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

[MachZer0]

Why?

Because the Air Force is forbidden to do so, by law.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because the Air Force is forbidden to do so, by law.

But not forbidden to lend out their toys to whomever they see fit. If the microwave device that fries a group of protesters has "US Air Force" stamped on the side, does it matter who pulls the trigger? One way or another, the US military is compliant in its use.

On another note, isn't it interesting how Wynne suggested that the device be tested on citizens in crowd-control? Not test subjects, not volunteers, but ordinary US citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Isn't that interesting?

 

[MachZer0]

But not forbidden to lend out their toys to whomever they see fit. If the microwave device that fries a group of protesters has "US Air Force" stamped on the side, does it matter who pulls the trigger? One way or another, the US military is compliant in its use.

I don't know that the Air Force is in the habit of lending out weapons. You're stretching

On another note, isn't it interesting how Wynne suggested that the device be tested on citizens in crowd-control? Not test subjects, not volunteers, but ordinary US citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Isn't that interesting?

What's really interesting is that if you read the article, you may notice that he never mentioned anything about "testing" the weapon on citizens.

 

[xMinionX]

What's really interesting is that if you read the article, you may notice that he never mentioned anything about "testing" the weapon on citizens.

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.

And since we're playing the wordy game, I'll jump ahead a turn. Yes, he did not use the word 'test' in his sentence. But his implication is clear that the weapon should be used on citizens first, then used on the battlefield depending on the results. That sure sounds like a test to me.

 

[MachZer0]

And since we're playing the wordy game, I'll jump ahead a turn. Yes, he did not use the word 'test' in his sentence. But his implication is clear that the weapon should be used on citizens first, then used on the battlefield depending on the results. That sure sounds like a test to me.

Here's what the article said

"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."

So rather than a test, it is a demonstration. Big difference

 

[xMinionX]

Here's what the article said

"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."

So rather than a test, it is a demonstration. Big difference

I don't really feel any better about a demonstration on American people, but it still looks like a test to me. If they're confident in the technology, they should be able to use it on the battlefield without having to prove to the world that it works, or if they really want to prove something, they should use it where they're intending it to be used. The fact that they want to use it on citizens first tells me that they're not really so sure, and a fubar on citizens is easier to clean up than a fubar on a bunch of rowdy Iraqis.

 

[Cerberus~]

So rather than a test, it is a demonstration. Big difference

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.

It's just a different phase of testing. They've never gotten to test it on a mass of ticked off people, so they want to try it on us.

The bold and underlined text infers an uncertainty in the heath risks and the possible outcomes of real use.

Do you mind this weapon being used by the police, or most likely, National Gaurd, on a civilian protest?

Would anyone support this weapon being used in a riot?

 

[k]

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

Will you be contacting the Chief asking for the time and location of their next test so you can be out front and ready to participate in this "good plan?"

 

[k]

The US has always used its troops for testing from nuclear weapons to pharm. companies.

 

[MachZer0]

I don't really feel any better about a demonstration on American people, but it still looks like a test to me. If they're confident in the technology, they should be able to use it on the battlefield without having to prove to the world that it works, or if they really want to prove something, they should use it where they're intending it to be used. The fact that they want to use it on citizens first tells me that they're not really so sure, and a fubar on citizens is easier to clean up than a fubar on a bunch of rowdy Iraqis.

Being that it is controversial, as a new weapon, he is merely saying that using it for nonlethal crowd control on Americans demonstrates that we consider it safe, as a nonlethal weapon

 

[MachZer0]

It's just a different phase of testing. They've never gotten to test it on a mass of ticked off people, so they want to try it on us.

The bold and underlined text infers an uncertainty in the heath risks and the possible outcomes of real use.

Do you mind this weapon being used by the police, or most likely, National Gaurd, on a civilian protest?

Would anyone support this weapon being used in a riot?

That may be what you infer, but I think what he is implying is that people are going to claim injuries from the weapon that are not actually caused by the weapon. It will take time to investigate those injuries to substantiate that they were not caused by the weapon.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Being that it is controversial, as a new weapon, he is merely saying that using it for nonlethal crowd control on Americans demonstrates that we consider it safe, as a nonlethal weapon

If that was the goal, it would be simple to gather up a platoon of military volunteers, have proper medical resources standing by, and zap them. But Wynne isn't suggesting that, is he?

 

[MachZer0]

If that was the goal, it would be simple to gather up a platoon of military volunteers, have proper medical resources standing by, and zap them. But Wynne isn't suggesting that, is he?

Why would he suggest performing tests like that when the weapon is ready for deployment?

 

[xMinionX]

Why would he suggest performing tests like that when the weapon is ready for deployment?

If they're still worried about international impact, and still feel the need to put on a demonstration, then it's not ready for deployment. There's more to it than just making sure it works right. If they're confident in the technology, then they can do what they've done in the past and use military volunteers.

 

[MachZer0]

If they're still worried about international impact, and still feel the need to put on a demonstration, then it's not ready for deployment. There's more to it than just making sure it works right. If they're confident in the technology, then they can do what they've done in the past and use military volunteers.

As the article said, it's a PR problem, not a technology problem. If you prefer that we test weapons on American soldiers, that's fine, your free to hold that opinion. The Air Force, however, may disagree

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why would he suggest performing tests like that when the weapon is ready for deployment?

Who says the weapon is ready for deployment? It hasn't even been tested yet.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As the article said, it's a PR problem, not a technology problem. If you prefer that we test weapons on American soldiers, that's fine, your free to hold that opinion. The Air Force, however, may disagree

A potential WMD suffering from a PR problem? Who would've guessed?

 

[MachZer0]

Who says the weapon is ready for deployment? It hasn't even been tested yet.

The device works by firing micro-millimeter waves that penetrate just beneath a person?s skin, heating it by a few dozen degrees and causing severe pain. Describing the panic-causing intensity of the pain inflicted by the high-powered microwaves, an un-named military officer who has experienced it had this to say: "All the glossy slide presentations cannot prepare you for what to expect when you step in the beam."

This weapon is already operational and in the field.

 

[MachZer0]

A potential WMD suffering from a PR problem? Who would've guessed?

A nonlethal WMD. Who would have guessed?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The device works by firing micro-millimeter waves that penetrate just beneath a person?s skin, heating it by a few dozen degrees and causing severe pain. Describing the panic-causing intensity of the pain inflicted by the high-powered microwaves, an un-named military officer who has experienced it had this to say: "All the glossy slide presentations cannot prepare you for what to expect when you step in the beam."

This weapon is already operational and in the field.

Then there's no legitimate reason to use it on US citizens -- unless you really want to.