Hi guys,
I've been working on Non Violent weapons for peacekeeping ops, and I'm
wondering if anyone has any experience in the real world with rubber or wax
bullets. My supposition is that they have a significantly lower effective
range (but what range is appropriate? ideas?) and that they can kill, even
though as a rule they do less serious injuries. Any idea if these rounds use
the same powder loads as normal rounds?
The ruling I'm suggesting for this type of round is the use of a special NV
wpn damage table which gives them a higher chance of wounding and lower chance
of killing. I suggest a reduced impact die shift (two levels for wax, one for
rubber) based on my assumption of a full powder load and the assumption that
even a rubber bullet hitting an armoured Marine in the eyeball would be bad
news. I also suggest a maximum range such as 1 band for wax and two bands for
rubber. Thoughts anyone?
I'll list here briefly the weapons/technologies I've considered and
ask anyone to supplement my idea pool
wax/rubber bullets, beanbags (GL and shotgun), net grenades, stun
grenades, CS/CN grenades, sonics, neural disrupters, tasers, stun
guns (a la 9 Volt model currently available), Shock gloves, Riot
armour and shields (w truncheons), slippy/sticky foam, firehose, dart
guns, tranq needlers, solidifying foam, and some defences against some of the
above.
Anybody think of any other technologies I should have?
I'm also summating our previous threads on barricades, mines, various types of
wire, etc. into a big piece for SG2 (which a DS2er on the list can then help
me with some conversions on) on channelizing technologies and combat
engineering. (Project #2).
Both of these I will post on my own site, and to Jeremy Sadler's SG2
page (what a great page! - shameless plug) when they are ready.
(So Owen, have you finished the Cavalry rules yet? or Vehicle Close Assault?
*grin*)
So, any input welcome.
Tom.
*Some Snippage*
> I'll list here briefly the weapons/technologies I've considered and
From an article in, I think, Newsweek last year I can remember two different
Nonlethal weapon systems, both currently in development. The one projects
Microwaves at the target, causing EXTREME nausea and disorientation.
Naturally, this has the potential to be fatal. It was mentioned that this
microwave projector could be used to create
barricades--the closer you get, the worse you feel. The other, which I
cannot remember the name of, projects a sort of doughnut shaped shock wave
which created an effect like being hit with a very large, padded
hammer--the impact was enough to knock a target down, but not enough to
do any real damage. From what I recall, the inventor had tested it on himself
a few times to ensure that it was non lethal.
> On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I've been working on Non Violent weapons for peacekeeping ops, and
Well, for starters, "non-lethal" is just the PR name. In actuality, they
are "less lethal". E.g. usually the doctrine for using rubber bullets in
rifle-caliber weapons calls for shooting at the *ground* and having the
richochets hit the rioters' *legs*. Aimed directly at torso or head, they are
quite potentially lethal.
I have some rubber shells for 12g shotgun -- upon trying these out, they
went straight through a 1" pine plank (at 5 yards, but still).
I know wax is used in blanks and for indoor plinking, but I've never heard of
it in riot ammo.
Auto-loading weapons would need a fairly hefty charge to work in
autoloaders -- the blank adapter isn't there just to stop the caps, it
also increases pressures to working levels.
> The ruling I'm suggesting for this type of round is the use of a
Sounds pretty realistic. The range sucks, but within effective range they are
potentially lethal.
> wax/rubber bullets, beanbags (GL and shotgun), net grenades, stun
The problem with any gas, neural disrupter etc. is that in a riot situation
you're targeting a very large group of people. Even if only 1% of population
is violently allergic to stumm gas, there are bound to be a
couple in any rioting mob -- and you want to avoid *any* casualties.
Civilians suffocating in their own vomit is bad press.
The problems are heightened by active mobs trampling the incapacitated
guys -- for an ideal riot control weapon, you'd want something that
hurts but doesn't damage (sting a little and let 'em limp home on their own
feet).
> I'll list here briefly the weapons/technologies I've considered and
Real "Black Helecopters" stuff but...
I've heard rummors that someone developed an electro-magnetic field that
places people in an epileptic like trance (not fit) or puts them to sleep. The
process is supposedly very short range (50'), requires that you surround the
target with transmitters and requires large amounts of power. Thus, it would
problably not be portable and would be used only around areas of expected
trouble.
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:11:15 -0500, Thomas Barclay
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> I've been working on Non Violent weapons for peacekeeping ops, and
I first came across "non-lethal" weapons about 5 years ago. Someone
who was in an apa with me was working with Janet Morris and others on
introducing non-lethal weapons. Unfortunately, the Morris' were
essentially discredited in the coming years. In essence, the Pentagon has been
working on such weapons on their own and they didn't want
civilians (especially flakey SF types) butting in. The Pentagon--in
this case--was more than a little bit justified...
At any rate, they are working on "non-lethal" weapons, both truly
non-lethal weapons and reduced lethality weapons. There are laser
systems being developed to blind soldiers (you can't see, but you will
live...). There are microwave weapons to cause nausea (and possible brain
damage). They were also working on noxious gasses that don't kill but severly
impair.
There have been all sorts of different weapon systems in various stages of
development. One of the more intriguing was a an aerosol that would be brought
into an engine through it's air intake, mix with gasoline, and cause the
gasoline or diesel to congeal. It would be essentially harmless to people but
would disable a force's weapons. I don't know whatever happened to that.
My favourite weapon was the "snot gun." It was a projectile weapon that fired
a stream of, well, brownish gunk. It could completely bind a man and hold him
in place, helpless. It fired much like a flamethrower. It would probably be
useless in a military setting, but
police forces are always interested in non-lethal weaponry and that
was the main target. There were a number of problems with the system, though
having the miscreant's friends fall over laughing was probably a bonus side
effect.
This is an excellent area for SF extrapolation. How about a "snot bomb?" It
detonates over troops and drops an expanding foam guck on top of them. And
that's just a "top of the head" idea.
> hitting an armoured Marine in the eyeball would be bad news. I also
I would think that for future purposes, non lethal weapons would take the form
of energy typre weapons.
> The problem with any gas, neural disrupter etc. is that in a riot
Actually it depends upon teh situations. After six months in Haiti I became
quite an expert in the use of pepper spray and went through cans of it.
Usually when you disperse a crowd, or need to break up a crowd, you are
dealing with specific individuals that need to be put down. When you are
really trying to break up a riot before it happens, you go in and grab a few
select individuals that are inciting the mob. In these cases you need a narrow
ccurate shot intothe face of someone at like ten meters or less. Incidently
the Haitains called pepper spray vodoo in a can.
As far as civilian casualties to allergies. Well once you have decided to use
force (nonlethal weapons are still force), then you are taking a decision taht
could lead to injuries or eath as any situation can escalate. If you don't
wanttaht to happen you have to back off, or just sit tehre and take it.
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:40:28 +0200 (EET) Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> writes:
My uncle was stationed in Berlin at the time the Wall went up and was telling
me about the riot control procedures they had in place. One of these were at
least 4 helicopters that were equips with tear gas (CS gas?) generators. Their
job was to fly over a mob, communist marchers or the like, turn on the
generators and have the down wash flood the street or square with gas. This
would take only a few moments for any street or square would be filled with
gas. This was unlike all the TV riots where you see the rioters throwing the
little tear gas cans back at the police.
Besides he told me the object was in that scenario to break a large mob into
several smaller mobs ( most people will flee the square filled with gas into
the nearest side street and if you gas the middle the edges disperse into the
nearest side street.) You keep doing this until the groups are small enough to
handle with regular police methods.
If you are collecting non-violent weapons, I think you might want to add
this one to it.
> Anybody think of any other technologies I should have?
There was a UK documentary on this last year. Of the weapons included not on
your list
Pepper gas
Its being used a lot these days for real.
> My favourite weapon was the "snot gun." It was a projectile weapon
I wonder if this is the same one I heard about. In the story I heard, it
worked perfectly (just like SF) until they tried to get the test subject out
of the "snot." Seems that they didn't actually develop any kind of solvent for
the stuff so they had to chip it off. Took two days!
I'd hate to be that guy...
Tom
> *Some Snippage*
Don't forget that microwaves can also cause corneal damage leading to
blindness. Which brings up a point: old microwaves are actually quite
dangerous. My guess is that if your microwave is more than ~10 years old, you
should probably replace it.
> It was mentioned that this microwave projector could be used to create
Someone else mentioned pepper spray. The problem with that is that there some
(admittedly few) people who just aren't affected by the stuff. In the city I
live in (Victoria, B.C.) there was a case where a citizen was stopped by
police who proceeded to attempt a search (the cops said that he "looked
suspicious"?!?!). When he resisted the police sprayed him. He ended up beating
the snot out of both cops. The spray had no effect on him. He ended up
charging the police and won!
> John Crimmins
> At 22:40 3/8/98, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Well, for starters, "non-lethal" is just the PR name. In actuality,
To quote from a Neemis Enterprises ad (Phoenix Command Special Weapons
Supplement):
"Do people really care enough about student demonstrators to put a thin
plastic coating over a 13 gram steel core? People do."
> I have some rubber shells for 12g shotgun -- upon trying these out,
Furthermore, something that will bruise when it hits the body will *kill* when
it strikes the brain. That darn skull just isn't flexible enough...
Possible cyberpunk upgrade: The Brain Case. Surrounds the skull with a
relatively soft covering over a gel. Impacts in one place cause the outer
'skull' to simply bulge somewhere else, reducing shock damage. Looks weird as
all get out, but the average 'punk would find that a selling point.
> Civilians suffocating in their own vomit is bad press.
Ah, but if you already control the press.....
> The problems are heightened by active mobs trampling the incapacitated
I always thought that a modern electro-pneumatic paintgun, loaded with
soft rubber balls and chrono'd at 350 fps would hurt like hell, but (barring a
shot in the eye) do little permanent damage to the average adult. I'm
wondering why no one has proposed this as an anti-riot solution. Lord
knows there have been enough juvenile delinquents who have experimented with
the
idea....
Some time in the last six months, I read a SF short story about a war in
which the US and Soviets were fighting using non-lethal weapons, due to
various treaties. They used gasses, semi-toxic poison tranq guns, etc.
The
upshot of the story was, that in using non-lethal methodologies they
were, over time, causing more lasting trauma and psychological damage than a
straight-up shooting war.
Don't ask me where I read this; I've been burning through the anthologies
at the rate of about 2-3/month lately.
> This is an excellent area for SF extrapolation. How about a "snot
WH40K had the web gun, which fired a sticky weblike blob over an area, and the
tangler grenade. As I recall, the tangler actually affected the local gravity
field to cause the victims to fall down. Somewhere, I've heard mention of a
foam grenade that would encase a victim in a porous epoxy that would harden
around the victim. The encased could breathe, but had to be chipped out later.
The tangler grenade from Star Frontiers worked in a similar way to the web
gun, ejecting "hundreds of strong, sticky polymer threads." There was some
SF RPG that mentioned a tangler type gun that fired quasi-living tangler
threads...the more one struggled, the more they clamped down. Harmless, except
in cases where unethical security units fired a round down a victim's
throat....
This thread should really be non-lethal weapons. All the things
discussed so far are pretty violent.
Sarcasm mode on: Odd that games that model warefare (even
'low-intensity' police action) should tend to violence. Sarcasm mode
off.
Seriously, I think that unless you come up with some PSB answer like Tasps
(uses direct electronic stimulation to the pleasure center of the
brain) most weapons are going to be violent _and_ lethal. Even Tasp-ed
folks could concievably injure themselves in the throes of overwhelming
ecstasy not to mention that Tasps may be addictive (Larry Niven's wireheads).
So a 'harmless' riot weapon is difficult, if not impossible to find. I also
frankly, prefer the grim, gritty realistic version of
the future, with riot troops more than likely armed with 'non-lethal'
and 'humane' weapons entirely capable of making you piss blood for a
week, or stove in your skull. Maybe the NAC, FCT, FSE use more high-tech
'humane' electro stunners, grav plates ( maybe set to provide 3g's or so worth
of pull), sticky foam, &c. but I'm sure water cannons, billyclubs, bamboo
canes, saps and brass knucks are the order of the day
in 'low-tech' or poor areas along with rubber slugs, pancake rounds, and
the ever popular "shoot over their heads boys!" all of these methods can
result in injury or death to the targets. No one said life is easy, better
hope it was something worth rioting about.
At some point the decision to use 'violence' has to be made. Hopefully this
decision is in the public good.
Gene
> ----------
Well, I'll venture a guess at this. A non lethal weapon (forget about
non-violent
weapons, that term doesn't make any sense), needs to incapacitate soemeon
without causing death or permanent damage. Paintball sting a bit, sure. but
sufficient padding and Mr.Yahoo can still come up to you and smash your head
in with a stick. For me, having been in these situations OFTEN, I want a non
lethal weapon that will leave Mr.Perp, doing the dying cockroach after I apply
it. Then I can either: A. beat a hasty or orderly retreat. B. Walk up to the
guy and apprehend him at my leasure. C. Turn my back on him and Repeat
application of non lethal weapon.
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:32:15 -0600 jfoster@kansas.net (Jim 'Jiji' Foster)
writes:
> At 22:40 3/8/98, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
I believe I ran across references in several "US News & World Report" (a
weekly news magazine) think pieces when they were talking about new directions
for the military (Primarily the US military.) It keeps coming up when you talk
about the military, political, or industrial directions in the post cold war
world. If you are sensitive to the issue and look at sources that speak in
more than cliches, it keeps on cropping up. As matter of fact these are the
reasons why nobody actually implements the
idea!!!!!!!
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:32:15 -0600, jfoster@kansas.net (Jim 'Jiji'
> Foster) wrote:
> Some time in the last six months, I read a SF short story about a war
The
> upshot of the story was, that in using non-lethal methodologies they
Hey, I remember this one! It might have been in one of the later "There Will
Be War" anthologies of Pournelle's.
> At 22:09 3/10/98, Allan Goodall wrote:
The
> upshot of the story was, that in using non-lethal methodologies they
Bingo! and a big Net fuzzy to Alan. The story is 'Nonlethal' by D.C. Poyer,
written specifically for the anthology _Guns Of Darkness: There Will Be
War
Vol. VI_. An interesting passage:
"In its way, the weapon he carried was the Sneekle War in microcosm: an
expensive blend of humanitarianism, violence, and high technology that
resulted in something on the very border of sanity."
Basically, the troops used paintball guns firing hollow glass ampules
loaded with a contact sleep agent, causing 18-20 hours of
unconsiousness. Nonlethal... until one took 3 or more hits at once.
Another weapon used was psychokinesthenic gas:
"He had seen men lying rigid, catatonic after PK attacks. Their staring eyes
told of the horror that gnawed through the framework of their minds, bringing
it crashing down. Sometimes it lasted for hours, sometimes for weeks. And for
some, forever. It was a terrible weapon.
"But it did not kill...."
Cheerful stuff, ne?
> On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Jim 'Jiji' Foster wrote:
> Some time in the last six months, I read a SF short story about a war
The
> upshot of the story was, that in using non-lethal methodologies they
I'm given to understand that the major reason for the development of
"maiming" weapons - blinding lasers, landmines that blow off a foot
rather than killing you, and so on - is that it's a lot more expensive
to look after a wounded soldier than a dead one. Expensive in terms of money,
of course, but also manpower and other resources. Demoralising, too.