Non-lethal weapon makes the enemy drop their weapons?

Question

This sounds too good to be true--a weapon that doesn't kill the enemy but makes them feel like they are going to catch on fire.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-01-24T205934Z_01_N24424593_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEAPONS-USA-HEATBEAM.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-3

Answer 1

This is not intended to be used on armed enemy. It is designed as an alternative to lethal force in non-combat situations.

An example here is dispersing a crowd of rioters.

Answer 2

I wouldn't say it sounds too good to be true, I would say it sounds like a good way to get allot of our men killed!! If we were to use this all our enemies would have to do is come to the realization that they aren't going to get hurt then whats the point. Unless its being used as a supplementary weapon, one designed to keep there heads down allowing use the few extra seconds we need to gain fire superiority.

Answer 3

the militia has what's declared as regulations of Engagement. as quickly as the ROE is met, the militia has no limit on utilising deadly rigidity agings enemy troops or maybe civilians if reported civilians are attacking them. the militia do no longer police. Their interest is to crush, break and kill. So reported as "policing movements" are very quite often a disaster whilst fool politicians attempt to apply the militia as a police rigidity. it is stupid, it gets our soldier killed and makes us appear like a shaggy dog tale to something of the international. the militia does not makes use of tasers and that they do no longer use bean bags. They use real bullets, real device weapons, real grenades and real explosives. Their purpose is to no longer seize yet to break enemies of our u . s . a .. Too many human beings don't understand the militia's authentic function and attempt to soften what the militia does yet it particularly is purely undeniable stupid and a few ROEs are so stringent that our troops die whilst attempting to artwork withing them.

Answer 4

I think it's a pretty good idea to reduce casualties. But if its set to be a primary weapon ( which I highly doubt) then no. Like the guy above me said, it'll be a good secondary weapon to give temporary cover and or time to reload, etc.

Answer 5

A picture of Hillary Clinton...naked