Fwd:Re: Non-lethal weapons acting via external manipulation of the Central
eric at shark5.demon.co.uk
Sun Dec 27 08:25:43 EST 1998
In article <75qnm4$aqq$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com>, patanie at my-
>In article <3676F04C.278C5925 at pop3.concentric.net>,
> kkollins at concentric.net wrote:
>> Allen L. Barker wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > "Non-lethal" weapons in the hands of barbarians are torture implements.
>> > [...]
>> I Agree... it's "just" that they're a bit better than Murder. ken
>This is the reason why developping non-lethal weapons,such as suggested,would
>be a little advance away from present-day barbarism.
In exactly what way would it be "better"? If anything, it prolongs the
Like I've said before, the military wouldn't use them for what you appear
to think they 'should' be used for. Any competent military commander
would use them to simply flush out the enemy to make it EASIER for
them to kill them outright. I mean, just imagine it WAS possible to
neutralise all the enemy soldiers. Can you even contemplate the HUGE
cost - both financial and in terms of man-power, that it would take to keep
them all as POWs?!
Sorry - the real world doesn't work like that.
>Of course NO weapons at all would be a real sign that mankind has made some
No CONFLICTS would be a sign of advancing. No weapons would be a
sign of stupidity! :)
"Be wary of any book with no references and no index."
"Friedman's law is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
- Both by Stanton Friedman.
More information about the Neur-sci