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

[ShawnaAnn]

I wouldn't doubt that it zaps the fertility from the victims.... or other sick long term effects.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

********mod hat on**********

Hi everyone! I merged NathanPoe's thread with this one as they are identical.

Thanks

**********mod hat off**********

 

[Nathan Poe]

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

That may change if someone takes Michael Wynne's idea seriously.

 

[Blackguard_]

This weapon has already been shown to be safe

But isn't that only because they made everyone in the tests remove their glasses? I coulda sworn I heard this thing will really mess you up if you are wearing glasses, and contacts IIRC. You know how you're not supposed to put metal in a microwave? Consider the target demographic of riots/protests, the pierced and Punk (lots of studs, saftery-pins) dressed people this weapon would often be used on are in for a world of hurt.

Why not just massed high pressure paintball gun fire backed up by clubs and shields if they get too close?

 

[Alarum]

But isn't that only because they made everyone in the tests remove their glasses? I coulda sworn I heard this thing will really mess you up if you are wearing glasses, and contacts IIRC. You know how you're not supposed to put metal in a microwave? Consider the target demographic of riots/protests, the pierced and Punk (lots of studs, saftery-pins) dressed people this weapon would often be used on are in for a world of hurt.

Why not just massed high pressure paintball gun fire backed up by clubs and shields if they get too close?

Why not just shoot them all? I'm sure some of them will survive. And if some people survive, the method is non-lethal.

 

[pgp_protector]

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

In the Article

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.

 

[MachZer0]

In the Article

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.

Yes, but used by whom?

 

[ShawnaAnn]

effective in disabling some electronic devices

It could disable a pacemaker and needless to say, kill somebody.

 

[Blackguard_]

It could disable a pacemaker and needless to say, kill somebody.

How many people with pacemakers take part in riots? "Come on Mable, now's our chance! While all the whippsnappers are busy looting Al's TV and Electronics, the pharmacy is deserted!"

But yeah, this is just more unecessary, nevermind potentially deadly, tacticool stuff for PDs to play with.

Seriously, doesn't metal + microwaves = bad? What of all the protestors peircings, glasses, belt buckles, safetypin and studded Punk get-up etc.? Wouldn't anyone with metal on them get severely burned by this infernal machine?

 

[Law of Loud]

I have to admit, though perhaps it is blasphemy to say so, but I kind of like this chief's central premise, which reads to me, "If we're going to use a weapon as a non-lethal weapon, then we'd better be confident that it actually is non-lethal to the point that we're comfortable using it on our own citizens."

It's good policy really, to state that we're willing to treat foreigners in similar manner to our own citizens.

If the device isn't safe for riot control in the United States, then it shouldn't be used in either. I don't think he was implying loosening the bars on what's safe and unsafe here.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The exact implication of the article. Are you denying that Wynne suggestted using military weapons on US protesters?

 

[marshlewis]

Im sure all non US citizens could agree on this one.

 

[MachZer0]

The exact implication of the article. Are you denying that Wynne suggestted using military weapons on US protesters?

I'm denying that he suggested that the military use any kind of weapon on US protesters which is what he was accused of saying.

Are you saying that he suggested the Air Force use weapons against US protesters?

 

[LogicChristian]

In the Article

By whom will the weapon be used? The article doesn't state that, it just states that the Air Force wanted the weapon tested before it goes out into the field. Like I said, there are laws against hte US military operating in civilian situations. If the Air Force was even suggesting that they would do that, there would likely be a Congressional investigation.

 

[AirPo]

The article never mentioned the Air Force using the weapon on Americans

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.

 

[ShawnaAnn]

There it is! Proof the reputation system is flawed.

I know theres always a bit of entertainment in these forums. Hehe

 

[KCguy217]

Yeah, if this "nonlethal" weapon is used around someone with a pacemaker, that could possibly kill them. (Effects electronic devices)

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm denying that he suggested that the military use any kind of weapon on US protesters which is what he was accused of saying.

Are you saying that he suggested the Air Force use weapons against US protesters?

Now you're splitting hairs.

Military weapons, designed to be used in wartime, presumably by the US Air Force, would be "field-tested" on US citizens protesting the government. Are you going to say it makes a difference whose finger pulls the trigger?

Whether the Air Force does the job themselves, or whether the lend them out to the National Guard, federal, state, or local police forces, really matters?

 

[MachZer0]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'll ask the question once again. Used by whom? Where does the article say the weapon will be used by the Air Force?

 

[MachZer0]

Now you're splitting hairs.

Military weapons, designed to be used in wartime, presumably by the US Air Force, would be "field-tested" on US citizens protesting the government. Are you going to say it makes a difference whose finger pulls the trigger?

Whether the Air Force does the job themselves, or whether the lend them out to the National Guard, federal, state, or local police forces, really matters?

It's considered splitting hairs because there is a contiigent here that would like for the article to say something that it absolutely, undeniably and irrefutably did not say.