United States Air Force chief suggests using weapons on U.S. citizens

[ShawnaAnn]

​

September 13th, 2006 1:07 am

Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

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.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, 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 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.

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.

 

[SummerMadness]

In other words, they'll probably try to cause a situation to degrade to the point where they'd "have to use their weapons." Kind of what Giulliani did when a group he didn't like held a rally.

 

[Alarum]

Okay, creepy. What do any of them do that water cannons don't? Oh, that's right, they cost millions of dollars.

Guess the idiots will have to start another war to test all their fancy new toys. Or maybe they could just make some secret prisons, and really have fun...

 

[nvxplorer]

(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 guy talks about a scenario where someone gets injured, and all he's worried about is being vilified in the press?

 

[Alarum]

This guy talks about a scenario where someone gets injured, and all he's worried about is being vilified in the press?

Of course. Don't you know the doctorine of unintended consequences? It goes like this:

"There is no such thing as consequences, as long as nobody finds out."

The great sin isn't hurting others, imprisioning them without trial, torture, murder, rape, abuse. It's getting caught. In that system there is no higher sin than "being vilified by the press."

 

[Glaz]

Pro: it's probably better than rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons.

Con: you should never test a weapon on your own people, especially when they are footing the bill for it. It just isn't right.

 

[MachZer0]

It sounds like a good plan to me. There are people who probably wish such a weapon had been used on their loved ones.

 

[pgp_protector]

So there worried about testing it on others incase somting goes wrong, but NOT worried about using on our own people if somthing goes wrong ???????


FYI Found out about this yesterday.
http://www.christianforums.com/t369...eapons-on-us-citzens-before-combat-usage.html

 

[LogicChristian]

This weapon has already been shown to be safe. If people on this forum took the time to do a little research, they'd probably prefer that this thing be used for crowed control in the US instead of rubber bullets or police armed with batons. The fact is, this is a non-lethal weapon, and crowd control situations here are a lot less hectic usually than they are in say Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Balko]

Um, this is really just another crowd control weapon. They've been tested on people hundreds of times before, but if we never tried out new technology for their use in crowd control, we'd probably not have tear gas, rubber bullets, and the like.

What if policemen just threw away the tasers, and shot people? There are always some cases where you HAVE to use some sort of force on people. What if we never had tear gas? Go back to the good old days where police shot guns in the air, and when they get threatened by the crowd shoot at the people themselves?

People get the very wrong impression that scientists take things straight from the lab and will use it on the people. Do you test-drive a car, straight from the design shop, not knowing if it'll break down or blow up in your face?

 

[pgp_protector]

I think the problem is with his Reason.

He'd rather have somthing go wrong on US Citizens then Other People.

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.

 

[CCGirl]

This might work!

 

[Nathan Poe]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

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.

Oh, that's a happy thought... listen to the rationale...

"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 right -- "We wouldn't want to use anything against an enemy that we hadn't first used against our own people."

Because as we all know, war zones are perfect places to use non-leathal devices.

The moral of the story -- exercise your First Amendment right in public, and you may possibly become a lab rat for the Air Force.

 

[k9catts]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html



Oh, that's a happy thought... listen to the rationale...



That's right -- "We wouldn't want to use anything against an enemy that we hadn't first used against our own people."

Because as we all know, war zones are perfect places to use non-leathal devices.

The moral of the story -- exercise your First Amendment right in public, and you may possibly become a lab rat for the Air Force.

I guess they want to practice on protestors in our own country.

 

[Daniel19]

double post

 

[Daniel19]

I just posted this in another thread, but seeing that this was the original thread on this story I'll post it here.

While I'm not completely sure on this, I have reason to believe that the technology that is going to be tested is called "active denial" (pictured below).

The Air Force, along with the Department of Defense Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate has developed the technology, called "active denial". The microwave technology is described on the official website:

It uses “…a transmitter to send a narrow beam of 95-GHz millimeter waves towards an identified subject. Traveling at the speed of light, the energy reaches the subject and penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin, quickly heating up the skin’s surface. The 95-GHz energy penetrates 1/64 inch into the skin and produces an intense burning sensation that stops when the transmitter is switched off or when the individual moves out of the beam. Within seconds, an individual feels an intense heating sensation that stops when the transmitter is shut off or when the individual moves out of the beam.”

How do you feel about the military using this equipment on American protesters?

I remember seeing this technology for the first time about 2 years ago and thinking that it would be used as crowd control domestically. I don't really want to be right.

LRAD's (Long Range Acoustic Devices) are being used by the military currently in Iraq. They are also being used domestically. As far as I know, they were deployed most recently at the Republican Natoinal Convention.

 

[LogicChristian]

Where did it say the Air Force would be using it against US civilians? They're restricted from doing that by US law.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you feel about the military using this equipment on American protesters?

Somehow I can't see this as a good sign.

It's not. The last time the military "tested their weapons" on American protesters was at Kent State in 1970.

Unfortunately, the test was all too successful.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Where did it say the Air Force would be using it against US civilians? They're restricted from doing that by US law.

That was sort of the whole point of the article -- turning protesters into lab rats.

And "restricted by US law"? Who in this administration would even notice?

 

[MachZer0]

That was sort of the whole point of the article -- turning protesters into lab rats.

In case you are unaware, the Air Force does not get involved in crowd control in the U.S. The article never mentioned the Air Force using the weapon on Americans