[QUOTE=John Mace]
What a stupid argument. A violent mob is threatening civil order. The police have several choices: Real bullets, rubber bullets, tasers, or ADS. Which is the best choice?
[/QUOTE]
The (admittedly speculative) flipside of that: A non-violent, but politically inconvenient protest is underway. Real bullets, rubber bullets and tasers are difficult to justify, because they cause physical injury and appear to be an obvious overreaction, but if we just use ADS, we can make this problem go away - it’s not as if anyone is being harmed…
[QUOTE=Sapo]
You need to dial up your evil-o-meter. Think of a padded room with an unrestrained victim where you pulse him for a couple secs, again and again, for days. No marks, all pain.
[/QUOTE]
Again, though, the problem here is that you have a government that can take people and lock them in a room for days at a time without allowing them any outside contact. In that situation, you don’t need fancy pain rays to torture the person. A bucket of water and a roll of Saran Wrap will work just as well in that situation. This is another situation where the technology could be exploited towards immoral ends in precisely the same way existing technologies are already being exploited. It does not create a situation in which the technology can be exploited to undermine existing civil protections.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
The (admittedly speculative) flipside of that: A non-violent, but politically inconvenient protest is underway. Real bullets, rubber bullets and tasers are difficult to justify, because they cause physical injury and appear to be an obvious overreaction, but if we just use ADS, we can make this problem go away - it’s not as if anyone is being harmed…
[/QUOTE]
This was my immediate concern. Less lethal devices are often used now in situations where nothing would have been used if they were not available, including some where nothing should be used. Think of the unruly kid getting tasered in a library a while back.
That is more of a policy concern though, not a reason to avoid development.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
The (admittedly speculative) flipside of that: A non-violent, but politically inconvenient protest is underway. Real bullets, rubber bullets and tasers are difficult to justify, because they cause physical injury and appear to be an obvious overreaction, but if we just use ADS, we can make this problem go away - it’s not as if anyone is being harmed…
[/QUOTE]
We still have rules of engagement that have to be followed. If you’d rather keep killing “X” number of people every year to ensure that “Y” number don’t feel really hot once in awhile, then you have the equation wrong. The point of this is that it is used instead of existing technology, not in addition to, and not with looser governing rules. A democratic society is best served when it’s law enforcement authorities can reduce the number of times they have to use lethal force.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
We still have rules of engagement that have to be followed. If you’d rather keep killing “X” number of people every year to ensure that “Y” number don’t feel really hot once in awhile, then you have the equation wrong.
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that’s the equation I’m talking about at all. I’m trying to balance killing X number of people to suppress their group’s activities P, against making Y number of people really hot to suppress their group’s activities Q. If Q is a far broader range of activities than P, as well as possibly including more moderate behaviours, then I’d be concerned - it’s the possible erosion of civil liberties that concerns me here.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
We still have rules of engagement that have to be followed. If you’d rather keep killing “X” number of people every year to ensure that “Y” number don’t feel really hot once in awhile, then you have the equation wrong. The point of this is that it is used instead of existing technology, not in addition to, and not with looser governing rules. A democratic society is best served when it’s law enforcement authorities can reduce the number of times they have to use lethal force.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be dodging the point. Yes they can decrease the need for more lethal force, and that certainly is a good thing. But they can also INCREASE their use of non-lethal force in order to more effectively and quickly control lots of people, and that’s a sort of scary, dangerous thing.
Consider this in the hands of, say, a Chavez. It spells an instant end to any demonstration against him, period, on his command, without dirtying any hands with blood.
[QUOTE=Apos]
Consider this in the hands of, say, a Chavez. It spells an instant end to any demonstration against him, period, on his command, without dirtying any hands with blood.
[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that using the “agony ray” to disperse peaceful political protestors is going to be a positive PR move? Versus spraying them down with a fire hose or using tear gas?
I think the press would have a field day with that one.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Are you suggesting that using the “agony ray” to disperse peaceful political protestors is going to be a positive PR move? Versus spraying them down with a fire hose or using tear gas?
I think the press would have a field day with that one.
[/QUOTE]
What “press”?
The emmasculated losers on TV every night? :dubious:
I don’t think they would. If the ray can simply clear people off the streets without injuring them permanently in any way, there’s a lot more incentive to use it, because you can always point out that you are keeping the peace and there is no lasting harm.
The US government allows all kinds of “peaceful” demonstrations (the anti-war protest in DC being one of the most recent) and occasionally things get out of hand (the WTO protests in Seattle are a good example). The police have occasionally been told to fall back and let the more radical protesters have their way (the spray painting vandalism of the US Capital during the war protest). Having a system like this in place would ensure that the vandals are controlled while the true nature of the protest can continue. Imagine the amount of damage that could have been avoided if this had been around after the Rodney King verdict. Or stopping the rock and Molotov cocktail throwing Intifadas in Israel. Or the lunacy after a sports team wins (I wonder if Mayor Daley is hoping he’ll need one?)
If a government wants to suppress protests, they will find a way to do it. If they want to torture people, they will find a way to do it. Using a truck mounted pain ray is not convenient, quick or cost effective.
And as for the idea of trapping people in a room and blasting them with this: it would be easier and cheaper to not turn the lights off, play “Barney’s Greatest Hits” 24/7 and keep the temp low. Or, as it is more commonly called, “The Gitmo Deluxe Spa Plan”.
Due to the cost, I doubt there would be too many of them around, they would suck up a lot of power, probably prone to breakdowns. It would be unwieldy to just be hauling around downtown <name of favorite city for riots and protests> in the hopes that you could get it ahead of the rushing mob. It would be better suited to remain stationary in front of locations needing protection (embassies, barracks, weapons bunkers, government facilities, power and water utilities, etc). If the protective services received information that a mob of villagers, armed with torches and pitchforks was heading towards some location then they could get the vehicle in front of the group to head them off. But most riots seem to spring up from the misbehavior of a few jerks who decide to push things just a little too far.
And as for the idea of it being used for torture, the same thing applies for cost, size and potential for equipment failure. If the <favorite oppressive evil government> has a room set up to torture people with the pain ray and it breaks down, are they going to say:
Of course not! The chief torturer will twirl the end of his mustache, turn to his evil henchmen and tell him to get out the Diehard and jumper cables.
