Quote :

"Test Nonlethal Weapons On Americans, Air Force Says POSTED: 11:00 am EDT September 13, 2006 UPDATED: 11:34 am EDT September 13, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions in the international community over any possible safety concerns, said Secretary Michael Wynne. "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press." The Air Force has funded research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service isn't likely to spend more money on development until injury issues are reviewed by medical experts and resolved. Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices. ... "

http://www.wral.com/news/9838886/detail.html

Thoughts/opinions?

9/13/2006 11:50:02 AM

i think they should go back to the old school method and get enlistees and take them out to new mexico and test it on them first

9/13/2006 11:51:07 AM

Here is what bugs me about it...
1) these "crowd control" situations will not allow for informed consent.
2) these weapons are being "tested," and the article, at least, mentions the possibility of injury, so that suggests to me that they could cause serious harm to unsuspecting people.

9/13/2006 11:53:58 AM

Quote :

""If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.""

I kind of agree with that.

9/13/2006 11:54:21 AM

Are they talking about testing without consent, or just like you would do medical testing or something? (assuming that THAT would be with consent)


And hey, as long as we still torture people, destroy nations, and cart people off to secret prisons, giving people a migraine from the death ray is the least of our PR worries.

9/13/2006 11:57:25 AM

^ well, he mentioned "crowd control" and I'm assuming they mean actual real-life crowd control situations where people are gathering/rioting/whatevering without permit. So, unless they're going around the riot with informed consent forms, I don't think it would be like a medical study. Of course, the secretary may have misspoken or left off important information with regards to informed consent. And, I might be assuming a lot in my interpretations of their use in crowd control.

9/13/2006 12:02:06 PM

I mean, it's not that hard to get 30 privates in a room and ray gun 'em.

9/13/2006 12:09:37 PM

Quote :

"they could cause serious harm to unsuspecting people."

Keep in mind that they are talking about using this at riots and things of that nature, where lethal force is sometimes used. Rioters can expect possible injury when they start rioting.

9/13/2006 12:27:46 PM

all for it

helps make america better in the long run

9/13/2006 12:27:51 PM

Quote :

"I mean, it's not that hard to get 30 privates in a room and ray gun 'em."

I imagine they've already done small scale tests like that. What this dude is saying is when the device is first put into production it should be done here before on the battlefied to avoid polictical crap.

To which i say fuck people in other countries. Use it on them first.

9/13/2006 12:35:49 PM

I assume that they're not going to "test" these out on crowds in the sense of whether or not the non-lethal weapons are going to hurt people but testing new tactics in using these weapons to see whether or not they are effective.

Most likely, they'll vet it through whatever standard testing procedures (at very least to avoid the lawsuits) and then deploy them locally. If they prove effective, then you can deploy them out on battlefields and more dangerous situations. No offense, but compared to other countries, American protests are pretty tame.

9/13/2006 1:07:03 PM

wait a second. we're worried that this will tarnish our image? sounds dumb

the point of "nonlethal" weapons is to provide an alternative to lethal ones. even if one in a hundred blows with a nonlethal weapon turn up lethal, the enemy combatants should be thanking their maker that we're using something that probaly won't kill them, as opposed to something that will most likely kill them... not to mention the lethal alternative will continue to take lives as these are being "tested".

we also don't use our assault rifles on our own crowds as a "test" do we? these weapons don't need safety testing. if anything they need efficacy testing, to prove that they do devitalize the enemy. there's animals for that kind of testing.

9/13/2006 1:54:06 PM

^^ basically what he said

9/13/2006 1:54:37 PM

Quote :

"RedGuard: No offense, but compared to other countries, American protests are pretty tame."

History is longer than a decade or so...

9/13/2006 2:05:04 PM

The Boston Cat FIght.... no doesn't sound right....







ah yes, the Boston Massacre.

9/13/2006 2:09:36 PM

Basically a general wants it used in the US first so that if it is deployed overseas some blogger won't try to start a scandal with a headline like "US TROOPS MICROWAVE IRAQI CHILDREN".

[/discussion]

9/13/2006 2:20:04 PM

I think it was completely fair and very high-minded of him to suggest.

I still think it's a crazy idea.

9/13/2006 2:21:34 PM

1) Sounds like they need a better PR guy

2) Whatever happened to testing on animals.

9/13/2006 3:25:52 PM

this is pretty fucked up

9/13/2006 4:38:41 PM

i am for non-lethal weapons, but the problem is that cops will start to use them as a compliance device and that really scares me

9/13/2006 4:47:42 PM

^ ditto

9/13/2006 6:15:47 PM

Quote :

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

That's silly, it should be the other way around:

If we are not willing to use it in a wartime situation, we should DEFINATELY not use it agianst our fellow citizens. Is it any worse to be villified by the world press than our own?

Quote :

"Keep in mind that they are talking about using this at riots and things of that nature, where lethal force is sometimes used."

What do you think they use in "wartime situations"? Nerf guns?

9/14/2006 9:55:25 AM

No Kris, that was in response to the idea that the people didn't have informed consent to the testing and they could end up being killed.

BTW, capitalizing it doesn't make it excusable to spell it like a retard.

Quote :

"DEFINATELY"

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason : definitely]

9/14/2006 10:06:00 AM

calling out someone for spelling doesn't constitute an actual arguement.

9/14/2006 1:12:41 PM

Quote :

"Is it any worse to be villified by the world press than our own? "

No, but when the world press writes "US microwaves middle eastern baby" more people die. When the news and observer writes "Police microwaves college kid" lawsuit happen. Less damage overall. And I personaly agree, anything that's supposed to be non leathal should have it's first real world deployment in the US before it's used abroad.

9/14/2006 2:15:43 PM

Quote :

"History is longer than a decade or so..."

Again, even with history considered, I don't think the average American protest is bad compared to some of the ones overseas.

Quote :

"If we are not willing to use it in a wartime situation, we should DEFINATELY not use it agianst our fellow citizens."

I think the idea is that "these systems are so safe, we would have no problems using them against our own citizens; so any fears that we are hurting foreigners is rediculous."

9/14/2006 4:13:51 PM

"Military drops EMP bomb in Columbia, South Carolina. Chaos ensues."

9/14/2006 4:42:47 PM

Quote :

"Again, even with history considered, I don't think the average American protest is bad compared to some of the ones overseas."

What protests overseas are you talking about?

I'm thinking Chicago 1968, the Haymarket Riots, and other such ugly scorches on our historical record. I'm just ignorant of the other examples.

9/15/2006 3:05:04 AM

there was that little one in china a few years back. . .

9/15/2006 3:13:04 AM

True. They didn't bring out the tanks for the students in Chicago, just tear gas. They were shooting the ones at Kent State, though. And shooting large numbers en masse at the turn of the labor movement in the 1930s.

9/15/2006 3:16:29 AM

and then there's this (which i just learned about thanks to wikipedia):

Quote :

"The term 2002 Gujarat violence refers to the riots that took place in Gujarat state in India from February 27, 2002. The riots started a day after the Godhra Train Burning episode. Officially 793 Muslims and 253 Hindus died as a result of the violence.[1][2].Unofficial estimates from Human Rights groups were between 2000 - 2500, mostly Muslims"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat_riots

and a long list of riots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 3:19 AM. Reason : list]

9/15/2006 3:18:07 AM

Holy fucking shit!

9/15/2006 4:25:00 AM