Future Wars Non-Lethal weapons?

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3021873.stm

The idea of bloodless wars on the battlefield of the future has been the subject of much debate among war strategists for a long time.


Lasers developed to guide bombs can themselves now be used as weapons
But the massive media attention focused on the civilian casualties during the recent war on Iraq has again raised the question of how viable use of so-called non-lethal weapons may be.

Research into the potential use of weaponry such as directed energy, ray guns and e-bombs - electronic pulse weapons that destroy electronics - has intensified in recent years, nowhere more so than in the US, the leading coalition partner in the Iraq war.

"There is a misconception that war is about killing," said Dr John Alexander, formerly in the US Army with Special Operations and now a leading advocate for the development of non-lethal weapons.

"War is about imposition of will. Non-lethal weapons fit in the spectrum of this," he told the BBC World Service's Agenda programme.
 
#2
Well, its an interesting thought.
I am aware of a bass frequency (2Hz, I think) that'll make you shit yourself. Literally.
if that isn't a powerful psychological weapon, I don't know what is.  :p
 
#3
I believe that a Challenger 2 driving directly at you has the same effect  ;D
 
#4
"War is about imposition of our will on your oil"
 
#5
Remember a Horizon? Program on this, with splatter guns and cluster munitions containing (non-lethal) rubber balls, guns that fired a sticky sploodge, guns that fired an electrical discharge to incapacitate etc.

All well and good, but you know if you hit him with something travelling at Mach 2 he'll stay down

Still, there might be a future in it?
 
#6
Non lethal weapons are the holy grail, as they will appease the anti war element whenever we have to use force.

However at present they are extremely unreliable and do not work properly. Furthermore their development is extremely costly. I don't think we shall see them used in earnest for at least the next 300 years.
 
#7
Non-lethal weapons may also be a bit of a red herring, as they are usually put forward as the solution to indiscriminate casualties during wars.  The holy grail is a non lethal weapon that you can spray around with gay abandon, but doesn't cause irreversable harm if you get it wrong  (you can imagine how keen the Yanks are on this concept! :) :)).

Better targetting of lethal weapons, so that innnocent bystanders are not harmed, could potentially achieve the same overall aim and the technology is more mature in the short term.  Think employment of sharpshooters / snipers for manoeuvre support rather than an automatic grenade launcher for a low level example.
 
#8
What people fail to consider is that many of these supposedly non lethal weapons, are lethal!  Just not lethal to your average 11 stone hairy arrsed squadie, but very lethal to the young, old or infirm.

The latest non-lethal weapon that is being developed in the US is a tazar claymore.  Which shots a dart that stings the intruder with a couple of million volts of electricity.  It would knock a soldier unconscious but not kill him, therefore non lethal.  But if anybody tries it out on my Granny I'll be very upset!  :mad:  :-[

Yes, non lethal weapons are an excellent idea.  We can have wars without a single soldier dieing.  We'll just kill the children, their grandparents and anybody with a dickey ticker!

Stop wasting defence budgets and just buy more bullets!
 
#9
On the point about the automatic grenade launchers...

The British Army is rumoured to be evaluating the purchase of a AGS type weapon for the purpose of manoeuvre support.

Good to see the MoD is not considering the non-lethal option/catching up with most modern armies!

If they were would we be issued with rubber bayonets for the fight through?

Or maybe brightly coloured tickle sticks to subdue the enemy through laughter?

Non-lethal...good idea for the police, bad for soldiers.

Less area effect and more effects based I say.
 
#10
"I don't think we shall see them used in earnest for at least the next 300 years"

Is that because we've just started the procurement ball rolling? ;D
 
#11
Didn't Monty Python pioneer this policy with the 'funniest joke in the world' sketch.
I can just imagine it, instead of the mission being to engage and destroy all enemy forces, it'll be something like 'put on a bit of a cabaret and then we'll get them guns out of Bugsy Malone'  ;D
 
#12
Non lethal weapons are the holy grail, as they will appease the anti war element whenever we have to use force.

However at present they are extremely unreliable and do not work properly. Furthermore their development is extremely costly. I don't think we shall see them used in earnest for at least the next 300 years.
swat teams and anti riot teams use them to good effect all the time also corrections officers
 
#13
The sheer concept of using non lethal weapons in a WAR is beyond me. Even if you use frangible ammunition then there is a chance that the bad guy is still going to be in a good enough physical condition to put a 7.62 short in your back as you fight through.
So what if all the commie basta*d anti war types want non lethal ammo. Let them fight a war and then see how they think on the subject.
 
#14
how about big catapults with them pop idol poofs as ammo  ;D  ;D
 
#15
the problem with non lethal etc is when a guy is hopped up on drugs or real adrenalin the incapacitating effects are minimal-if we want weapons that are harmless to every one keep issuing current rifle and pistol
 
#16
I can see where this will lead...You shoot someone with a tazer or similar fancy weapon, then stab him with a bayonet to make sure he stays down.

Bit ironic really.
 
#17
One might gain the moral high ground by using non-leathal weapons but you can be sure the 'enemy' whomever that may be will not fight on a level playing field.
If we have to go to war then it's all about winning using whatever means possible. [vis-a-vis The Allies used the Atom Bomb in WWII and the Axis powers didn't but they would have if they had had same]
 
#18
No Such thing as Non Lethal... Only Less Lethal.

Taser
CS
Baton Gun's

They've all killed!

Whats the point of a non lethal weapon in time of war.

If I got gassed and put out of action for a week then I'd say Ouch then carry on.

If I got bombed and scattered around a large area then I'd say ouch then my CO would be writing a letter to say I was all the wonderful things a soldier could be etc.

By all means work on non lethals for Law Enforcement and Public order. But war is war. Its not a decision that should be made by half arrsed lefties recommending the use of Sonic Incapacitating weapons. You either mean it or you don't.
 
#19
The Program, Future Weapons, on Discovery Channel showed their 'Man' said to be a Former US SEAL showing off a 'Non Leather' crowd dispersion weapon.
It 'Sent out' microwaves which severely 'Irritated' the skin.
He stated that it was effective out to 500 mts and was 'Non Lethal'

john
 
#20
Will work very well if the other guy is using non-lethal weapons as well, otherwise I'll stick with FMJ, thankyou.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top