user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Not sure
If it works as advertised it would be wonderful because you can shoot people you think might be up to no good instead of waiting for them to take a shot at you first.
Voted : Not sure
It certainly has uses not only in a war zone but I can see police "zapping" drug dealers congregating on corners and also since it purportedly is safe, I can see it being used to extract information from suspects without causing permanent harm...but it does leave anyone in range a target and it may be used to abuse people if it is not correctly supervised...I also wonder if it can be reflected, by mirrors or some other material because they would not reply to those inquiries...
Do you think it will be able to cook sausages, or will it just look like its cooking sausages?
If you zap 'em long enough, you can probably heat your sausage sandwich...or it may feel like it's heated up...
I think i'll stick to cooking sausages the old fashioned way. Food poisoning can be an awful pain in the backside...
Voted : Not sure
Seems like an interesting idea.
But I have to ask, if america is the most horrible empire to ever exist, readily killing millions of Iraqis just for the hell of it, why are we wasting billions on a NON-lethal weapon? It seems that if we're that evil we could just order soldiers to fire good old fashion bullets in to the crowd to disperse them, heedless of the lives lost.
If only michael moore would make a movie to explain this seeming contradiction.
^Whats the best,least troublesome way to run an empire? Why, by appearing as benevolent as possible of course. No need to ENCOURAGE uprisings uneccesarily after all.
When people "fire good old fashion bullets in to the crowd to disperse them, heedless of the lives lost."|
It has a tendency to find its way into the news nowadays and upset people, something that probably wouldnt have happened in the "good ol days"
Voted : Yes, it will be effective
It should be effective because who has ever said that being on fire wasn't painful?
Voted : Not sure
How much does it cost?
My favorite euphemism for a ray gun
"Self-focusing laser"
I cant find exact figures, only that each one will cost millions of dollars each, and that they are years away from being battle-ready.
I dont know if they will have any more effect physically than tear gas, but mentally I would be alot more afraid of a big ray gun than a can of spray. I can imagine it having the same effect as the tank did when it first entered onto the battlefield.
Voted : No, it will not be effective
Trust the guy who studied a little bit about science once upon a time...
I think it will be highly effective ... against its true targets: protesters in the US.
The public testing of such a weapon by the military, just prior to what may be the largest anti-war march in Washington since the Vietnam War (it will be in DC, Jan 27), is a clear message by the Pentagon to marchers that the millimeter wave technology exists and is deployable.
Psychologically, most people find the idea of being burned alive frightening and this Pentagon 'show and tell' was an obvious ploy to scare away marchers, especially those planning to bring their families.
herzog: When you exaggerate dissent to an extreme, you merely undermine your own credibility.
Voted : No, it will not be effective
Leave the real weapons for the big boys. 
|
|
