Showing posts with label Non-Lethal Weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Non-Lethal Weapons. Show all posts

Tag & Bag

3
  • Thursday, April 21, 2011
  • Archimedes
  • Labels: , , , ,
  • After coming up with several lethal and mass effect weapons (I have only posted descriptions of some) over the last few years, I have seen a rather futile folly in designing instruments for simple senseless killing. But as long as there is man, there will be a need for weapons, which is why I am lately turning my interests to non-lethal weapons.
    We already have several different brands of less than lethal rifles which can handle large caliber subsonic ammunition used for crowd control (simply put, rubber bullets in a 12-gauge shotgun). The trouble with these weapons is that at close range, a subsonic rubber bullet will seriously injure/kill someone, but at long enough range its barely enough to bruise.
    I simply propose a new type of ammunition, one which simply consists of a tightly packed powder comparable to chalk, except it would be engineered as a skin irritant. Once the bullet impacts, the bullet explodes in a puff if irritating chemicals transferring kinetic energy fit to bruise a little and spreading a little puff of "pacifying" chemicals.
    Sadly, this type of ammunition could easily have the irritant replaced with a fuel-air explosive, a small taser under-slung below the rifle, and this would turn into an anti-infantry weapon much more lethal than conventional rifles.

    The Pacifier

    0
  • Tuesday, March 22, 2011
  • Archimedes
  • Labels: , , ,
  • We already have devices, hear beat sensors, that can triangulate the approximate location of a human being by monitoring the weak but distinct EM field of the human heart. This is used mainly by rescue workers trying to locate a live human inside a field of debris, and it is not exactly science fiction. But whats different from the real thing and the one on call of duty modern warfare is that the real thing cannot pinpoint the 2D location of a human on a grid, unless you have at least three sensors set up over an area and all three are linked to a computer, because the real thing will only tell you in which direction and a very approximate distance the signal is.
    But if we know so much about the EM field generated by the heart, why cant we remotely affect this field? Offensively, we can remotely create a field that will give everyone within it a massive heart attack, not always lethal, and medically, it can remotely jump start a persons heart. Also, used in surgery rooms, an artificial field stronger than the signals received by the heart will make sure the patient on the table does not go into cardiac arrest as long as the heart is intact.
     
    Copyright 2010 ArchimedesRealm