BaphometsAdvocate
Jul 27 2007, 12:51 PM
QUOTE
The Department of Homeland Security is funding the creation an
LED flashlight that uses powerful flashes of light to temporarily blind, disorient and incapacitate people. Homeland Security's Science and Technology arm hopes government agents can use the "light saber" to arrest people on planes and at the borders without using traditional weapons.
QUOTE
The company's president Bob Lieberman says the tool would be perfect for confronting border jumpers.
"You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody," Lieberman was quoted as saying by a DHS newsletter. "With this, they don't need to know English to comply."
The tool could be scaled up to make a light bazooka that could subdue a crowd, but the company is focusing on miniaturizing the device to make it resemble a traditional D-cell Maglite. Right now the prototype is a non-svelte 15 inches by 4 inches wide.
QUOTE
"There's one wavelength that gets everybody," Lieberman said, according to the newsletter. "Vlad calls it the evil color."
Questions For Debate:Do you think a weapon like this is preferable to more conventional weapons?Do you think a weapon like this used by governments is in violation of any human rights laws or accords?If you feel this weapon is a bad idea, with the understanding that anything can be used excessively or improperly, can you elaborate?
Victoria Silverwolf
Jul 28 2007, 08:36 AM
Do you think a weapon like this is preferable to more conventional weapons?
If it works properly, sure. My basic philosophy concerning the use of force is that one should always use the absolute least amount of force required. (This is not always easy or even possible to determine, of course, but it stands in contrast to the philosophy that one should use overwhelming force.)
So, I certainly have no philosophical objections to non-lethal weapons in theory, when used properly in situations where force is absolute necessary. Some practical concerns might be cost and effectiveness. Most importantly, will this technology have any unexpected effects? Epileptic seizures? Death?
Do you think a weapon like this used by governments is in violation of any human rights laws or accords?
Not inherently, if used when necessary. One should worry about the improper use of any form of force. Certainly, when the inevitable mistakes and abuses happen, it is better (or, more properly, less bad) if victims are incapacitated rather than killed.
If you feel this weapon is a bad idea, with the understanding that anything can be used excessively or improperly, can you elaborate?
I don't think it's inherently a bad idea. I am somewhat concerned by its possible use on a large group of people. It seems likely that it would be less effective (don't you have to aim the beam of light?) and that it might act on innocent bystanders. It's too early to tell, but it might or might not be a safe and effective method of riot control, when such is necessary.