I am not making this up. The US military is developing phasers.
Be sure to read the first comment in the thread.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
Got a tip?
Email John at zeraygazette at yahoo dot com
Geekery/Pop Culture
NeatoramaTopless Robot
Great White Snark
Popped Culture
Matthew Caverhill
Johnny Cat
Blogging Buddies
Jeff the BaptistIronic Catholic
Dan Trabue
John Meunier
Divers and Sundry
Bob's Brainstorms
Jockey Street
Operation Oxmyx
Humor Links
The OnionCracked
Questionable Content
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
xkcd
Abstruse Goose
Miscellaneous
PostSecretInstapundit
Ace of Spades HQ
Hell in a Handbasket
Brian J. Noggle
10 comments:
To bad they can't make a Tholian Web to secure our borders.
I'd prefer that they develop those green Orion chicks.
it looks like the weapon from eraser. crap, i can't believe i know that
Actually the Phaser is a lot of weapons designers ideal weapon. This is mostly because it has both lethal and nonlethal settings. You can turn your enemy into a puff of ozone or knock him out instantly without permanent injury.
But if a weapon is non-lethal, in inspires people to attack because there are no consequences for violence -- you don't die.
A phaser set on stun has no deterrence value.
By your logic John a prison term would also serve limited or no deterrence value.
In terms of crowd control a weapon which is non-lethal is mandatory (which is why the water cannon is used instead of grapeshot). ANd if you want to get information from someone a non-lethal setting allows you to shoot first and ask questions later. (there was a great FAR SIDE cartoon about the problems doing that with bullets)
Okay, Gord, let's play this out: Let's say that you're a terrorist -- excuse me, freedom fighter -- in Iraq, and you see a squad of American soldiers on the street corner. Would you be more likely to attack them if they had:
A. weapons that would not kill you when used
B. weapons that would kill you when used?
JOhn,
In your example, I am not sure it would make much difference. If I was committed enough to the battle I would attack whether or not I thought I would die. And in such a case there may well be some who would prefer death to capture.
OTOH, if I were the soldiers I may well prefer to incapacitate and capture rather than kill outright. BUt, in the end, the problem is that not all weapons are suited for all contexts. non-lethal is best for many (some would say most) but lethal is a neccessary evil in others.
A wormhole. Definitely a wormhole. Or "Beam me up" technology. With a fiancee living in CA and me in NC, those would be GOLDEN!
This cannot be real. It just cannot.
Blogger word verification was "Museum." Strange.
Post a Comment