Amiga.org

Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: bloodline on July 11, 2005, 08:51:08 AM

Title: Weapons that might kill are more dangerous than ones that do...
Post by: bloodline on July 11, 2005, 08:51:08 AM

Quote

According to Reuters, the big idea is being squashed by the military and Congress who have not spend enough on getting directed energy to the front. Some military officials say more needs to be done to assure the international community that directed-energy weapons set to stun rather than kill will not harm noncombatants.

Ironically while the weapons might not kill people are being delayed, soldiers are having to use weapons that definitely do kill them.

:lol:

From: http://www.chipzilla.com/?article=24507

Title: Re: Weapons that might kill are more dangerous than ones that do...
Post by: Dan on July 11, 2005, 11:13:12 AM

Iraq seems like the perfect place to test so-called "non-lethal" weapons before allowing their use by security and police at home.

Quote

Some military officials say more needs to be done to assure the international community that directed-energy weapons set to stun rather than kill will not harm noncombatants.

As oppose to clusterbombs, MOABs and usual bullets? :lol:

Title: Re: Weapons that might kill are more dangerous than ones that do...
Post by: Cyberus on July 11, 2005, 03:18:21 PM

Quote

weapons set to stun rather than kill will not harm noncombatants.

I'm sorry, but this just conjures up images of Star Trek...
"Set phasers to stun!"