retroman wrote:
>While I share your ideal, I have the caveat that an enemy you don't
I see your point, but I think that overall there is no problem with
using an effective nonlethal weapon on an enemy you may wish dead for
several reasons. The purpose of a nonlethal weapon would be to incapacitate
an attacker. Once incapacitated, further measures could be taken, up o and
including execution if that were necessary. The good thing about using a
ranged nonlethal weapon would be that it would allow you to incapacitate your
attacker, but gives some leeway for mistakes (for example, missing and
hitting an innocent bystander, a case of mistaken identity
>kill, is still alive to come at you (or someone else) again. Considering
>that most crime is committed by repeat offenders, I think this argument
>needs weight here. I just don't care about the life of someone who
>values my life so little as to attack me, so my transhumanist ideals do
>not factor in...
>My personal ideal is some sort of accurate squirt gun that fires a
>liquid that evaporates (to be breathed in) or soaks through the skin, to
>put an assailant to sleep.
>My caveat against this technology is that it
>will make kidnapping and rape crimes that will be much safer for the
>assailant to commit with such weapons. It will be more difficult to
>convict if the victim has not been physically harmed at all, so we would
>either have to a) be much more prepared to be victims, and b) much more
>prepared to convict someone on a lower threshold of evidence.
Yes, it would make abductions somewhat more easy; but they're already pretty easy for those who would do so (rohypnol comes to mind), but I think it is a downside that might be worth accepting. As for it making crimes more difficult to convict if the victim is not physically harmed....although I too am frustrated by how hard it is to convict rapists, I would never wish more harm on their victims. Another option would be to include in our list of qualifications for a nonlethal weapon some sort of flashy effect, like a large flash of light or loud sound, so the weapon could not be used in a stealthy manner, but I think this requirement is likely unrealistic.
>Any chemical solution will degrade with time. Any electrical charge will
>dissipate over time. We've had this discussion before as well. My
>conclusion was that any shock that you could deliver to a 300 lb.
>linebacker enough to knock him out would likely kill a 90 lb. kid or
>woman. being able to vary the shock at the point of impact by active
>measures on the projectile is very expensive and prone to unreliability
>(remember how many years it took to make AA missiles accurate).
True, any chemical solution will degrade and electric charge dissipate, but the question is how long? I was checking out one weapon on the web that used a lithium battery they claimed would hold its charge for 10 years, which if true I would find a reasonable amount of time. As far as shock goes in stun type weapons, I think the problem will more likely be that of needing differring strengths for different ranges as opposed to body mass.
>No, well built weapons with wide design tolerances are reliable weapons.
Point taken, but I think it might be easier to achieve wide design tolerances in simpler weapons.
>yes, a smart projectile, variable in impact based on body mass of
>target.
Could you elaborate on this idea; how would the impact be controlled?
Thanks for the response.
Glen Finney