Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I liked the one I read a long time ago about ultra-low frequencies causing crowds to lose control of their bowels.

I remember this too - it was what I thought this was, at first...
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
"The development of a truly safe and highly effective nonlethal crowd-control system could raise enormous ethical questions about the state's use of coercive force. If a method such as ADS leads to no lasting injury or harm, authorities may find easier justifications for employing them."

 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
say hello to a new torture methood

lots of pain
no lasting effects


Just for examples sake, lets say there is another situation like Somalia where hostile crowds are converging on some of our injured troops, do you have a problem with something like this for crowd dispersal to save the lives of the wounded soldiers?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
63,123
11,491
136
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm

"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft."
While no one is disputing the effectiveness of said weapon, where in the outlined words does it mention that it "kills all the people, doesn't destroy buildings?"


OK, try this bit from Wiki:
"According to Cohen, one possible tactic of using such "true" neutron bombs is therefore to launch them as defensive weapons against armored attacks. Civilians enter fallout shelters, and the bomb is exploded 10 km over the armored attack. Portable armor is said to be unable to shield tank and aircraft crews. In such an event, a city's trees and grass would have been killed by radiation, but buildings would remain undamaged for the emerging civilians (who would however have to wait several days for certain short-lived isotopes to decay). "

The big "selling point to get funding back in the late 70's and early 80's for these was that fact. Granted, ANY large powerful blast in close proximity to buildings will destroy them, be it tthe A-bomb, the H-bomb, (Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!) massive amounts of TNT, or even a BIG propane tank! The neutron bomb was supposed to kill humans (and as "collateral damage" wildlive of all kinds) in the targeted area, (air-burst) while leaving the majority of buildings undamaged so that most of the population (not affected by the radiation) could inhabit them and also lower the rebuilding costs.
We just keep coming up with more and newer ways to kill each other.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm

"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft."
While no one is disputing the effectiveness of said weapon, where in the outlined words does it mention that it "kills all the people, doesn't destroy buildings?"


OK, try this bit from Wiki:
"According to Cohen, one possible tactic of using such "true" neutron bombs is therefore to launch them as defensive weapons against armored attacks. Civilians enter fallout shelters, and the bomb is exploded 10 km over the armored attack. Portable armor is said to be unable to shield tank and aircraft crews. In such an event, a city's trees and grass would have been killed by radiation, but buildings would remain undamaged for the emerging civilians (who would however have to wait several days for certain short-lived isotopes to decay). "

The big "selling point to get funding back in the late 70's and early 80's for these was that fact. Granted, ANY large powerful blast in close proximity to buildings will destroy them, be it tthe A-bomb, the H-bomb, (Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!) massive amounts of TNT, or even a BIG propane tank! The neutron bomb was supposed to kill humans (and as "collateral damage" wildlive of all kinds) in the targeted area, (air-burst) while leaving the majority of buildings undamaged so that most of the population (not affected by the radiation) could inhabit them and also lower the rebuilding costs.
We just keep coming up with more and newer ways to kill each other.

Ah, thanks for providing that morsel from wiki. I was studying for numerous exams and didn't have the time to skim it myself.

According to your last sentence, you say, "We just keep coming up with more and newer ways to kill each other." Do you think this is bad?
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: TheNinja
These were used in the Left Behind series of books. They basically started to boil the water in your body and if the beam stayed on you a long time you would die, but it was used to repel people or confuse them.

I don't think its the same thing... the weapon from that book would literally cook your insides. This thing only damages the top layer of skin due to the longer wavelenghts.

83% is absorbed by your skin. The rest goes to your muscles, organs, and BRAIN. Also, keep in mind that there is nothing protecting your cornea. Microwave radiation causes cataracts by heating the surface of your eyeball, and this won't be any different.

Non-lethal does not mean harmless.

It's a non-lethal WEAPON. Being a weapon, there's obviously the implication for harm. Would you prefer some millimeter waves hitting you and making you very uncomfortable, or a succession of 7.62mm bullets hitting you making you into pulp?

I love how these types of weapons engender so much hostility, yet people do not understand that the alternative is LETHAL force. Personally, I'm all for the widespread use of rubber bullets which only kill rarely, but people have a problem with that, I've heard.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm

"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft."
While no one is disputing the effectiveness of said weapon, where in the outlined words does it mention that it "kills all the people, doesn't destroy buildings?"


OK, try this bit from Wiki:
"According to Cohen, one possible tactic of using such "true" neutron bombs is therefore to launch them as defensive weapons against armored attacks. Civilians enter fallout shelters, and the bomb is exploded 10 km over the armored attack. Portable armor is said to be unable to shield tank and aircraft crews. In such an event, a city's trees and grass would have been killed by radiation, but buildings would remain undamaged for the emerging civilians (who would however have to wait several days for certain short-lived isotopes to decay). "

The big "selling point to get funding back in the late 70's and early 80's for these was that fact. Granted, ANY large powerful blast in close proximity to buildings will destroy them, be it tthe A-bomb, the H-bomb, (Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!) massive amounts of TNT, or even a BIG propane tank! The neutron bomb was supposed to kill humans (and as "collateral damage" wildlive of all kinds) in the targeted area, (air-burst) while leaving the majority of buildings undamaged so that most of the population (not affected by the radiation) could inhabit them and also lower the rebuilding costs.
We just keep coming up with more and newer ways to kill each other.
Leaving the majority undamaged still means you could destroy a whole lot of buildings. A neutron bomb is still a critical mass and still an awfully big bang by most standards. Substantially weaker than most any modern nuclear weapon, but far far greater than any conventional weapon.
 

Xyo II

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 2005
2,177
1
0
Wow, 500 meters? That's pretty impressive. It's good to see that they are looking at safer methods of crowd control and combat.
 

Xyo II

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 2005
2,177
1
0
Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx
Originally posted by: MisterJackson
I want a keychain version!



thats what im saying, how practical is this thing, unless its in a keychain or can be attached to a rifle not sure how well it will work.

It would be mounted on a vehicle I'm guessing. The batteries that might be needed for this could be a bit prohibitive, which is probably why they requested Strykers to be armed with them first.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt and highly motivated escape behavior."

hahaha