Hand phaser combat

[Mikey]

Well, since the lunacy of gamma-ray quanta "encasing" real, massive particles is a different lunacy than the one at hand, I'll leave that bit alone for the meanwhile. And an anticoagulant is more than a blood thinner; it has to oppose platelet action a/o prevent their travel to the wound site.

However, I'll give them this one. With so many more elements available to the 'Trek universe, I'm sure one could find one to perform such an action.

However, you can't add anything to the beginning of the periodic table; hydrogen, MAYBE helium or alpha particles would be the upper size limit of what could be "encased" or "carried" on that polaron beam...

[sunnyside]

Actually I just remembered light can kind of encase things. For example laser tweezers and creating ion trails. Photons also carry momenta so they could shove things around.

And there are probably all sorts of quantum mechanical effects I don't know of.

[Mikey]

But this case is talking about extended periods and ranges of transport of very massive molecules.

[mlsnoopy]

PPB seem to be less affective than phasers or distruptous. Both weapons when set to kill mod, don't care where they hit a target and the target dies. Where as with PPB weapons we have evidence of body hit and the enemy survived.

[Mikey]

I don't think anybody is questioning the effectivenes of something like an anticoagulant in the PPB; rather, we're just saying that it can't be done.

[sunnyside]

I imagine that's for the writing. Phasers have been established since nearly the start of Trek. But I'm sure it makes writers sad if they can't do the "wounded hero" bit.

In world phased polaron stuff initially passed right through shields yes? So that's a good reason to use it on ships certainly and probably small arms too. Also despite how we rag on them phasers may be a high end personal sidearm. And are to resource intensive (i.e. maybe the changlelings could crank out twice as many Jem'Hadar with polaron/plasma weapons as they could with phasers.)

[Tiberius]

Here's a couple of ideas (but no good ones):

1 - materials that are resistant to phasers/disruptors/misc. directed-energy weapons are so ridiculously abundant that people actually use them commonly to make packing crates, yet effective body armor is still somehow incomprehensible;

2 - nobody who uses a phaser is sufficiently trained on their capabilities a/o operation; or

3 - nobody who uses a phaser has the presence of mind in a firefight to actually recall the training mentioned above.

Anybody have any less sarcastic ideas?

yep. Any setting high enough to actually punch through the crate would be high enough to risk killing the person they want to incapacitate.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Here's a couple of ideas (but no good ones):

1 - materials that are resistant to phasers/disruptors/misc. directed-energy weapons are so ridiculously abundant that people actually use them commonly to make packing crates, yet effective body armor is still somehow incomprehensible;

2 - nobody who uses a phaser is sufficiently trained on their capabilities a/o operation; or

3 - nobody who uses a phaser has the presence of mind in a firefight to actually recall the training mentioned above.

Anybody have any less sarcastic ideas?

yep. Any setting high enough to actually punch through the crate would be high enough to risk killing the person they want to incapacitate.

But, what if they ARE trying to kill you? Think of Jem'Hadar in the Dominion war. As a rule they weren't too interested in "incapacitating" you.

[Mikey]

So if someone is trying to shoot you, it's better to let them than to risk the chance of hurting them?

[Captain Seafort]

yep. Any setting high enough to actually punch through the crate would be high enough to risk killing the person they want to incapacitate.

Mikey and CPH beat me to the punch, but let me add that in a firefight the stupidest thing you can do is try and "incapacitate" someone. Phaser stuns aren't guaranteed under the best of circumstances - sometimes they knock the target out, other times they're just dazed. In a life or death situation such uncertainty is unacceptable, so shoot to kill.

[sunnyside]

There are a wide range of situations where you might need to stun someone. For example maybe they have information that you need. Or perhaps they are only trying to stun you and flipping it up to kill would be and unacceptable escalation (supposedly you can tell the difference by listening between different settings). Or perhaps you're in a life or death fight where the battle lines have gotten mixed up and you can't be 100% sure whether it's a hostile alien on the other side of that crate or a British tank

Still what about those times you are trying to kill?

[Captain Seafort]

For example maybe they have information that you need.

Need for information is hugely outweighed by the need not to get killed.

Or perhaps they are only trying to stun you and flipping it up to kill would be and unacceptable escalation (supposedly you can tell the difference by listening between different settings).

The fact that the enemy is being stupid does not mean you have to be. Give as many warnings as your ROE require, then shoot to kill.

Or perhaps you're in a life or death fight where the battle lines have gotten mixed up and you can't be 100% sure whether it's a hostile alien on the other side of that crate or a British tank

Then bug out and cease fire until you know what the hell's going on. Don't keep blasting away on stun and hope for the best.

[sunnyside]

Need for information is hugely outweighed by the need not to get killed.

Not from your commanding officers point of view if that information is highly important.

The fact that the enemy is being stupid does not mean you have to be. Give as many warnings as your ROE require, then shoot to kill.

Actually I believe many laws and ROEs do not allow you to use lethal force unless you have reason to believe that your life is in danger. For example shooting someone in the back while they are fleeing while firing stun shots at numerous pursuing police. I suppose a modern day example would be shooting someone through a wall because they have pepper spray instead of rushing them with multiple taser or batton armed officers.

Or if they popped a cap in that "don't tase me bro" guy.

Granted you might want to do those things but I do believe it is illegal.

Or perhaps you're in a life or death fight where the battle lines have gotten mixed up and you can't be 100% sure whether it's a hostile alien on the other side of that crate or a British tank

Then bug out and cease fire until you know what the hell's going on. Don't keep blasting away on stun and hope for the best.

Note that the enemy will probably not cease fire while you attempt to extricate yourself, which is not trivial when there is no clear line of battle.

[mwhittington]

yep. Any setting high enough to actually punch through the crate would be high enough to risk killing the person they want to incapacitate.

Mikey and CPH beat me to the punch, but let me add that in a firefight the stupidest thing you can do is try and "incapacitate" someone. Phaser stuns aren't guaranteed under the best of circumstances - sometimes they knock the target out, other times they're just dazed. In a life or death situation such uncertainty is unacceptable, so shoot to kill.

I agree with you there, Seafort. My dad was a cop for Garland, Texas PD for 15 years, and they taught him that if someone points a gun at you, you HAVE to assume they WILL USE IT. So you must use deadly force to make sure the threat is neutralized, none of this "oh, I'll shoot him/her in the shoulder and incapacitate him/her" stupidity, because you also MUST assume the suspect will not stop if just wounded. Criminals are part of a Darwinian world, and the ones still alive on the streets are the ones who've learned a lot of lessons. If one points a gun at you, and you have a gun already on them, you better use your gun before the suspect uses his/hers, because he/she will NOT just try to incapacitate you, he/she will try to kill you.
By the way, my dad never killed anyone in his life, I'm proud to say. He did shoot a suspect in the lower outer thigh through the muscle who broke into his squad car and ran with his evidence camera, but my dad is qualified expert with his Colt Model 1911 in .45ACP, a slow bullet, but so accurate for CQ and more than enough knockdown power.