The Navy's new "pain-gun": no pain, no gain!

While most, if not all of the civilized world has been moving as fast and far away from lethal artillery as possible to nonlethal weaponry, the US and A's armed forces are spearheading the development of nonlethal weapons that feel like the very worst in lethal arms—and they've granted a research contract to a University, no less. The U of Florida in Gainesville won the Navy defense contract titled "Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas", which is basically a fancy way of saying they want to use otherwise noble pain research to enable long distance laser beams and exploding plasma bursts to engage pain neurons without physical harm. (We're still not sure how this is different from the other pain-gun.) Uh, wasn't the point of nonlethal weaponry for one party to merely to stop another party from doing something undesireable? Maybe so, but in America we don't just try and stop people from doing anything—no, we make sure to teach 'em a lesson in pain while we're at it.

[Matthew @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I think this is great. It's about time our government shows that they are willing to use non-lethal weapons. It seems like everybody gets pissed when the US develops the Bunker-Buster bomb and then they ALSO bitch when they try to develop non-lethal weapons. Yes, this puts someone through excruciating pain.. but would you rather it just kill them?! What do you expect non-lethal weapons do, ask nicely that the insurgents trying to kill you to please put down their guns and run away?! It also says that it doesn't leave any physical damage (although that's taken with a grain of salt)... I really don't understand the point of being so smarmy here with the summary. This is a move in the right direction! Away from lethal and towards non-lethal. Why does it seem like there are a large amount of people in the US who just like to bitch about the government?! Hoorah to the US for persuing this!

[gt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

yay, go uf! might want to spell gainsville as gainEsville. oh, looks like the article has it wrong too

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

How do I write my congressman about this?
This is a weapon of mass torcher. Besides the ethics of creating technology (and testing) for the sole purpose of putting people in pain, I don't see how putting your enemy in pain but keeping them unhindered will stop any retaliation. If you are stung by a wasp do you not seeth against it? Don't you wish retaliation, or want to kill?

[Loudog @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Matt, you're absolutely right!

Let's just do what we do now and shoot them.

Sheesh.

[crsh @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

hell, this is barely non-lethal, i really don't see the difference between this and mass use of nerve gas, which can technically be just as non-lethal.

[striegs @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Personally, I'd rather endure a moment's pain than experience the wrath of a Skunk Gun with an odor "so pungent that the stink stays on your clothes for 5 years." Skin is free. Clothes are expensive.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1523175763239407/

Besides, the whole "plasma gun" thing worked like a charm in Halo. And, as a fail-safe, if the officers try to use it too much, it'll just overheat.

[iwantbatteries @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

My computer sicence instructor (I go to the Air Force Academy) worked on the microwave tranmission non-lethal weponry that will be going into service fairly soon. The main puropose of this is protecting people.

For example, an unknown person is approaching a checkpoint in Iraq, and they refuse to show and ID, or comply with soldier's requests, they are acting suspicious, and could very well be a suicide bomber. The Lt. in charge may be hesitant to shoot them, because ending a life without good cause is never a good idea, but we would be more willing to empoly something like this wich would debilitate the potential threat without causing permenant damage.

True that psycologically it is a sketchy topic, but on an international scale, this will build more support than killing them outright

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I was also a bit perplexed by the description of the weapon. If the unit is going to be effective it has to pack an strong (read very painful) punch.

Well said OP!

[Adam @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Matt you are missing the point. Is it better to stop an enemy using a method without any physical consequences or to use a bullet/bomb/blade/whatever?

I'm not saying that the opportunity for abuse isn't huge. Even so, that may be a better alternative to the abuse of firearms, explosives, and knives.

[Adam @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

The whole point of a non-lethal weapon is to teach a lesson in pain. It is ridiculous to think that a non-lethal weapon would be even the least bit effective without causing pain. The major thing you seem to be missing here is the huge difference between this kind of non-lethal weapon and the other ones already developed: This one does no permanent damage. All other types of non-lethal weapons cause actual physical harm like bruising and whatnot. This type only stimulates pain receptors long enough to incapacitate a perp until they can be restrained. As soon as the weapon is turned off, the pain stops. There is no wound or bruise or anything like that. This would be the best kind of non-lethal weapon. It would accomplish the purposes of incapacitation without inflicting physical damage.

Oh, and by the way, Matt.... Go ahead and write your congressman. But make sure to figure out the difference between "torcher" and "torture" before you try writing an actual letter.

[Aaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Take the case of the Emerson college student who was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet and died after the Sox beat the Yankees. Non lethal weapons get shot into crowds and sometimes stuff like that happens. The way I see this weapon working is that it just tells the victim's brain that it's in pain when the rest of the body really isn't. It's kinda hard to attack someone when your brain feels like it's about to explode (though it really isn't).

[B @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

"Why does it seem like there are a large amount of people in the US who just like to bitch about the government?!"
-This country was founded on the prinicple of people bitching about the government.

[B @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

"Why does it seem like there are a large amount of people in the US who just like to bitch about the government?!"
-This country was founded on the prinicple of people bitching about the government.

[Cosine @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Hey Aaron, you really think there is some difference between pain in your head and your so-called "real pain"??? Wow... So if I turn the gun on you make sure you don't complain, after all it's not "real" pain.

And Matt, love the "insurgents" comment, did you even know the word 6 motnhs ago? Strange that Americans now call people fighting to push invaders (that would be you) out of their county insurengents.

[Cosine @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

sorry - country

Ryan had it totally correct in his original post, this is freaky inhumane behavior.

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

"Take the case of the Emerson college student who was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet and died after the Sox beat the Yankees."

Good point.

One of the first rules many people are taught when learning hand to hand combat, martial arts, or self defense is "You do not pull out a weapon, unless you are ready to kill someone.".

"Non-Lethal Weapon"

I find this concept somewhat questionable. Much as I do "Defensive weapon". So long as "Weapon" is in the equation the potential for death is there, it's that simple.

ANY weapon can be lethal. Heck if ye-olde-sword-wielding foot soldier of yore chose to bash someone over the head with his SHIELD he could kill them just as dead as with his sword, and a shield is generally not even considered a weapon (though I know some were spiked for that very reason, which kind of proves the point).

When you add qualifiers like 'non-lethal' and 'defensive' I think you are more refering to the intent of the user of the weapon, and not to any intrinsic quality of the weapon itself (bringing us back to the potential for abuse).

If you shoot a bullet through someones hand, they will *probably* not die. And if you apply an enegery field that produces excruciating+incapacitating pain in an individual and leave it on for say 6 , 7 hours (maybe even less) I think they will probably expire from shock or a heart attack somewhere along the line (I'm not a doctor so that is really just conjecture).

The difference between the two acts is intent (or clumsiness - can't shoot straight / didn't RTFM on the pain gun/machine).

That being said, if the development of "Non lethal weapons" is a sign that the US gov does want to be a little kinder and gentler, and these NLW aren't simply a test bed for future larger lethal versions, then I'd say the MENTALITY behind that move is a step in the right direction. Not attacking people might help as well...


Me steps off of soap box...


On a slightly unrelated note:

"It's kinda hard to attack someone when your brain feels like it's about to explode (though it really isn't)."

Isn't their some genetic disease/disorder that causes some people to be incapable of feeling any pain ? Can any of the more learned individuals reading in here gives us a clue how a weapon of this type would affect someone like that ?

[Matthew @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

#13... there are people who are unable to feel pain because of genetic defects... there are far less then 1000 known cases around the world. So I don't think it's an issue.

#11. go look up the defintion you prat... and yes, I knew what the word was before 6 months ago and I know what many words mean right now. however, for the sake of decency I'll refrain from calling you any of them. I assume by your comment you are referring to the insurgents in iraq.. I never made such a comment and was using the general term. I'm guessing you are the same kind of person who is told to RTF all the time. As for what Aaron was saying, there is a difference. Real pain is caused by the damage to nerves all around your body. Those nerves send a signal to the brain telling it that it's "in pain" and should do something to stop it. Whether it be a broken bone, a cut, or a bullet to your incredibly ignorant head. "Fake pain", "pain in your head", is when you fake this signal.

[pete @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Matthew
Millions of migraine sufferers would strongly disagree with your definition of pain.
There need not be damage to the body to feel pain.
Pain is pain, regardless of whether it's triggered by tissue damage or a "pain ray"...

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

#14...I know it's incredibly rare. I didn't mean to imply the induced pain strategy was useless because of legions of pain proof thugs.

I was just curious how it would affect someone like that.

As I said - Slightly unrelated...

[Matthew @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

#15.. I also suffer from headaches, just about everyday for the last 6 years. Headaches are still nerves being damaged or otherwise hurt in your head. no different then getting punched in the arm.

[ChronoZaga @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I think this sounds like a good idea. Sure, pain isn't needed, but it would add some pressure in opposing the forces using the "pain guns". There wouldn't be much reason NOT to go to war if the worst that would happen would be knocked out soldiers and trade embargoes, and the best was the destruction of a "capitalist empire."

[shar @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

think about all the endless possibility of using this for torture and abuse without leaving any traces or evidences on victim.. you ever wonder why they push for this research?

don't even think that 'They' are above using this in that manner too.

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

"don't even think that 'They' are above using this in that manner too."

It makes "a pair of pliers and a blowtorch" seem downright crude...

[Jeremy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

"And Matt, love the "insurgents" comment, did you even know the word 6 motnhs ago? Strange that Americans now call people fighting to push invaders (that would be you) out of their county insurengents."

The United States, as most American would agree with, is trying to liberate the Iraqi people. Do you really think the insurgents (aka terrorists) have a right in their country to terrorize people. A majority of Iraqis would agree that it was better now than when Saddam was in power.

[Wigwam Jones @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I was wandering around in the woods the other day, and it reminded me of that time I tried to taser myself. Yeah, I just wanted to see what it would be like. Well, let me tell you, it hurts like the dickens! Then I tried to taser a tree, but it didn't do anything. So I tasered my buddy, and he fell over and started cursing me. I tasered my dog because he was barking at both of us like some kinda crazy mutt. Then I fell on my taser and tasered myself again, but accidentally this time. And the switch stayed on, so I was tasered for like 5 minutes until the battery ran out. I was twitching like crazy, and I guess I peed myself too.

But even though I lost some brain cells and short-term memory (I feel just like a politician now), I think this would be better than having like, a chainsaw and cutting my friends and dogs up 'cause I didn't have a taser. So the taser would be better, especially for them.

But when you think about it, the chain saw is more economical in the long run. You only have to chain saw someone ONCE and they don't give you anymore crap. Or say things about your sister and that guy that hangs around sometimes. Man, I hate that.

[Wigwam Jones @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I was wandering around in the woods the other day, and it reminded me of that time I tried to taser myself. Yeah, I just wanted to see what it would be like. Well, let me tell you, it hurts like the dickens! Then I tried to taser a tree, but it didn't do anything. So I tasered my buddy, and he fell over and started cursing me. I tasered my dog because he was barking at both of us like some kinda crazy mutt. Then I fell on my taser and tasered myself again, but accidentally this time. And the switch stayed on, so I was tasered for like 5 minutes until the battery ran out. I was twitching like crazy, and I guess I peed myself too.

But even though I lost some brain cells and short-term memory (I feel just like a politician now), I think this would be better than having like, a chainsaw and cutting my friends and dogs up 'cause I didn't have a taser. So the taser would be better, especially for them.

But when you think about it, the chain saw is more economical in the long run. You only have to chain saw someone ONCE and they don't give you anymore crap. Or say things about your sister and that guy that hangs around sometimes. Man, I hate that.

[Wigwam Jones @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I was wandering around in the woods the other day, and it reminded me of that time I tried to taser myself. Yeah, I just wanted to see what it would be like. Well, let me tell you, it hurts like the dickens! Then I tried to taser a tree, but it didn't do anything. So I tasered my buddy, and he fell over and started cursing me. I tasered my dog because he was barking at both of us like some kinda crazy mutt. Then I fell on my taser and tasered myself again, but accidentally this time. And the switch stayed on, so I was tasered for like 5 minutes until the battery ran out. I was twitching like crazy, and I guess I peed myself too.

But even though I lost some brain cells and short-term memory (I feel just like a politician now), I think this would be better than having like, a chainsaw and cutting my friends and dogs up 'cause I didn't have a taser. So the taser would be better, especially for them.

But when you think about it, the chain saw is more economical in the long run. You only have to chain saw someone ONCE and they don't give you anymore crap. Or say things about your sister and that guy that hangs around sometimes. Man, I hate that.

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Yet another interesting wrinkle in the debate, this time from Mr. (or Ms.) WigWam Jones of #24-#26.

First thanks for sharing the delightful story.

"I think this would be better than having like, a chainsaw and cutting my friends and dogs up 'cause I didn't have a taser."

I take this to mean that owing to Jones' UNDERSTANDING of the permanent nature of a chainsaw based solution -

"You only have to chain saw someone ONCE and they don't give you anymore crap. "

- Jones would be reticent to employ it in certain situations

"...say things about your sister and that guy that hangs around sometimes. Man, I hate that."


But aparently Jones gleefully used (or perhaps abused) the 'safer' taser on

- Himself
- His friend
- His pet
- Inanimate object(s)

and did not aparently store it with much care.

"Then I fell on my taser and tasered myself again..."

Why ? Sounds like he had a reason. Curiousity. And in the pursuit of that curiosity, he was willing to suffer the consequenses of

- Hurting Himself
- Hurting his friend
- Angering his friend
- Hurting his pet
- Angering his pet
- Potentially damaging an inanimate object
- Killing the battery in the Taser (though I
think it was probably a StunGun)
- Damaging the Taser

Basically all these things were aparently acceptable to Jones', ostensibly because they were neither permanent nor lethal, whereas a chainsaw would probably be a little more of both.

And so an orgy of tasering ensued.

What this indicates (to me anyway) is that if the results of any particular action are deemed sufficiently inconsequential, anything goes.

How many injurys from bb guns do we hear about year after year where the parties involved were careless WITH A GUN because they "...didn't think anything would happen. It was just a bb gun..." ?

So, while I agree killing people is not always the solution to interpersonal problems and that greater governmental recognition of this fact is probably a good thing, I think this type of weapon is danger in that its ubiquity may exceed it's 'humnitarian' intents.

- They wanna kill us ? Zap'em, at least their not dead...

- They wanna hurt us ? Zap'em, at least their not dead...

- They wanna steal from us ? Zap'em, at least their not dead...

- They wanna disagree with us ? Zap'em, at least their not dead...

- I wonder if their telling the truth ? Zap'em, at least their not dead...

etc...

All I'm saying (in the most drawn out way possible) this thing makes it really easy to trivialize inflicting pain on someone, just because it's "Fake" and temporary.

All that being said, I hope I've not offended
Mr. Jones by using his post as an example, because I'm not vilifying him, I think all of this is the basic nature of imperfect people. In fact, I gotta say....

While I think this rampant tasing episode is slightly aberrant behaviour (not that I haven't engaged in similar shenanigans of youthful tom-foolery) I gotta give him credit for tasing himself before tasing his friend and dog. I wonder if those funding this research and the people who will eventually order these things to be used would be willing to take a shot from it so they can know just what it is they are doing to other people.

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Judging by the picture, perhaps this weapon will just make your hair fall out and make you feel insecure.

With regards to those sh!tbag terrorists I say screw the non-lethal; kill em all and let God sort em out!

[jm @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

no pain, no pain. that's how i say it.

[Chrisitan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

I think OddManOut's comment is the most insightful. As a refuge from a politically unstable country, it has been made clear to me that a controlling power will do anything in it's power to maintain power so long as public support is not jeopardized. To that end, a pain gun can (and in all likelyhood, will be used callously. Non-lethality will be the shield behind which public outrage is skirted.

[Joseph @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Cool article on the subject:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/03/us_plasma_weapon/

[Lebeu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

The non-lethalness only brings down the line when to use it. Like with Stunguns; not awhile ago police zapped 7-year-old(about) kid cause he/she raged or something in class and could not be restrained. It's still pain and it's still a weapon, Not gonna give "ethically-ok" stamp to this one.

And affecting the brain like this can still result long term effects - physically, atleast if you get several "shots"...

[Lebeu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

...ment to say: mentally.

However, who knows how it can also do to the organization of nerve cells....

[Cosine @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Hey Jeremy... I guess you're watching American news... turn off the CNN, turn on your brain, they are NOT HAPPY THAT YOU ARE THERE!

[Manical @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Okay, I'm just throwing in my two cents here. So, I hope I don't happen to offend anyone. I'm not sure if anything I put out here is common knowledge but I'm putting it down on the table since I haven't really seen anything about it in all the posts.

First, those who use these 'non-lethal' items for their job(police and military) know the outcome of their use. My father(state trooper) has been tazered, shot, and just about everything out there. I(former military) have experienced first hand some of these non-lethal things too. When you are put in a room with 80 other guys/ladies and made to stand in tear gas commonly used for large scale riots, all the while waiting for your turn to sigh your name and where you are from, you can tell me that this sort of stuff doesn't make you want to stop whatever you are doing. I highly believe in the non-lethal approach with weaponry. Sure it may still have the chance of being lethal if used incorrectly. Though, I doubt it would be intentional. The only people I know that are civilians that own non-lethal items only have them for 'self-defense'. So, common sense would lead one to believe that if a mugger was on you at point blank and you had your weapon, you wouldn't bother with aiming really. Accidents happen. As for those who use it for a torturing instrument, well I just think they are sick and twisted individuals.
Another thing I'd like to add, if you were faced with a decision that one day down the road you were to be either hit by... lets say a gernade or a flashbang. Which would you perfer? The one that causes momentary pain/disorentation or the one that causes permanent pain, disfigurement, and a most definite possibility of death? Here's a hint: If you like to keep breathing and live alot longer, choose the one that DOESN'T kill you.

Then again, there are those of you out there that may be just causing me to bang my head off a wall because you think up these odd scenarios where someone runs up to you, pulls the pin on the flashbang and proceeds to shove it down your throat with incredible ease. Thus causing it to go off inside you and kill you. And for those you who think I may just be ranting about how a flashbang doesn't have the possibility of killing a person, I have been within a foot of a flashbang when it went off. It does mess you up but doesn't seem to have the chance of hurting you any further than your senses(unless you decided to sit on it).

[Doc Martian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

'screamin' howard dean uses a baseball bat as a symbol of collectivism....
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/mybat

given the 2004 window smashing, tire slashing, voter bashing activities of the democrats..... it's very appropriate. are the democrats an unruly mob? looks like it. that's ok... we have THE PAIN GUN.

[Kewleo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:04AM]

Alright if this taser/stun-gun is suspose to be non-lethal why has it killed or been listed as a contirbuting factor of more than 3 dozen deaths in this country. The british baned this weapon beacuse they found that it is not as non-lethal as it is claimed to be. if the manufacture took time to really study this (gun) they would relize that this (gun) is really lethal and stop saying that it non-lethal and say it's lethal and they no this beacuse the corners said and submitted that it was the cause of many deaths on autopseys that i've looked at my self.