What "rescue equipment" would need the ok from the Secretary of Defence?

Wasn't too sure where to put this question, so if it's more suited in another area, please could a mod move it? Thank you.

Watching Fox News just now, they were talking about the siege involving the five year old boy this week. A few details were given about the rescue, like the fact that a surveillance drone was deployed over the farm, and that a mock up bunker was made to practice the rescue.

They also said that the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, also gave authorization for certain "rescue equipment" to be used.

What could that mean?

I know that in the UK in the past, certain things have been run past the Home Office first, such as the Iranian Embassy siege assault and the likes, but as far as equipment being used, i'm curious what could warrant Sec Of Def approval?

Thanks,

CX.

reply to post by CX


Tranquiliser gas canisters?

Long range laser induced shock weapons?

Experimental military grade surveillance gear?

God, I mean the fellow must be in control of some pretty hefty equipment. The question is, how much of that equipment might be useful in a hostage situation, and specifically in a hostage situation involving a suspect and hostage, both in an underground bunker.

You would probably not be talking about any kind of high power explosive, because the risks to the hostage would be HUGE, arguably larger than that presented by the hostage taker. Perhaps the equipment was some sort of advanced ground penetrating radar, designed to be used to track targets underground?

Its going to be hard to guess, mostly because of how many toys are in the box.

off the top of my head, sonic weapons, some sat feeds would need access granted from people in high authority, and any number of other hightech weapons that we as citizens are un aware of.


thank you and good day/night depending on your location in this universe.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by CX

 

Tranquiliser gas canisters?

Long range laser induced shock weapons?

Experimental military grade surveillance gear?

Thanks.

Yeah thats the kind of thing i was thinking about, well the first and last ones there anyway.

Tranquilizer type stuff i would have thought would be a no-no, not sure they'd want another Russian cinema scenario with a five year old.

I just wasn't sure exactly what needs approval of the Sec of Def. You'd have thought that most things in a response teams toolbox should be able to be deployed under the experienced say so of the commanding officer there.

CX.

A team of people with specialized skills?
EOD equiptment?

Originally posted by LittleBirdSaid
A team of people with specialized skills?
EOD equiptment?

Again, good suggestions, but it just puzzles me why the decision to use something like this would not be left to the very capable commander in charge at the scene.

Messing about with unnecessary authorization from politicians could waste time IMO.

No, i think it must be more than the standard equipment used every day by specialists such as these.

Hopefully certain members with SWAT team experience can weigh in at some point, it's probably nothing but it just got my curiosity bubbling.

CX.

reply to post by CX


The reason I was suggesting some sort of shock weapon, is that if the military had some sort of area pacification weapon based on tazers, or at least electronic nervous system interuption. Non lethal of course.

Ground penetrating RADAR comes to mind.

Explosive detection equipment.

EOD people is a good one. Might be a Possee Comutatus issue there. (hope I spelled that right :lol

Seismic sensors.

Thanks for your replies everyone, but even the ones you have suggested, i am very surprised that these may need the nod from someone as high up as the Sec of Def.

I'd have thought the commanders on the ground would have the experience and authority to ok them.

CX.

reply to post by CX

I would think it would either have to be:

a) something that is unknown to the populace at large, and/or
b) something that has the potential to possibly affect others than the intended target(s) in some detrimental way

Either way, the possible backlash of using such "equipment" must be so great as to deem it usable only under the approval of the very highest authority. I mean we're talking about the Secretary of Defense here, a person who is usually provided with some form of protection under the theory of plausible deniability...