This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electromagnetic weapon page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm sorry if this is done incorrectly, I don't know how wikipedia editing woks. This section has significant problems in formatting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_radio-frequency_weapons#Use_against_humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.164.128 ( talk) 05:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, that it starts with a description of a railgun and later becomes (to paraphrase) MIND CONTROL LASERS. 184.148.179.121 ( talk) 03:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
`... from exposure to ultrasound' — the article should be about electrtomagnetic weapon, not sonic. The sound and electromagnetic effects are different. 195.122.224.212 ( talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The formatting here is way off-it reads more like an article than a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.224.64 ( talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Note the ABL does NOT "burn the skin off missiles" but does cause a very minor bit of damage in the skin of the fuselage of the vehicle, which, at the high speed it is travelling, proves fatal to the missile as the deformation hits the airstream. If anything a significant portion of the skin is torn off by airflow, the missile tumbles out of control and breaks apart. I doubt the ABL will ever see deployment, even Kim John Il knows about disco mirror balls. (the flaw of the design concept being sufficiently polished surface materiels in a fuselage effectively diffuse/reflect the laser's energy, not completely, but enough to befuddle the effectiveness as its aiming systems can only affix to the target so long.)Perhaps "Airborne Boeing Boondoggle" was a better govspeak name... Batvette ( talk) 13:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not making an edit, as this isn't a field I know much about... But I think it's confusing to discuss skin damage to humans and skin damage to missiles in the same paragraph - there's not much similarity between the two. Also, I don't know that a laser should count as an electromagnetic weapon anyway - obviously light is electromagnetic, but I've always thought of these weapons as being in a very different class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.52.213 ( talk) 11:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Barely any of the contents have anything to do with weapons that are generally considered electromagnetic. The contents seem to have more to do with directed energy weapons. I'm almost positive weapons that would fall into the category of electromagnetic weapons would be like railguns, gauss guns, and coilguns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.187.186 ( talk) 19:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ethical Considerations
Faced with peaceful, non-violent protestors, law enforcement officials having, say, airborne electromagnetic weapons at their disposal could covertly influence the protestors to disband without the protestors even being aware of such an effort. Faced with rioting and overt violence a government could covertly create a perimeter fence of radiation through which the rioters could not pass without feeling unbearable pain. Using electromagnetic weapons law enforcement officials could, over time, covertly harass a "person of interest" into committing suicide and thereby effectively admit his involvement in the crime. A US citizen could, under the protection of the US Constitution, launch from behind drawn blinds a covert electronic attack on an unwanted, unsuspecting neighbor thereby influencing the neighbor to sell his house and move away. Even if the neighbor suspected he was being harassed electronically he probably could not convince the authorities to search his unfriendly neighbor's home without his being able to produce indisputable evidence of the harassment.
what is this shit?
The "Ethical considerations" section reads like an opinion piece. Whether someone finds this information interesting is not relevant to the facts of this topic. If someone really wants to have discussion about the hypothetical uses of this device, then it should be on some 3rd party site and possibly linked from here. I hope this section is removed because I did not find it informative.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electromagnetic weapon page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm sorry if this is done incorrectly, I don't know how wikipedia editing woks. This section has significant problems in formatting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_radio-frequency_weapons#Use_against_humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.164.128 ( talk) 05:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, that it starts with a description of a railgun and later becomes (to paraphrase) MIND CONTROL LASERS. 184.148.179.121 ( talk) 03:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
`... from exposure to ultrasound' — the article should be about electrtomagnetic weapon, not sonic. The sound and electromagnetic effects are different. 195.122.224.212 ( talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The formatting here is way off-it reads more like an article than a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.224.64 ( talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Note the ABL does NOT "burn the skin off missiles" but does cause a very minor bit of damage in the skin of the fuselage of the vehicle, which, at the high speed it is travelling, proves fatal to the missile as the deformation hits the airstream. If anything a significant portion of the skin is torn off by airflow, the missile tumbles out of control and breaks apart. I doubt the ABL will ever see deployment, even Kim John Il knows about disco mirror balls. (the flaw of the design concept being sufficiently polished surface materiels in a fuselage effectively diffuse/reflect the laser's energy, not completely, but enough to befuddle the effectiveness as its aiming systems can only affix to the target so long.)Perhaps "Airborne Boeing Boondoggle" was a better govspeak name... Batvette ( talk) 13:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not making an edit, as this isn't a field I know much about... But I think it's confusing to discuss skin damage to humans and skin damage to missiles in the same paragraph - there's not much similarity between the two. Also, I don't know that a laser should count as an electromagnetic weapon anyway - obviously light is electromagnetic, but I've always thought of these weapons as being in a very different class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.52.213 ( talk) 11:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Barely any of the contents have anything to do with weapons that are generally considered electromagnetic. The contents seem to have more to do with directed energy weapons. I'm almost positive weapons that would fall into the category of electromagnetic weapons would be like railguns, gauss guns, and coilguns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.187.186 ( talk) 19:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ethical Considerations
Faced with peaceful, non-violent protestors, law enforcement officials having, say, airborne electromagnetic weapons at their disposal could covertly influence the protestors to disband without the protestors even being aware of such an effort. Faced with rioting and overt violence a government could covertly create a perimeter fence of radiation through which the rioters could not pass without feeling unbearable pain. Using electromagnetic weapons law enforcement officials could, over time, covertly harass a "person of interest" into committing suicide and thereby effectively admit his involvement in the crime. A US citizen could, under the protection of the US Constitution, launch from behind drawn blinds a covert electronic attack on an unwanted, unsuspecting neighbor thereby influencing the neighbor to sell his house and move away. Even if the neighbor suspected he was being harassed electronically he probably could not convince the authorities to search his unfriendly neighbor's home without his being able to produce indisputable evidence of the harassment.
what is this shit?
The "Ethical considerations" section reads like an opinion piece. Whether someone finds this information interesting is not relevant to the facts of this topic. If someone really wants to have discussion about the hypothetical uses of this device, then it should be on some 3rd party site and possibly linked from here. I hope this section is removed because I did not find it informative.