would appear to be
a rapist's weapon of choice! Imagine being shot in the streets of a big city
by one of these devices. How long do you have to lie there, totally
helpless, before you regain control or someone comes to your aid? What
happens to you during that time, especially if your attacker is still around
(which seems likely)?
Jeff Davis added:
> Extra-Hopeans,
>
[snip]
> I had a similar thought about non-lethal warfare--enemy soldiers
> incapacitated and captured rather than, well, you know,...mutilated and
> killed. That thought originated from the idea that, after all, soldiers
> are really just pawns, essentially innocent victims, so that a military
> technology which was effective without being lethal would be very
> appealing
> from a moral standpoint. However, that's an idea for another thread.
>
This would just annoy a lot of militaries... it means you have to run around
killing all those slumbering enemies, because you have no capacity to take
prisoners. Much easier, more reliable, and far cheaper to fill 'em full o'
lead.
They could use them in wargames, however; that'd make the contests pretty
vivid (especially if the non-lethals really hurt).
[snip stuff about hi-tech version of "hue and cry"]
> Granted, such a device is likely to be severly limited in "stopping power"
> once an attack has been initiated, but I wonder if it wouldn't created an
> environment where such attacks would be substantially pre-empted.
>
"Hue and cry" can be used as a weapon also - "He tried to attack me, lock
him up!"
- and I think this would be its downfall. People might end up tuning these
devices out
also, so they become more background noise like people shouting and
car/building
alarms going off. This is a better approach though in that it cannot be used
to render
someone defenseless in order to take advantage of them.
On the subject of creating an environment of no-violence, a good weapon
defense one which consists of a really big bomb attached to a person, with a
deadman switch. The wearer dies, the bomb goes off. This has some drawbacks;
fun with sniper rifles comes to mind, and the recursive effects are just
plain scary (anyone ever written a flood-fill algorithm?). Maybe the weapon
has to be smart, to identify the attacker, and not go off if it cannot
identify such.
This conjures the image of people walking around with big red, orange and
yellow backpacks on. A signal to would be attackers: Don't eat me, I taste
bad.
> It goes without saying that anyone who wants to should take this idea and
> run with it. For example, the cloud of smoke could be tear gas, nausea
> gas, or some super stink bomb--powerful enough to disrupt the attack--yet,
> happily, harmless. Improvements anyone?
>
Gas/smoke grenades + a gas mask would appear to be a formidable weapon!
Better
yet, just pop a nerve gas canister in the launcher, and voila!
The extropian solution in the (far flung) future would have to be
personality backups. If you are uploaded in some form, but still move about
the physical universe, you would have master backups of yourself stashed in
multiple places, with incremental updates being sent of relatively
frequently (every hour or two? ever couple of seconds?). So someone nukes
your ramship. Big deal. You get restored from backup, and continue on your
way; not one of the better events in your life, but non-lethal and not a
weapon. Except maybe you can nuke yourself, killing yourself and everyone
nearby, and all without backups are really dead. Then again, they really
should have been being backed up (when will they ever learn?).
Then of course someone creates mental viruses which act over time... by the
time it kills you all your backups are toast too. Well, you've got to die
sometime; or restart from your first upload.
Emlyn, nukeboy
------------- THE FOLLOWING COMES FROM THE INITIAL POST ON THIS
--------------------
------------- THREAD, BY GLEN FINNEY
--------------------
Appendix: 9 qualities of non-lethal weapons from Glen Finney
1) Range - We need at least one nonlethal weapon which can be effective at
ranges rivaling those of firearms (handguns at the very least). If at all
possible, you want to incapacitate an attacker before they can close into
melee range. On the other hand, we would also like a nonlethal option for
when an attacker has been able to reach melee range (martial arts training
would help, but where the attacker greatly outmasses the defender, and/or
has
training as well, this is not always effective).
2) Reliability - We need a weapon that can be trusted when needed, often
times after long periods of disuse. It needs to work effectively with
almost
every use. This is related to point three.
3) Simplicity - A weapon for defense of the general population needs to be
simple to use. The more complicated the operation of the weapon, the more
likely user error will occur in the heat of battle. Also, simple weapons
tend to be reliable weapons.
4) Stopping power - This is one of the most vital qualifications. The non
lethal weapon needs to be able to stop any target a modern firearm could
(and
preferably better at it), and to be able to do so as quickly. We should not
expect anyone to trade in a proven effective weapon for one of inferior
ability, not when so much is on the line. Preferably, we want a weapon that
only needs to hit approximately center of mass, can usually immobilize with
one application, and completely incapacitates the aggressor. Also, the
weapon needs to be able to penetrate some degree of obstacles (be effective
through clothes, for example).
5) Speed & Reusability - The weapon should be able to be brought into use
rapidly, and be able to be reused several times in rapid succession in case
the aggressor is missed the first time, is not completely incapacitated with
one strike, or there are multiple aggressors.
6) Accuracy - We want a weapon that can hit the target most of the time.
This should be obvious. Precision would also be nice, but is slightly less
important in a truly nonlethal weapon (indeed, the need for precision is
inversely proportional to point 7).
7) Safety & Reversibility - Nothing I know of is perfectly safe, but the
ideal here is to make the weapon as safe as possible. This is especially
important to prevent accidental harm. Likely we want a weapon which with
time is completely reversible, and has low morbidity and mortality (it can
be
unpleasant though<g>). Ideally, the effect of the nonlethal weapon would
not
be mass dependent (we don't want a weapon that a big enough attacker can
shrug off and/or that is dangerous to small children).
8) Duration - Our nonlethal weapon's effects need to reliably last long
enough for more permanent arrangements to be made to neutralize an
aggressor.
9) Portability - Our nonlethal weapon needs to be able to be light and
compact enough for most of the population to easily carry on their person.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:20 MST