Navy seeks to develop (another) incapacitating stun weapon

A "non-destructive" weapon that incapacitates the enemy by beaming radio frequency energy is currently being developed by the Navy and systems engineering developer Invocon. The technology is called Electromagnetic Personnel Interdiction Control, or EPIC (too good), and it basically throws a wrench into a human's normal process of hearing and equilibrium, leaving them in a dizzy state of helplessness. Pretty epic, right? Results have been clinically proven to cause complete disorientation and confusion, with a side of extreme motion sickness. The Navy hopes for the weapon to effectively penetrate walls without causing any permanent damage, which would make for an invaluable tool in warfare for reducing casualties on both sides. In essence, if this weapon ever comes to fruition, we'd be trading blood for vomit -- not too shabby, but all we want know is how many non-lethal ray-guns is the US Military going to need before it's good and happy?

[Via Wired]

[Person157 @ Mar 7th 2007 3:51AM]

Well another one can't hurt... too much.

[Snesgirl @ Mar 7th 2007 4:28AM]

Surely anything that makes combatt less lethal is a good thing?

[andy o @ Mar 7th 2007 5:03AM]

I think you might have meant "vomit for oil"

[Ephraim @ Mar 7th 2007 8:28AM]

No offense, but that really doesn't make any sense. Even if Bush did go into the war in Iraq for Oil, what you just said is totally out of context. People either get shot and lose blood, or get EPIC'd and vomit. I don't think we're fighting Oil fueled robots yet.

[James @ Mar 7th 2007 5:55AM]

the next version of F.E.A.R or other FPS's will swap their blood-splattered and bullet-riddled walls for a more vomit-comit appearance and texture with the prevoius occupants rolling on the floor =)

*shoot stun weapon through wall*
"congratulations you just completed level one!"
"...you mean that was it?"

[Andy @ Mar 7th 2007 1:07PM]

haha "trading blood for vomit" doesn't make more sense. We're not either giving blood nor taking vomit in the process or vice versa. That's not trading.

isn't the phrase "blood for oil"? switch blood for vomit and there you go. We give them their own vomit and then while they're busy vomiting we take their oil. No one gives blood, it needn't even be mentioned.

I'm the same guy you replied to by the way, just in case the name appears different. This damn thing can't change the name registered with the e-mail, but can if you don't use the password.

[Deadturtle @ Mar 7th 2007 8:14AM]

Heh, sounds like someone at the DOD watched too much Minority Report over the weekend. 'Sick Sticks' anyone?

[Dave @ Mar 7th 2007 8:52AM]

Here is the reality of the situation in Iraq:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/torture/

I'm certain that this weapon will change everything, though. In the benevolent hands of our military, new pain-inducing weapons can ONLY be a good thing, right?

[Chris @ Mar 7th 2007 9:20AM]

When are we going to realize that you win wars by killing the enemy, not making them vomit. The first time the military turns this on a an angry crowd, every nancy in town is going to cry fowl.

The military can't win wars because our weak society won't let it do what it needs to do.

[John B @ Mar 7th 2007 10:18AM]

Jeez. You make it sound like the other guys will actually get back up on their feet after vomiting and come after our military again, vomit, attack, vomit, attack, over and over again.

Surely, all that the enemy would do is say, "Oh, that was nasty. Nope, I'm not going to attack these guys again. I won't attack from a longer distance with a more powerful weapon either. Nuh uh. I'm so grateful that they didn't shoot me dead like I was trying to do to them that I won't try to kill them later." Er ... that is what the enemy would say, right?

[Shmoe @ Mar 7th 2007 10:27AM]

Screw the non-lethal ray guns, give me a deadly phaser.

[JON BLAST @ Mar 7th 2007 11:18AM]

I think the navy was pointing that ray gun at me my freshmen-junior years of college. Good god

[aeo @ Mar 7th 2007 11:23AM]

Sooooo... I can still use the minigun though right? I mean, WHILE they're laying on the ground vomiting, I can still shoot them right?

[Donny Rummy @ Mar 7th 2007 11:49AM]

Jeannie Choe Says: "...which would make for an invaluable tool in warfare for reducing casualties on both sides."

So now, when the enemy is incapicated, it would be easier to go into their home, rape young females, kill 6 year olds, and execute mom and dad while at it. An example is here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/22/soldier.rape.ap/index.html

[theninthcloud @ Mar 7th 2007 11:50AM]

It's like minority report...soon we'll find some pre-cogs and we'll all be arrested for murders we haven't committed yet!

[DonYorke @ Mar 7th 2007 12:47PM]

With this trend of fighting wars with non-leathal weapons, in 5 yrs the army is going to be fighting with teddy bear shields and sponge bats. I'll take a Desert Eagle plzz

[macona @ Mar 7th 2007 12:59PM]

Blood is easier to clean up. And the smell dose not linger...

[CJ @ Mar 7th 2007 4:48PM]

First of all, "trading blood for vomit" makes perfect sense. Instead of the enemy shedding blood, they shed vomit, one of which is far less likely to cause death, thus its billing as a non-lethal weapon.

Second of all, the notion that we're somehow stealing Iraq's oil is absolutely ludicrous. It would have been FAR cheaper to drill in ANWR with no one knowing and then pay one-tenth of what we paid for the war in fines to the EPA if that was the case. I mean really. If we're stealing oil, where's it going? It certainly isn't going into American refineries, because my cost at the pump is still determined by OPEC's daily price shifts. When I see fuel costs no longer tied to OPEC, I'll start to believe that we must be getting more cheap fuel from somewhere else other than OPEC. Also, how are we removing this alledged stolen oil from Iraq? Military oil tankers? Some super-secret underground pipeline from Baghdad to Alabama? Please. If you're going to come up with a conspiracy theory, at least base it in some sort of potentially viable fact.

[Andy @ Mar 10th 2007 5:21AM]

"trading" is not the right word. Maybe switching. Nobody is trading anything.

And I didn't say we're stealing oil from Iraq. You seem to subconsciously misread in order to enlighten us with your acronym knowledge.

[Argelius @ Mar 7th 2007 4:12PM]

Would like to turn the vomit gun on Bush...