Weapons test on Civillians, page 1

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:45 AM

link

In a world where "non lethal" weapons are becoming a more common thing, AirForce Secretary Michael Wynne believes that these new weapons should be tested on American citizens

edition.cnn.com
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

"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 paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This strikes me as a bit of an issue. Especially using these weapons against American citizens to make sure they work properly before being used in a "War" enviroment, I mean really, we wouldnt want any bad press if these new weapons killed someone while at war, it can probably be justified if its one of their own under some sort of "Riot" or "Unruley" conditions. I dont see how this is a public relations issue at all.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Ox]

Crakeur

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:52 AM

link

I think, perhaps, we should let him be the American tester that he thinks is a necessity.

loam

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:56 AM

link

"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."

This is the most twisted logic I've seen in a very long time!

In other words, in a wartime scenario, the health of the enemy is valued more than American citizens????

No wonder we are so screwed in this country...

Edit:

Posting what the face of an idiot must look like...

www.defenselink.mil..." border=0>

[edit on 13-9-2006 by loam]

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:36 AM

link

I think it's more along the lines of.. If something goes wrong and an enemy's heart or lungs are cooked via high powered microwaves or major damage is done, then I'm sure someone will step up and start quoting the Geneva Convention and complain about cruelty.. But if it happens to a rioting American citizen, oh well..

I'm curious as to why the AirForce Secretary cares about his public image. And if we're going to get vilified for using non-lethal means of force in theaters of war, I might suggest that we go back to the old method of dealing with our enemies and shoot them.

marg6043

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:41 AM

link

Air Force secretary and his family should be the first ones to test the weapons, in live TV while us the American people watch to see how safe they are.

I wonder if he was been sarcatic on this one, because it sounds to me that he is more worry about the image of the military and what may happen in war, than the safety of the American people.

This is incredible, now we are to become military weapons Guinea pigs.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by marg6043]

LazarusTheLong

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:21 AM

link

I personally like this tact...

it forces commanders to really think of the potential effects of these weapons...

it is all fine and dandy if these new weapons cause Iraqis to go deaf for life, or cause brain damage.... but that is just an iraqi right?

In other words, if it ain't safe enough for us, then it shouldn't be used on them...

he is dealing with a very uncaring system, that would very well threaten lives, and cause scandal, rather than be safe...
and perhaps this is the only way for him to make that point?

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:23 AM

link

I think the potential for these weapons is just about limitless, and I dont mean that in a good way. And you tell me what you think is better, being shot and killed.. or being permanently damaged, living the rest of your life that way, knowing what was done to you and who you were before? I'd pick the former

DJMessiah

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:11 AM

link

They're already using the microwave weapon in Iraq (if it's the same one I saw on the Discovery channel).

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:22 AM

link

Originally posted by Crakeur
I think, perhaps, we should let him be the American tester that he thinks is a necessity.

Absolutely. Add to that list military brass who support it, and politicans who would ok them.

If theres nothing to worry about, Im sure they will be happy to demonstrate!

JIMC5499

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:33 AM

link

I actually think that he has a pretty good idea there. It will make the people developing the weapons take more care in what they decide as non-lethel. I've always thought that Police officers that carry Tasers should have to be shot with them at least once as part of their training. This might make them think a little more before using them. Recruits in boot camp have been going through the tear gas chamber as part of their training for the last few decades.

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:01 PM

link

Most police agencies DO require officers to take a hit from a Taser to become "Certified", they did the same thing with mace as well. And I dont think it's a bad idea for this to be tested on the people who Ok'd it. It would make weapons like this gather alot more scrutiny and it would probably make them less painful whilst still being effective. And I'm curious.. I've heard the term "Less than lethal" thrown around... IS there a difference between "Non lethal" and "Less than letha" if so what is it? People have died from "Non lethal" taser hits and "Non lethal" beanbags...

rogue1

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:23 PM

link

Originally posted by Ox
I think the potential for these weapons is just about limitless, and I dont mean that in a good way. And you tell me what you think is better, being shot and killed.. or being permanently damaged, living the rest of your life that way, knowing what was done to you and who you were before? I'd pick the former

Hmm far more people are permanently injured in war from bullets and bombs than are killed, so your argument is moot.

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:26 PM

link

You're right, there are many people that are permanently damaged by explosives and rounds, What if this microwave technology is just the beginning? Who's to say that these new weapons wont just leave you scarred or missing an arm, leg or eye.. What if they cause you permanent brain damage, or destroy internal organs but leave the rest of the body intact?

grover

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM

link

Great idea...him first.

I swear where do we find these people. Sure testing weapons civilians is bright.

rogue1

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:33 PM

link

Originally posted by Ox
What if they cause you permanent brain damage, or destroy internal organs but leave the rest of the body intact?

Well there seem to be alot of what if's. ON teh flip side what if they don't maim people, wouldn't you prefer to get zapped by one of these than be shot of blown up ?

DeusEx

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:59 PM

link

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I actually think that he has a pretty good idea there. It will make the people developing the weapons take more care in what they decide as non-lethel. I've always thought that Police officers that carry Tasers should have to be shot with them at least once as part of their training. This might make them think a little more before using them. Recruits in boot camp have been going through the tear gas chamber as part of their training for the last few decades.

Most PDs nowadays make recruits get pepper sprayed and tazed. Not too sure how they are about the tear gas or rubber bullets, though. But most people who have been tazed or pepper sprayed usually don't leap to the intermediate weapons as quick, and are a little softer with their approach to force.

DE

grimreaper797

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:38 PM

link

Now Im sorry i must bring it up but this has john titor all over it. Just figured id remind you of a certian somebody who said this exact technology would be used on americans as crowd control.

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:46 PM

link

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Ox
What if they cause you permanent brain damage, or destroy internal organs but leave the rest of the body intact?

Well there seem to be alot of what if's. ON teh flip side what if they don't maim people, wouldn't you prefer to get zapped by one of these than be shot of blown up ?

I honestly cant answer that rogue1, I hope neither happens to me really. IF and its a big if, something like that ever happened, I'd hope that I'm not left permanently damaged and killed in the process...

Ox

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:54 PM

link

I remember reading about the whole John Titor thing, but wasnt that all highly debunked? But I see what you're getting at.. This technology could be fitted to aircraft and used that way with crowds..

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Ox]

grimreaper797

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:07 PM

link

debunked or not, give the guy some credit on this one. he called it pretty well in this case.