3 of 4
3
“‘Non-lethal’ ray actually designed to kill!” says expert.
Posted: 15 May 2008 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6926
Joined  2005-10-21

On the subject of WMDs, a friend of mine once figured out that it would be possible to make a nuclear bomb that would fit inside a .45 caliber bullet. The explosion radius would pretty much take out anything within 50 yards.

The downside? It requires Californium, which has a halflife of about thirty seconds, so you wouldn’t have *time* to make the bullet, transport it to site, then fire it. Further, the amounts required would mean that anyone firing the bullet from a standard handgun would likely be dead from radiation poisoning shortly after the bullet left the barrel.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2008 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7356
Joined  2005-06-23
Robin Bobcat - 15 May 2008 11:31 PM

On the subject of WMDs, a friend of mine once figured out that it would be possible to make a nuclear bomb that would fit inside a .45 caliber bullet. The explosion radius would pretty much take out anything within 50 yards.

The downside? It requires Californium, which has a halflife of about thirty seconds, so you wouldn’t have *time* to make the bullet, transport it to site, then fire it. Further, the amounts required would mean that anyone firing the bullet from a standard handgun would likely be dead from radiation poisoning shortly after the bullet left the barrel.

For a suicide bomber I’m sure they wouldn’t mind the radiation poisoning thing.

The practical inability makes it seem a bit of a waste of time though. Best just stick to pipes filled with nails and petrol. Or Land Rovers filled with petrol. That don’t explode when you drive them into an airport terminal. And then you get beaten beyond the help of medical science by holiday-makers looking for a fight.

 Signature 

“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”
- Voltaire

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6926
Joined  2005-10-21

Yeah.. gotta say, when it comes to terrorists, you guys get the stupid ones. Not that blowing yourself up requires a lot of brainpower, but those guys were rather incredibly dense. Poor choice of targets, failure to explode not only the main bomb but the suicide vests. As I understand it, even if the entire thing *had* gone off as planned, the damage would have been fairly minor, and with a fairly low death toll - the bomb apparently just wasn’t that powerful, though it would have likely made a big fireball like you see in the movies. Instead, they get captured alive with serious burns and beatings, will spend the rest of their miserabl lives in pain and in prison. Boo-hoo, no gaggle of virgins for you!

Back on topic.

Like I said, I’m fairly certain that the kerfluffle is that this is being advertised as a ‘non/low-lethality device’, when it is in fact capable of being set much higher. The thing that those screaming about it being deadly are missing is that it *can* be used effectively without frying the people involved.. With enough power, you could probably cause people to vaporize into flame and smoke, but it has the option of being used at a low enough setting it *won’t* kill.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

But isn’t that a bit like claiming bullets are non-lethal because if you merely poke someone with one, they don’t die?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23

Is the topic still on The AIDS system?

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1318
Joined  2007-05-06
David B. - 16 May 2008 12:01 PM

But isn’t that a bit like claiming bullets are non-lethal because if you merely poke someone with one, they don’t die?

Not at all, because that is not the purpose for which bullets are designed. The ray can be used, as intended, without harming people.

This really isn’t any different from tasers, which can go from a light sting to death.

 Signature 

So I can just type anything and it will show up here?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  11903
Joined  2006-12-02

I once went to a party back when I sstill lived in Florida before I took off for NYC.

There was this creepy guy there who was some kind of ninja/martial arts nut. He had me dump my purse and showed me how I could kill someone with every item in there.

You can do terrible things to a person with a hairbrush!  ohh

 Signature 

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Stargazer - 16 May 2008 01:39 PM

Not at all, because that is not the purpose for which bullets are designed. The ray can be used, as intended, without harming people.

Well, since the point of this thread was that someone was claiming that killing is the purpose for which the ADS was designed..?

Anyway, bullets can be used, as intended, without harming people; it’s called target shooting.

This really isn’t any different from tasers, which can go from a light sting to death.

If the ADS was designed as non-lethal, yes, if not then it is more akin to an electric chair than a taser.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
David B. - 16 May 2008 02:34 PM
Stargazer - 16 May 2008 01:39 PM

This really isn’t any different from tasers, which can go from a light sting to death.

If the ADS was designed as non-lethal, yes

Actually… no, on further reflection I’ve changed my mind on this. The difference between a lethal device that has a lower, non-lethal setting and a non-lethal device that has a higher, lethal setting is negligible. That a device comes in a ‘safe’, non-lethal configuration that can be overridden to provide lethal force if desired does not make it a non-lethal weapon any more than a gun sold unloaded and with the safety on is a non-lethal weapon.

Even the State Department recognises this, you can’t sell civilian equivalents of military tech to proscribed countries if it is capable of being uprated to military spec.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23

If its so dangerous then the gov. is just covering up when they said this?

“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 why would they ask them to take of their glasses then ? im confused… downer

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2008 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1318
Joined  2007-05-06
David B. - 16 May 2008 02:34 PM

Well, since the point of this thread was that someone was claiming that killing is the purpose for which the ADS was designed..?

Anyway, bullets can be used, as intended, without harming people; it’s called target shooting.

That doesn’t make them “non-lethal”, dude. By that definition every weapon ever devised is non-lethal, because you don’t have to use it on a living creature.

If the ADS was designed as non-lethal, yes, if not then it is more akin to an electric chair than a taser.

It seems to me that it’s designed to go from 1 to 10. They’ve already tested on people with no ill effects. Clearly it can be used in that way.

Potential doesn’t really define what a “lethal weapon” is anyway. A police baton is a non-lethal, but you could beat someone to death with it. Technically speaking, if someone is 18+ and a black belt in certain martial arts, their body can be considered a lethal weapon, but they can certainly do lots of non-lethal things with it.

 Signature 

So I can just type anything and it will show up here?

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3