Non-Lethal Weapons, worth the investment?

If you think weapon alone can win the war, then you are a believer of weaponism. No. I think this is the wrong way to go. If you are fighting a wrong war, you will lose eventually no matter how advanced your weapons are. Instead of focusing on new weapons development, the government should focus on development of new winning strategy that requires no weapons at all.

 

This is the kind of unrealistic thinking that causes the righties to say that liberals are pvssies.

 

You beat me to it. But, I give you credit for recognizing the absurdity of verybdog's statements.

 

For some reason you and him seem to bring out the ability in people to recognize absurdity.

 

As scary as the potential speculation of these weapons and their usages are to me, I would think that they should be pursued. They have the potential to throw modern warfare and police enforcement upside down. In law enforcement the ability to shut down a fleeing vehicle without a high speed chase or the ability to deal with a hostage situation by temporarily incapicitating all involved instantaneously almost totally render these criminal tactics as obsolete.
Attacks and defenses could be made without one fired round or dropped bomb. Base defenses could be established with no need for barbed wire or land mines.

As much money as we piss away on a million other things, the potential payoff seems to outweigh the risks of a wasted investment in them.

Of course the large majority is still speculation or not practical at the moment. So real world applications of the science most likely will not be as alluring when they come to fruition.

If these weapons can work as advertised, the potential of such weapons could focus too much unchecked power in those that possess them. Such power would need a series of checks on it as safeguards to its potential to be misused. Think of how they could easily dissuade civil unrest or simple protest. A government's ability to passively control its unsupportive populace is frightening.

And of course I'm always willing to support whatever the Heritage Foundation is backing.

But overall I favor the development of these technologies. Then again I have always had a penchant for charging headlong into the abyss.

 

And you gullibly believe their BS?

If liberals are pvssies, then rightwing conservatives must be dicks.

You should know this better than me: when dick hits pvssie, what is going to come out win? And who is going to have the last laugh?

Softness is the most strong thing in the world.

 

Now that's a double entendre!

Did you mean to do that?

 

Pvssies don't like dicks, because pvssies get fvcked by dicks. But dicks also fvck a$$holes: a$$holes that just want to sh!t on everything. Pvssies may think they can deal with a$$holes their way. But the only thing that can fvck an a$$hole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fvck too much or fvck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pvssy to show them that. But sometimes, pvssies can be so full of sh!t that they become a$$holes themselves... because pvssies are an inch and half away from a$$ holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fvck this a$$hole, we're going to have our dicks and pvssies all covered in sh!t!

--Guess you didn't see that movie. Funny how you used the same metaphors as them.

 

Weapons are always worth the investment.

 

That and he used the word "weaponism."

 

I like to invent new words. Hope you like it.

 

Maybe if it were explained I could appreciate it more.