Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force to Test Hi-Tech Weapons on Americans?
GayBliss writes to tell us CNN.com has an article about how the US Air Force secretary proposes testing new 'non-lethal' weapons on American citizens before deploying them to the battlefield. New weapons like a high-power microwave device are designed to incapacitate people or sometimes even electronic devices. From the article: "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."
What's wrong with this?
Hey, I think the military has a point. If we ain't willing to use it here somebody doesn't really believe it is all that safe and 'non-lethal'.
Besides, this will give hippies a chance to do their part in the GWOT! Just stage another mass protest and do what comes natural.... toke up, get rowdy and start smashing stuff. If the bright boys have done their stuff right nobody gets permanently damaged and we have a new shiny toy to use against the barbarian hordes. If they screwed up the hippies can unleash the lawyers.
Of course if they get wind they will already be inventing the strange symptoms they will claim to suffer and even have a cute name for the syndrome.... which can only be cured with a huge cash settlement.
Democrat delenda est
testing these weapons on the people in charge of the project? I mean they're non-lethal, so what's the problem?
...but I'd probably be hit with a skull-splitting sonic weapon or something.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
....they need to test it in foreign countries that have FAR fewer lawyers!!!1
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How dare we use non-lethal methods on our own citizens. Instead we should stick to lethal ones, right?
that's the group of americans who supposedly non-lethal weapons should be tested on, the commanders who would authorize their use.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
why dont they test them on themselves?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Any further questions?
*ZAP*
"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"
Shouldn't we have more concern for our fellow American citizens than those who we're at war against? This guy is definetely screwed up in the head. I would much more prefer we test it on lab rats or non-americans first.
That sounds just like something a police state would do.
That this guy thinks the solution is testing on Americans... This is what we've come to. If only this guy had been around in '46... Here's an idea... Why don't you test these weapons on yourself jackass?
Hmmm... if there are crowds of protesters who disagree with this idea, then it's a ready-made opportunity!
<IRONY=0%>
Dammit, did I leave off the "IRONY=100%" tag again?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
What type of crowd contol situations are the talking about, protests against using this weapon on American citizens?
If they feel that this is the right way to go about testing new non-lethal weapons. Who is this enemy they are developing these "non-lethal" weapons for? The public? Americans who don't buy the party line? Iraqis? Disgruntled union workers?
I read this earlier, I couldn't think of a better example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
Military uses them first on US citizens:
OMG the Military is testing weapons on US citizens!
Military uses them first on non-US citizens:
OMG the Military is testing weapons on non-US citizens! What are those people worth less to you racists?
Military doesn't develope these weapons:
OMG the Military is using deadly force against civilians
The major flaw in this is that the entire premise is based upon the fact that the military wants to win a public relations war rather than the real thing.
Who cares if you are in a *war* and you hurt the enemy?
Give me a break. When you get to the point where you are trying to care about what people think about you in a war you are losing. War is for one thing only--the destruction of your enemy.
If you are very efficient and eliminate your enemy very quickly you can just write (rewrite) any PR you want to.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Sounds like a good idea! I vote we let pentagon officials test them on themselves before the rest of us, as a show of good faith.
From the article:
You know, 'cause we're so well respected now. We wouldn't want to tarnish the US' image in the international community.
...what they don't tell you is that there are plenty of brown "islamic" Americans who go to mosques and are likely to blow themselves up given half a chance.
Or so they'd have us believe.
This war on Humanity has driven me past the boundaries of sanity. Hand me my pills.
Stick Men
Wasn't part of the reason we took Saddam Hussein out of power because he was using weapons on his citizens? I know this is different as these are 'non-lethal' but with out proper testing there's no way to tell if they are truely 'non-lethal' so who knows? They may turn out to me worse than the biological ones Hussein was using.
Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
Did I miss something? I thought we wanted to kill everyone who was a bad guy in times of war? Now there is suddenly a problem with using potentially harmful non-leathal weapons on them?
This is ridiculous. The US Air Force secretary is saying that it's ethically OK to use US citizens over non-US citizens for testing weapons. This is clearly false as everyone knows that non-US citizens are much more deserving of being used as test subjects.
Support the FairTax
He's fine.
The article summary doesn't make clear that the weapons are not going to be tested on *willing* US citizens (e.g. college students looking to make $100 for a few brief moments of pain). TFA talks about using the weapons for crowd control in the U.S.
Still think TFA has a good idea, but wanted to point out that difference.
- Dregs?
Oh...they're needed to stop 'riots', eh? Man on the ground will say "It's a riot", out come the weaponry, and a few weeks later the cops who killed citizens with 'non-lethal' weapons will be charred corpses in their own beds...their wives and children smoldering down the hall...while the easily-led 'middle-americans' cry and weep for the death of their masters.
Our gov't doesn't need more ways to subjugate us.
Blar.
...it would be a little bit of a doublespeak to say "Here are the fancy new non-lethal weapons we've been working on... but um, we'd rather use the old ways on US citizens." That means you either think they're ineffective and would rather use a gun, or they're only non-lethal in the most literal sense of the word and US citizens could make too much of a fuzz. In any case, I think "eating your own dogfood" would be a good way show that these weapons really are as good as claimed.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
i for one, welcome our new .... oh wait ...
Would not it be better to test in on animals or Iraqi first?
Really he's right.
They are tested and documented less lethal weapons. Even if there is no intention to use them by the military, domestic use might help save lives and reduce injuries.
If they really are less lethal they should be deployed domestically.
It's good for Americans because it allows one more step before employing lethal weapons.
It's politically safer to use them outside the US after they've been used domestically.
With domestic riots they have a few options to control, adding another somewhere between shooting and telling people to behave is good.
Hopefully they will be safer than
Tasers, rubber bullets, bean bags, maybe even CS gas.
I'd rather people get informed enough about the issues to have fair and reasonable discussions, but that's about as likely as a non violent response to out of control protests.
"Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations," said Secretary Michael Wynne.
/tinfoilhat on
He must not have thought that through.... Domestic use would make it a hell of a lot harder to avoid safety considerations. I would believe the battlefield would be the best place to test weaponry if you're trying to avoid such questions. Rarely does someone say "Oops, we killed an enemy combatant."
"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,"
I only partially agree with that statement. There are plenty of examples in the past where we have used weaponry, of any sort, in wartime situations that we wouldn't have imagined using against our own citizens.
What scares me is that this guy is serious with these statements.
Look, it's plain and simple. Unless we test weapons on American civilians, the Terrorists win.
To me, it sounds more like they're trying set a precedent for using microwave weapons against US citizens, and they've just decided this is the nicest way of going about doing that.
Maybe I'm just paranoid. But it doesn't seem like a good idea.
One day, it will be used to quell a violent outburst from some crowd. And, from then on, it could be used to take away our right to assembly. As if tear gas and rubber bullets weren't enough.
I'm all about keeping a crowd under control, but we can't allow something that could be used to -control- us.
I read the RTFA, and it basically says that they're going to use these "weapons" on people in the US. This is different from anything HOW? As far as I know, before they deploy these "weapons" against protesters, they usually use them on -paid- volunteers to make sure they're actually ok. I don't see any big difference between using water hoses vs. sonic weapons against protesters, except one is probably a lot easier to lug around, and also to use in places like the mid east where you just can't spray water like that. Big fucking deal people, stop acting so indignant.
I put the quotes around test because I don't think the focus is on testing the weapons at all. I think it's just a way for them to flex some muscle and show that they've got the biggest slingshots, and tough shit if you don't like it, because there's nothing that you can do about it That they bring up crowd control shows an awful lot about their motives. Even if there were some legitimate tests that needed to be done that had to be done on real people, doing it this way only serves to scare the citizens into compliance with whatever the politico-gods want us to do.
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 67, Sec. 1385
Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Of course, there have been many efforts recently to subvert such principles.
Why stop now? They've been doing things like this for years, especially to the military. Anthrax shots, nuclear testing, yellow fever, etc. Since at least 1943 they've been biological tests on people, typically without their knowledge.
/. when I saw it already posted. I need a faster keyboard.)
Luckily I never had to take any of the anthrax shots while in the Navy, but I remember talking to another Navy guy who said part of the enlistment contract requires service members to accept drug testing on them. That's why the anthrax shots were so debilitating; they were using the military to test it. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I certainly wouldn't put it past our government.
(Man, I was submitting this to
Free Programming BookLearn to program
Next we can invade and occupy New Jersey. Then we won't need to justify the Iraqi invasion because we've done it do ourselves.
Compare and contrast to previous non-lethal weapons and how they were tested: tazer, bean bag gun, etc.
Support the FairTax
This is one of those news stories that can be easily spun to be pro- and anti-Military, pro- and anti-American, pro- and anti-Democracy, etc. Is it really such a big deal? There are many forms of non-lethal measures out on the market already being used by law enforcement and even civilian populations. There are FAR more lethal measures both in use by law enforcement and civilians (everything from kitchen knives to a Honda Accord). After spending many years using science to develop new and exciting ways to kill each other, it's odd that there would be a controversial story about using science to develop new and exciting ways to NOT kill each other. Being hit by a Thomas A Swift Electric Raygun isn't fun, but at least I know I have a good chance of surviving it.
This is unbelievable, even in this administration where sadly, one has come to expect this type of mentality. BTW - Let me say that I am a registered Republican before I get flamed by all the NeoCons.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
"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."
Yes, better watch out America! Lest the military opts to test out bringing Democracy to your Constitutional Republic.
"Bzzzzzt! Mmm.. Not bad. Bzzzzzzzzzztt! Ooh. A little crispy now.. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttss!. KRACKKK! Okay that's enough. Hmm.. Shit.. Looks like they're unsafe. Okay, what's next? Sound weapon? Great, aim at the little guy this time."
Asshole.
After all the liberty limiting, rights abolishing moves, now your administration, in conjunction with the military, is preparing to literally beat down u.s. citizens.
What a wonderful entourage is that you voted to govern your country !!!
Read radical news here
When the new high-power sonar systems were being tested, they asked for SCUBA divers to participate. This was at a certain test location that is literally out in the middle of the ocean. It wasn't like they took you out there. You were either already there or you weren't. Among other things, the time that divers were in the water, and the exact spot were requested, along with personal experiences and observations of what the "wildlife" was doing. Since the location is a remote base, they were pretty confident that the reports were reasonable.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
It isn't about the military testing it on civilians at all, nor is it about the military using it on US Citizens either (you may not realize this but the military (Army/Navy/Air Force/Coast Guard/Marines) does not get deployed against civilian populations; at worst it'd be the National Guard which is supposed to operate domestically).
From my understanding it reads that Wynne thinks they should be used by groups such as police forces in crowd control situations because if it was something which they would be willing to use then the political capital opponents of the non-lethal weapons have would be lost. What they're trying to avoid is a situation where the latest non-lethal weapon which is deployed abroad and then having media say that it killed/injured someone.
IF they test em on the corrupt bastards that are ruining our country, and causing the people to resort to civil disobedience just so they can be heard.
IF you can't be famous be infamous. But for GODS sake be something
Happy Hippy Hunting Season?
I smell reality/sitcom!
An amazing generation those "hippies", 40 years down the road they still ruffle feathers
A goal is a dream with a deadline
From the article:
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.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer...
So only 1/3 of the article is actually about non-lethal weapon testing. Seems like right about where they should have given more details about the new weapons, they shift gears to talk about a new contract for refueling tankers... Kind of an awkward place to put that kind of information.
It's like "Yeah, we may do some testing of non-lethal weapons on US citizens, so we don't accidentally kill or injure people we're at war with, making us look bad. The weapons can stun people and... oh yeah! We're about to pick a new contractor for refueling tankers. Weapons? What weapons? We're taling about contracts and money now!"
You fool, still believe in CNN lol, what a moron, classic drive by media topic, it makes the people that does not read the whole thing think the gov is after them.
Air Force Techie #1: We've got some new non-lethal weapons we need to test before sending them out into the field. Any ideas?
...outside weapons lab...
...later that day...
Air Force Techie #1: So, did you figure out a way to test those weapons?
Air Force Techie #2: Hmmm....yeah, actually. * Goes and posts on Slashdot *
Slashdot Hordes: Onoes! They're planning to use weapons against American citizens! We should start a riot!
Angry Mob: We demand you don't use those weapons on American citizens!
Air Force Guard #1: That mob is getting pretty close. Guess we should get on with it then.
Air Force Guard #2: Yep. * unloads new non-lethal weapons into crowd *
Air Force Techie #2: Done, done, and done.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
C-SPAN
When was the last time that there were domestic protests that put the military into a situation where they had to decide between harsh language and lethal force? For that matter, when was the last time in the U.S. where police fired real bullets at protestors?
Mind you, I could see a situation where the military faces violent protests in other countries, and then find themselves being sniped upon from somewhere in the crowd. Iraq has been the site of many of these, leaving the military commanders there to face the decision mentioned above. Also, I recall situations in Bosnia where the Serbs would block roads with little old ladies who would prevent aid convoys from going through to the ill-fated "safe havens." So, I can understand that the military can have a need for this - it gives more options than either backing down, opening fire, or firing riot gas grenades (which constitute "chemical weapons" for the military, if I recall correctly <grimace>).
However, either the military is expecting a long wait before having a chance to test these weapons... or are expecting something to happen that might cause the testing opportunities.
Either one is suitable cause for me to have a creepy-crawly feeling between the shoulderblades....
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I see no quote from Wynne related to testing. Did he really say this, or is CNN just twisting the truth by tossing in the word "testing"
From reading his quotes, it appears that he thinks we should not use non-lethal weapons on the battlefield unless we are willing to use them at home. That implies, to me at least, that we should only use non-lethal weapons if we think they are safe enough to use in the US. In other words, the non-lethal weapons are really non-lethal. If we're claiming something is "non-lethal" then we back up that claim with domestic use.
Is this not a good thing?
By using them on ourselves, that adds some assurance that the military won't use untested non-lethal weapons on foreign citizens. That means that we are really testing these things before we use them in real situations on real people because we're using them on ourselves first. And if their use can stand up to the sue-happy US laywers, their use will be more accepted in combat situations overseas.
This crap about using US citizens as guinea pigs is bogus.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Secretary Wynne is quoted once in the article.
"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."
He states (according to the reporter) that it would be a public relations risk to use these weapons on people in foreign countries and assert they are non-lethal (or safe), if we are not willing to use them on our own people.
Nowhere does he state that the government is proposing, nor does he propose, a plan to start using them on US citizens, or "testy U.S. mobs" as CNN shouts in the headline. Maybe he did say that at the meeting, I don't know, but the reporter didn't give enough information to back up the sensationalist headline.
So will wearing a hooded sweatshirt and jeans that have metal mesh woven into them then protect you from
a microwave weapon (reflection)? If so, there is an opportunity to profit from a new line of clothing....
Quick, call Mulder!
Have you read my journal today?
I think he just stated his point poorly. It isn't that he wants to test them on US citizens, it is that- If we're developing weapons to use on civilians that are supposed to be non-lethal BUT we're afraid to use them on our own citizens THEN we're not really sure that they're non-lethal and shouldn't be used. If we are secure enough in their safety that we would be willing to use them at home then they are ready to be used overseas. He isn't advocating rounding up citizens to shoot guns at. He's focusing on safety.
I thought enlisted men were good for this type of experimentation. It's a non-lethal weapon, right? What could go wrong?
Why don't they just do what doctors do when testing out a new, but potentially dangerous, treatment?
Simply pay a bunch of people to be hit with these weapons under various scenarios and with varying intensity of weapon. Evaluate the medical consequences. This is precisely what doctors do in phase I clinical trials: increase the dose to determine toxicity.
That would be the ethical way to do it, with informed consent and all. I guess such moral standards only apply when you're trying to help people, not when you're trying to hurt someone (but not too much).
Yet Another Incendiary Slashdot Headline.
...
...
Why don't they just say what this really is.
Air Force: "We have some new, less-than-lethal, weapons. And, we'd like to test them out. Since people will get all bent out of place by us testing them on animals, we thought we'd give ya'll the opportunity to volunteer.
Crowd:
Air Force: "We'll pay you!"
Crowd:
Air Force: "No takers? Oh, guess we have to test it on animals then. We don't want to "accidentially" kill someone because the weapon wasn't tested first."
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I was all set to be offended, but it's a good laugh. I don't think he's actually dissing hippies here so much as just poking fun. So knock it off with the troll mods. That kind of oppression is so uncool, man, I mean, if we can't laugh at ourselves, we need to smoke more pot, am I right? The dude may be too square to realize that you don't generally get rowdy and smash stuff when you toke up, but that doesn't make him a troll. Come on, mods, don't be like The Man here, putting your negativity onto this poor dude, let him be himself.
Jmorris42, shine on, you crazy diamond.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
We DO hold accused criminals accountable, don't we?
Aw, shit.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
...just tryin' to help :)
A goal is a dream with a deadline
The question you should be asking is "Why is the Military being used for civillian law enforcment?"
Citizen, it sounds like you need to be sent to the Ministry of Love for re-education. The question you should be asking is "Why isn't the military being used for civilian law enforcement all the time?"
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I bet the weapons have already been tested successfully in Guatanamo and all the other secret CIA jails around the world, and all the bigger bugs have been fixed.
...for 'my' government to use against me. In addition to being fined, beaten, firehosed and tazed, I can now be microwaved and deafened. At which point I can be locked up for some good old fashioned sexual slavery.
Before you rebut, remember, so can you, citizen!
Not doing anything illegal? I doubt it, and at the rate they crank out laws, it won't be too long before you are.
Outraged? Be sure to vote carefully on that Diebold machine.
Hmm. Thats the same frequency as the radar used to track clouds
W-band ARM Cloud Radar (WACR)
So it reflects off of water droplets.
Hmm. I wonder if fog machines will be de reguire for mass protests in the near future.
Personally I'd think that would look a lot more hip than space blanket ponchos
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
you can always comply with the wishes of authority...
Or you can go here.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If you expect to fight wars of liberation, where enemies are distinguished readily from friends and where those who are left are capable of reestablishing government on their own, then building a military that can turn your enemies into smoking holes in the ground is a good idea; it is likely a part of the toolbox of any capable military force.
However, if we intend to invade/liberate countries without the ability to reestablish law and order (the Balkans/Iraq/North Korea?), then we would need some means to nonlethally restore order afterwards. Alternatively, the "smoking hole" theory of military force works when you have a distinct and limited set of enemies, such as those based on nationality. When your enemies live based on religion or ideas, the number of enemies can increase faster than your ability to destroy them (or, rather, the direct and indirect costs of destroying them can increase faster than you can withstand). Nonlethal methods make them more able to act against enemies without helping to generate more in the process.
If the military or the people running it are not trusted, then whatever weapons they possess will be viewed with fear and distrust; it is no different with nonlethal weapons as with lethal ones. If the military is going to develop nonlethal weapons, who should they test them on? (While COs might be nice guinea pigs, no one seems to expect CEOs to test their products personally in other circumstances, and so there isn't a consistent reason to expect them to be test dummies; if the weapons were actually lethal, this would pose an additional problem.) Better compensated and protected citizens than POWs, I think.
The question you should be asking is "Why is the Military being used for civillian law enforcment?"
They're not. Here's a scenario for you:
You're with a platoon of Marines assigned to guard a US Embassy, or perhaps to support the local military in their protection of a local elected official (say, the Interior Minister of Carjakistan, who is friendly to democracy but tends to have angry mobs pointed at him by his local political opponents in the city where they're trying to put together a function municipal government that doesn't involve daily beheadings). A couple of busses pull up with that day's duly designated Angry Mob(s). They start screaming, throwing rocks, etc. Then, some shots ring out from the crowd, at the Marines.
So, they can fire over the heads of the crowd, hoping to disperse them. The people willing to attack some Marines don't really care about that tactic one way or the other, so that's something of a non-starter. Or, they can fire into the crowd, making them disperse into smaller body parts, and hopefully also killing the people who are shooting at whatever building they're in. That works, but has the unfortunate side effect of killing the people who were bussed in as angry-crowd-cover by the militants. Marines look bad on CNN for that one. Or, they can trot out a new toy or two that makes it pretty much unbearable to be in that crowd in the first place, AK-47 under your cross-dressing burkha or not. Unarmed civilians don't die, and Interior Minister gets to go to work on the police force that's ultimately supposed to handle these situations.
If I'm a Marine, I'm all for this. Likewise Air Force MPs (who are often guarding facilities that get swamped with representatives from Unruly Crowd Central Casting), etc.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"they need to test it in foreign countries that have FAR fewer lawyers!!!"
How about just " they should test it on Lawyers PERIOD"
it's a joke....laff
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
I mean they're non-lethal, so what's the problem?
You should try reading the article. The Air Force is saying that it's not going to "test" these weapons that everyone THINKS are non-lethal in a combat area and find out they are, in fact, NOT non-lethal. The air force is saying that if the governemnt (read: US population) wants them to use non-lethal weapons, then it better go about PROVING their non-lethality and willingness therein so far as to use it on themselves. The Air Force is saying that if the US conscience wants to the US to use non-lethal weapons, it better be willing to stick it's own neck on the line in the face of such non-lethal weapons.
This is the military being responsible... not the other way around. This is all-time great FUD. Slashdot should be ashamed for buying into this bullshit headline and quoting the wrong parts. Militaries KILL PEOPLE. That's what they do. The conscience of the American people want the military to NOT-KILL-PEOPLE, so they are promoting non-lethal weapons. The Air Force response by saying, "Once you test them on yourselves, American population, we will agree to use them on our enemies... they are nonlethal, after all?".
The air force is agreeing with you. The yellow journalist and sensationalistic title on this piece is seriously disheartening.
In the late '40s through late '60s the US military tested chemical weapons on its own people without their knowledge. I read about clean up efforts from some of these secret tests just a few years ago in a local rag (that's newspaper, if you don't know the idiom), so I dug around google for at least one reference.
The last time I know of that the US ASKED for volunteers, they were doing nuclear testing with citizens well within the danger zone to see the effects of nuclear weapons on people just outside the immediate blast radius (probably because PETA was protesting the use of animals - jk).
Hey - let's round up all the people who are sending out spam or making these stupid virii (viruses, if you like). We can't give them the chair, so this is the next best thing!
:)
Then again, I did medical research to put myself thru college - I wonder if this would be the same kind of thing, and, well - I'd probably still be stupid enough to do it. $1000? Sure! Nuke me! Thank you sir, may I have another!
I also just got this hilarious picture in my head of a SWAT team storming the campus of a certain company in Redmond, WA... That'll keep me going all day
-
The Deej has spoken.
Many have heard.
Few have listened.
I'm the Deej, and I approve this message.
Or at least '48, for the first H-bomb, because I can't think of anything of any particular import tested for the first time in '46.
> The dude may be too square to realize that you don't generally get rowdy and smash stuff when you toke up,
:)
> but that doesn't make him a troll.
Oh dude, like you totally need to watch Reefer Madness. Then you would know lighting up a joint will cause you to become totally out of control, perhaps even a violent killing machine or something.
Seriously though, I knew I was going to -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait if I expressed the general idea so why not have some fun with a troll post. Once you hit the cap what other use does Karma have other than burning some to piss off some overly sensitive 'progressives.'
Figured this story would quickly turn into a "Daily Hate" and I had a shot at getting one of the first posts in. Couldn't resist stirring the pot a bit. The GNAA don't know squat about how to troll.
Democrat delenda est
Just because *some* people are rioting doesn't mean they all are, but guess what happens when the pigs show up? They put a stop to anything and everything, and to hell with your freedom of speech.
So why aren't you stopping the destructive people in your midst, to show that you're actually committed to peaceful speech and non-aggressive demonstration of your point of view? If you tolerate the guy standing right next to you who is swinging a two-by-four at someone's windshield or getting ready to torch a Starbucks - why aren't you jumping at the chance to show the "pigs" (um, nice way to indicate your lack of hostility, there) that there is no need for crowd control, because the crowd is controlling itself?
No? I didn't think so. "Anonymous Coward" has never been more accurate. Ever.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Will the particular people participating in suhc a test be aware of it, or will they suddenly find themselves in a great deal of discomfort without knowing why? Will people with pacemakers suddenly drop dead?
I'm sure they'll be looking for volunteers to have to meet certain medical requirements to be approved (or so I hope is the process), but it just seems like a weird idea for a governemnt/military to turn its weapons on its own people.
He learned about pressure points and whatnot and the chief requirement for learning is that you have to allow the instructor to do it to you so you understand how it feels. That way you understand the level of pain your inflicting on your opponent. If it's non-lethal then they should go right ahead!
Police training for both Peper Spray and Tasers uses this as well.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Have you ever seen Steve throw that bad boy? Take out an adamantium-clad evil robot in one swat!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
This is why we Americans invade small countries: to get test subjects! Why waste them?
TALKING HEAD: This afternoon in National Guard troops were called out to stop the rioting that has gone on for three days. The rioting has caused $ of damamge and destroyed countless businesses. In response to the protestors the decision was made to use a new non-leathal device. Here's with that story.
REPORTER: I'm here at the just blocks from the riots. The devestation is astounding and the site of a pilar of smoke rising over the city brings home how devestating this riot has been. Earlier, Maj. General said he felt the new device was a God-send.
FILM CLIP OF MAJ. GENERAL: We felt the use of such an advance device as justified given the state of the city. The Mayor was about to announce Martial Law when the device was deployed. Within hours the device stopped the rioting and cleared the streets. We feel it was a complete success.
REPORTER: And there you have it. Good news all around.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
You want examples besides Afghanistan and Iraq? Well, try the Battle for Monte Casino, where the allies suffered terrible losses and nearly faced a total defeat purely because they carpet-bombed a monastary that was standing nearby not doing a damn thing. (The Germans realized that the crazily-collapsed massive stone masonry would make excellent cover, so when the allies charged, they were simply mown down in their hundreds, totally unable to get at the enemy. All through their insatiable need for total destruction.) Total extraneous cost: Many tens of thousands of lives and a few billion dollars, for a hilltop that turned out to be quite unnecessary.
Ok, so can I name any battle or war won with virtually no destruction at all? I'd use the battle for the Channel Islands, in the English Channel, as an example. No deaths, no destruction. None. Whatsoever. Either when the Germans invaded, or when the British recaptured them. Not a single shot fired, not a single bomb dropped. Ok, were they defended? Hey, anyone who goes there can see bloody great reinforced concrete gun emplacements, bunkers, trenches and fortresses. Anyone with a metal detector can find unused bullets and unexploded bombs still scattered over the landscape. It's a wonder the population isn't providing the primary funding for the prosthetics industry. Those islands were defended by people quite capable and quite willing to ride out any kind of attack, the German occupiers in particular who included fanatical brigades. The two opposing armies negotiated a peaceful transfer in each direction. Total extraneous cost: Nothing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Sounds like a mission out the Paranoia RPG. Friend Computer has some red-shirts "test out" a bunch of R&D weapons and gear.
:-/
Unfortunately we don't have 6 clones to play with.
Just because the Military doesn't think something is lethal doesn't make it so. Back in 1950 they thought a bacteria wasn't harmful and used it for testing, but some people got sick and other(s) died.
2 004/10/31/SIDER.TMP
"The Army used serratia to test whether enemy agents could launch a biological warfare attack on a port city such as San Francisco from a location miles offshore. For six days in late September 1950, a small military vessel near San Francisco sprayed a huge cloud of serratia particles into the air while the weather favored dispersal."
"Army tests showed that the bacterial cloud had exposed hundreds of thousands of people in a broad swath of Bay Area communities including Sausalito, Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, San Francisco, Daly City and Colma, according to reports that later were declassified. Soon after the spraying, 11 people came down with hard-to-treat infections at the old Stanford University Hospital in San Francisco. By November, one man had died. Edward Nevin, 75, a retired Pacific Gas and Electric Co. worker recovering from a prostate operation, had succumbed to an infection with Serratia marcescens that attacked his heart valves."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
I see this going over great with your current administration - a torture device that the Spanish Inquisition would have killed for in the hands of people who have proven they're not to be trusted.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
We already use non-lethal methods of crowd control domestically. Since it seems like there's nothing there, let's look at it with our critical thinking skills: Either there is absolutely nothing to see here, or this is a pretext for introducing two things which individually are VERY controversial.
1. Using the military for domestic crowd control. We have police forces because using the military domestically against US citizens isn't OK. If you don't understand why the military is completely separate from the domestic police, I'm not going to bother arguing with you.
2. Microwaving protesters or worse. This introduces the idea of using microwaves (and likely worse, depending on the public response) for crowd control domestically. Again, we already use non-lethal methods of crowd control. They're talking about using microwaves for crowd control. Want to let me microwave _you_ into submission because you're saying something I don't like? Non-lethal weapons aren't harmless. People get killed by rubber bullets, and I'd rather face those than enough microwaves to shut me up.
Hilarious. All those protesters are criminals. Microwave them all, and let God sort them out.
What a great way to shift the dialogue away from the real issues. To everybody who finds this funny: Try to exercise your critical thinking skills in real life, especially on military press releases.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Thanks for linking to the brochure.
It looks like the beam is sufficiently narrow that it can target individuals or small groups, so I can see how targets can move away from the beam even in large crowds.
The limited width of the beam also gives me reason to believe that even the most poorly-trained/sadistic operator isn't going to leave it pointed at any one target for a prolonged period of time: when you're outnumbered 100:1 by an angry mob and can only fry those protestors in the path of a very narrow beam, you're going to have a very strong incentive to keep that beam moving across as many protestors as possible. The operator who elects to fry the hell out of some poor schmuck like an ant under a magnifying glass does so at the risk of having his position very quickly overrun by the remaining 99 ants :)
With the wavelengths discussed, I can also see why the energy is absorbed near the surface of the skin and is unlikely to effect things like pins/plates or other surgically implanted devices such as pacemakers.
The only question I'd have about safety is the effects that rapid heating would have on the human cornea. Is there anything in the public literature regarding this? (I'm thinking that much of this must have been researched back in the WW2 and Korean War era when we were learning how to train techs to work on radar installations without cooking themselves, but I'm damned if I'm gonna Google for stuff like that these days :)
I'm thinking about the environment (metal, buildings, etc) possibly having the ability to reflect the waves so that multiple wavefronts converge in one area, creating spots of amplification. Given it being pointed at the right place, what is the likelyhood of a 'freak accident' that would fry somebody something good?
And they'll be sure to blame it as a freak accident. Just like tasers and drug users.
Although I agree he could have stated it better: the issue is that if we, as a nation, believe these weapons are in fact non-lethal, then why are we not using them domestically?
It's a valid, debatable point. And extremely different from "let's test it on civilians!"
Way back when I was in the navy, it was pretty much standard practice for them to use tear gas on us as part of chemical warfare training (obviously, they don't use stronger stuff as most of it is lethal).
... I thought it would be a bit of itching and nose running, but when it happened, the tear gas hit me instantly, like a ton of bricks -- eyes stinging, mucous membranes going nuts, unable to breathe. And this was without a high enough concentration for the gas to be visible in the air.
For one drill, we were supposed to wait until we felt the effects of the gas before we put our masks on
Another fun fact about tear gas, which I found out later that day in the shower, is that tear gas residue on your skin hurts like hell if it gets wet.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
All he's saying is that if these weapons are too dangerous (lethally or politically) to be used against US citizens (by the police), then they should not be used against enemies in war.
It's a good policy.
Amen. It's sad when you purposefully have to post comments as AC because the politically correct /. moderators will crush you otherwise. The Parent deserves Insightful moderation.
We never tested the Atomic bomb on Americans, so why is this acceptable?
The crooks in office will justify anything that keeps them in power.
First it's the secrecy, then it's chip, chip, chip at our inalienable rights....
Next our Constitution will be declared null and void.
When are the Alpha Centaurians going to land. We need to start a war with then to protect ourselves from ourselves
captured terrorists are for? Seriously, you're testing on your own citizens before you would test on people that want to kill your citizens?
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
You can't take the sky from me...
Who is to say this isn't leathel in the long run? I say we find out 20-30 years down the road we find out it either A) does really cook your insides slowly shortening your long term life or B)Causes various types of cancer.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
You want to test your new weapons on Americans exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Perhaps it's time we test our old weapons on governments who have forgotten that they work for us.
Using this stuff on Americans is about the quickest and surest way to guarantee that the second scenario happens.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
A lot of the rights we have now, we have only because several thousand angry people on the street puts some righteous fear into the powers that be. If the government had had reliable nonlethal crowdbusting weapons during the heyday of the labor movement, an "eight hour day" would still be a utopian fantasy (instead of something our parents enjoyed and that we're voluntarily ceding out of sheer stupidity).
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
Crowd control applied to American citizens is a law enforcement function.
Right. So what makes you think it's the Air Force that would be testing it? Law enforcement is called upon, routinely, to deal with crowds of jackasses that are burning cars because their sports team lost (or won! whatever - doesn't matter - let's burn stuff!). There are plenty of opportunities for domestic law enforcement specialists to evaluate and test this sort of thing so that when the military does have need for it (which they clearly already do), no one in France can say how mean we are in the way we're not killing someone who is throwing a flaming bucket of gasoline at an embassy car full of diplomats.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sssh! I was playing along, now you'll ruin it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hey, after we put ourselves up a torture state that rejects as many of the Geneva Conventions as the Bushies can get away with, and after we already have secret laws, secret prisons, and we have already thrown away habeas corpus, how big a step is it to start routinely using our military weapons on any civilians who do not tow the party line?
Not a large step.
Most people with experience with the application of force believe that the phrase 'non-lethal' is inaccurate and is a misnomer. The correct phrase is "Less than Lethal".
From Wikipedia:
As different parts of the body differ in vulnerability, and because people vary in weight and fitness, any weapon powerful enough to incapacitate is likely to be capable of killing under certain circumstances. Thus "non-lethal force" may have some risk of causing death: in this context "non-lethal" only means "not intended to kill". For this reason, two new terms, "less than lethal" and particularly "less-lethal", were coined and are now being used in place of "non-lethal" by many weapons manufacturers and law enforcement agencies (and even those who oppose their common use in riot control). This meaning emphasizes that they tend to kill or injure far fewer targets than traditional weapons, whose primary purpose is to kill and maim.
The entire concept of less-than-lethal weapons is to minimize civilian casualties. Although rioters are occasionally accidentally killed by these weapons, fatalities are rare and usually accidental. Typical causes of death from non-lethal weapons include misplaced or ricocheting shots, as well as insufficient training on the part of the user.
The thing that bothers me about this, is his attitude of worrying about the PR fallout in other parts of the world.
FTFA: "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."
They are supposed to be protecting us from our enemies, not trying to be accountable to them or any other country with an opinion. THEY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO US (the citizens).
Another thing that irritates me, is that regardless of which side of the law we are on, being a test subject should be a strict violation of our civil rights. If they test this weapon and American civilians die what then? If anything why not test these new weapons in a battlefield where you're trying to wound/maim/kill the enemy, rather than suppress/arrest/dispurse them?
This would also seem to be pretty much unavoidable (for those of you that would say "don't attend xyz, and you don't have anything to worry about"), if you were to attend a rally of some kind, would they notify you that they are testing this, or just blast the crowd with it? The only way to avoid being a test subject would be to avoid any kind of public speech/event that has potential for becoming heated, at which point you might as well never again leave the house, write a letter to the editor of your local paper, or post your opinion publicly on your favorite forums.
As a matter of fact, I think any kind of crowd control device of this nature should be strictly outlawed for use in the united states. Something like this gives the government waaaaaay too much power, in the event that we the people ever decided to oust the current representation and start again.
It doesn't matter if it is lethal or non-lethal. The question is, does blowing a huge blast of microwave RF interfer with HAMs? Rule #1. Don't screw with RF without consulting the HAMs first, because if it screws with the HAMs, it isn't going to happen on US soil.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
It's actually getting boring at this point.
Use EM weapons to make people crazy and angry so that you can easily incite and direct a riot, then use EM weapons of another variety to reduce the masses into shuddering balls of pain.
What a great country!
The vampires are in control. Oh, goody!
-FL
Radio and Radar engineers have often faced "harmless" stuff - a little longer wavelength, but not that much - and apparently early cataracts and reproductive problems down the road were suspected to be related.
Considering this millimeter wave emitter probably does penetrate about as deep as cataracts in the eyse do, will they cover any such problems if you lose your sight from effectively having your eyeballs microwaved like a hard-boiled egg?
They already are testing them you fooooooools!!! halp meh
for real....
I agree with the guy that if we're not willing to use "non-lethal" weapons on our own people, then we shouldn't be willing to use them in a wartime situation and still pretend we're being nice.
However, I don't think we should test them on random civilians. What I would do is give a few of these things to some odd police department, and see how they like 'em. That sounds like a plan.
Google: "All your data are belong to us."
Uhm, you DID know that sterility was one of the known side effects of those things, didn't you?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Surprise the woman, grab the piece, rape her at gun-point. Then, maybe, a bullet or two in her head so there are no witnesses!
Blar.
So ... how long before I, as a member of the John Q Public brigade, can get my hands on one of these?
Let's be non-lethal to each other. I mean, fair's fair, right? Which would the Powers That Be have me rioting against the authoritarian regime with: molitov cocktail and a handgun, or a pain laser?
Dick chaney has been testing 28gauge shotguns on his laywers for a while now, how is this news?
I've been in this situation. There was a peaceful anti-KKK protest in Atlanta many years back when I was an undergrad at GT (early 90's or late 80's), and I was there with more than a thousand others. Everything was going fine. Then, a few people started throwing rocks at the KKK marchers, several of which hit the police - either intentionally or unintentionally. (The KKK march was naturally the impetus for the anti-KKK protest.) Now, I was not in a position to stop "the destructive people in [my] midst", but I would have if I could have. The police then ordered us to disperse. Now, of course, with over a thousand people, no crowd can disperse quickly. I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that I was attempting to leave. Nevertheless, the police got impatient and started pushing. At this point, I got a club to the back from a police officer - not hard enough to do any real damage, but hard enough to leave a small bruise.
My point is that you shouldn't judge all protesters at a given protest for the acts of the few - or even the acts of the many. If I was there legally (and I was), then what other people did at the rally does not justify using force on me - as long as I'm continuing to act legally (and I was). Now, granted, the club incident was no big deal, and to the best of my knowledge no one else got treated much worse. The point is that even if you're doing everything right, you can find yourself in an unsavory situation.
(I also want to point out that calling police officers "pigs" (as the GP post did) is never useful. And, in most cases, it is highly inaccurate. Most police officers are decent, hard-working people and should be shown the respect they deserve.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Naturally they will only be tested on the brown people of America.
I mean, when they are deployed by US forces around the world they will only be used on brown people, right? So you need to see how they affect brown people; white people are *different*, might not work the same...
When was the last time the US attacked white folk? That was the Serbs and before that the Germans and that was only because they were trying to move in on Americas action.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
US Marines supporting democratic leaders? Not that usual, you know.
Try "our son of a bitch" kind of dictators or stuff like that...
I don't have a sig.
this story broke yesterday, and nary a peep was heard here until just now. why bother re-posting it? especially under YRO--this has nothing to do with our rights online. who's in charge of this place anyway...
i'm sure this could find use after particularly rowdy sporting events as well. probably better than tear gas, which takes a while to wear off. euro football hooligans, anyone? i guess some people would prefer to be beaten with riot batons or sprayed with fire hoses.
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
...have a right to NOT have nazi order followers dressed as civvies doing agent provocateur work, but they have been doing it for a long long time. I should know, I have busted two of them before. They were inciting violence to a rather severe degree aganst their fellow (but different jurisdiction/agency) cops, to give the regular uniformed cops an excuse to go apeshit on the crowd.
fucking feds can go to hell
Can you imaging if this gets in the hands of the standard issue cop?
I predict lots of confessions!
(These things are extremely dangerous to society -- very painful, leave no traces etc... Abuse will be endemic)
Ian Ameline
You mean like the 2006 Moscow market bombing or the 2006 Badarmude bus explosion?
Just because you're uninformed and choose to have prejudices based on your pitiful lack of knowledge doesn't mean everyone else should start hating on "brown people" because they're "all alike" and are therefore summarily guilty.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Yesterday, we learn that the HP executive who authorized the illegal surveillance has been slapped on the wrist.
Today, we learn that government officials will arbitrarily test military weapons on American citizens.
Am I on a bad episode of "The Planet of the Apes"?
There really is no such thing as "non-lethal". They are only "less-lethal". At some point anything can be lethal.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.- Douglas Adams
I've recently been watching a documentary which includes some amazing non-lethal weapons being used by the Air Force.
As long as you don't shoot anyone twice.
Please, for the love of God, stay off the dunes.
I like the lased sound for commercial applications-- turn your music up *as loud as you want* and I hear nothing sitting next to you.
Clearly our government is going to have the means to oppress us (and it really already does with "freedom of speech zones" a half mile from where they should be and arrests if you go there).
But as long as you don't get in their way- you currently have a lot of freedom to do what you want and die of old age.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
i believe that they have been testing non-lethal weapons in this manner for years, on paid volunteers. it follows the same idea as scientific testing. you sign waver, they do testing, you get paid.
if it is being done with the person's consent, i see no trouble with this. if they are coerced or drafted into this, then i see problems.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
... that you nearly injure yourself.
Damn, every one here will whine about this one. But think carefully, you're already willing fork over 50% of your labor (taxes) and constantly ask for more-and-more government. How in God's name do you want to be treated. Bend over, you deserve it!
Now, if you want this nonsense to STOP, you'll need to cut the money supply to these dopes. And please stop looking at government as THE answer to whatever ails you --- they're the problem, and they're more dangerous than any demon they can invent. To be frank, it's your active participation in the system that creates this nonsense in the first place. BTW, voting is not going to help, we're well beyond that stage. Anything less than direct action will be for naught.
So they're planning to use relatively untested supposedly "non-lethal" weapons for crowd control? Well, while they're at it, why don't they set off some mini nukes nearby to test the effects of radiation on large numbers of people? I know I'm repeating what many others have said here, but for one thing there is no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. It may not be lethal the first time, but who knows what will happen if someone is repeatedly shot with it? How do they know that all people will react to these the same way? They say that some of these weapons will also be used to disable electronics. Won't that also disable a pacemaker? Or an inculin pump? I would think this was totally immoral and illegal even if they where using it in Iraq. Using it here makes even less sense to me than that. I guess to them, the war on terror really does start at home.
This is not a sig. This is a llama-duck. Quack.
'cos I vaguely recollect Bible mentioning something along these lines ... ah, just confirmed it. But it seems Jewish religion is even more unequivocal on this, so maybe it is the Israeli lobby upto its old tricks again.
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do. - Jean-Paul Sartre
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5171980596 28627413&q=british+LSD
I have to say after watching this video I thought LSD would be a perfect chemical weapon. Just spray over a group of people, then collect them from the trees.
And I'm sure you knew that off the top of your head... way to google.
Interesting reports nonetheless - thanks for the info.
However, look at reality here - in the USA (should have been more specific here). The attacks we have experienced have been Muslims of arabic decent. So yes, if I were a law enforcement type, I would pay close attention to those who fit that profile. That isn't racism, that's being realistic.
God forbid the military use non lethal weapons on the populace! I mean hell...without using lethal weapons we can't wind up with another Kent state incident!
Please Please PLEASE don't be stupid about this. Rubber bullets and tear gas and hoses are all non lethal weapons that have been in use for some time now. And while yes, there certainly is a chilling effect going on with our freedoms, please let us not forget that the various riots that we have had have caused incredible damage, injury, and losses of life. Not all crowds are peaceful protestors, in fact, many aren't, and there have been quite a few 'peaceful protestors' that weren't exactly as peaceful and pacifist as they claim...chucking rocks and other items is not exactly peaceful...How much time do you have to determine if that bottle of fluid coming towards you is a potentially lethal weapon, or just someones half empty soda?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Go ahead and use them on me. Then I will sue and never ever have to work another day in my life because I will sue the government for billions. Taxes, what taxes. I will never pay taxes again either because I will make sure thats part of my lawsuit. If they want to test it, test it on themselves. I am sure that there are enough stupid army drones they are willing to put infront of a canon to "ensure american defense".
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
...I say to myself "Self, this has to be a sick joke. Or some kind of mistake." Then myself answers back; "Oh no, this is no mistake. This is what they do with your tax dollars." Then I take another pill.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
So they would prefer AMERICAN CITIZENS to die if it doesn't work instead of others? What kind of crap is that?
That's a great idea! I mean, if you're so sure about where your attackers came from (and I assume you're talking about that single incident five years back in which 316 non-Americans died), then go ahead and punish them!
You do know that's one Osama bin Laden guy who your president claims he doesn't care about?
Currently residing in Afghanistan?
And that none of the 9/11 highjackers came from Iraq?
So, using your crooked logic, I should tell the police to take a closer look at you since a man from France once kicked my car? Why do you paint all muslims with the same brush?
Oh, and why are you so stupid to assume that they won't find any caucasian-looking people to do their next attacks? After all, you don't change your skin color if you convert to Islam.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The others here means customers, methinks. So the next protesters inside a "no-protest zone" will be helping (or hindering, if there is a death) the marketing of torture implements to China. Makes me feel warm all over.
On the other hand, if it could help reduce the amount of casualties that the Yanks inflict on their own allies, then I'm all for it.
Ofcause I want to field test the latest hardware from your glorious R&D division friend Computer! I hearby volunteer my fellow troubleshooters for testing of the new and improved anti-anti-commie ray. All hail friend computer!
uhh yeah does anybody really believe someone in the government is actually advocating this? they can't even lock up terrorists in gitmo without the loony left getting their knickers all in a twist LOL, yeah i'm sure their gonna start zapping rioters with microwaves
Upon reading all of the comments so far (some insightful, some not) and re-reading the CNN article, it's clear that the AP reporter may have taken Secretary Wynne's statement out of context, and that the Secretary may actually be advocating against any use of these types of weapons at all -- a notion that's further supported by claims that the Air Force is witholding funding for this research pending additional medical inquiries. Therefore, please disregard any barbs herein made at the expense of Secretary Wynne, as they may turn out to be completely unwarranted.
All operators of non-lethal devices must -prior to use- be exposed to the device for a typical dosage. All direct supervisors must also fulfill the same requirement.
I know MN cops must get a pepper spray dose so they know what it is like.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
-b.
Well sure it sounds like a good and resonable idea when you read it, that is until Joe Public tosses his lawsuit at them for some unforseen complication and now he wants billions and billions for his pain. I predict they will go back to testing them the old fashioned way then, on "enemies".
Yup, Im a troll but also proving a point:
someone will always get offended that one group is singled out.
personnally, Id tag the fags instead.
Hmm. let me reword that.
here's the first result from my 10 second web search... but those of us who've spent significant time protesting on the streets have had some very close looks at the sonic weapons developed for use in other parts of the world.
oh wait, here's a photo.
Aluminum
They even (secretaly) nuked their own soldiers to see more closely - I guess Japan was a bit far away - the effects of radiation on people. What do you wanted, testing non-lethal weapons on some "poor" and "black" africans or "ignorand" latins first? This is a good thing (TM) they are doing this, and it's good to see some people not thinking about using mass destruction (using a IN term) weapons on everthing to solve their problems with another nations. I hope the rest of the US army follows up.
Kent State wasn't completely analogous (I think the protestors were throwing rocks at the National Guard), but the use of lethal weapons by the USG didn't get anyone thrown out of office, let alone ejected by force - many argue that it didn't even get the US out of Vietnam. Another possible use of sublethal force against protest might be the 1968 Democratic Convention ("We're not here to prevent disorder, we're here to preserve disorder."), but the consequences (or lack thereof) were similar. These events aroused no violent protest, and the use of nonlethal/sublethal weapons has less possibility of arousing rebellion than other acts - no bodies to be shown on the news after all, just protestors running for their lives, and people here have seen that before.
Or, they can trot out a new toy or two that makes it pretty much unbearable to be in that crowd in the first place, AK-47 under your cross-dressing burkha or not.
That's why God made country music. Play that over your loud speakers and they'll all leave. ;-)
It would make a change from the current policy of testing them out on foreigners.
Opening of hot war against Iraq: March 19, 2003.
Ending of hot war against Iraq: May 1, 2003.
Total duration of war against Iraq (known as Operation Iraqi Freedom): 13 days.
My history is a bit shaky at points, but I believe WWII was significantly longer than 13 days.
Occupation of Iraq begins: May 2, 2003
Operation of US troops in Iraqi borders continues to this day.
Current duration of Iraq occupation: roughly 3 years, 18 weeks.
Occupation of Germany begins: May 8, 1945
Occupation of Germany by US forces continues to this day.
Current duration of German occupation: roughly 66 years, 17 weeks.
Maybe you should review both the current situation in Iraq, and the reality of postwar Germany. See also "Werewolf".
FTA: Wow... I mean... just... wow.
So there you have it. Next time your neighbour bothers you, just shoot him. Otherwise we won't be able to justify the use of guns in a wartime situation.
Sent from my computer.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
As confirmed in Interviews with top military brass dating back to the battle for the Baghdad Airport in 2003
Corporations is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!
... and then they built the supercollider.
How about 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C.?
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
And how would a fledgeling bootcamp GI feel pumping his mother full of lead? A large percentage would chicken out and refuse to protect our Freedom if they had to use lead on protesters.
Why would a pfc be patrolling in the US? Or did his mother go overseas to protest? What next, citizens charged in military tribunals? It's not the job of the military to patrol US streets, it's job is to protect the country from external threats. The job of protecting the streets of the US is the job of citizens and law enforcement from police officers to the FBI.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you believe that this contingency contract for responding to emergencies is, as the author of the piece at your link puts it, another step down the Bush administration's road toward martial law, you can go here.
President Bush has as much chance of staying in power after the next presidential election as Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton had: none. Two terms, and that's it. The tiny fringe of people that actually believe that some sort of anti-Constitutional coup like this is about to be sprung dwarfs the practically non-existent fringe of people that support it.
Your post does leave me a little curious though, what is your thinking here? If the government prepares for displaced persons / disasters, it is evidence of incipient fascism, if they don't, it is incompetence? That sort of gets them coming and going, eh?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Could you heat blood at the skin enough to re-enter the circulation system and transfer that heat elsewhere? Could you heat blood in that spot enough to reach a boil? What if the protester has a transdermal implant? Aren't microwaves supposed to give you cancer? Could you heat a blood vessle, say... behind the ear... enough to cause an aneurysm? What about the spine?
Nothing is non-lethal. Victoria Snelgrove here in Boston took a non-lethal pepper ball to the eye, killing her rather badly. For exactly the same reason that EMT's tell you not to bridge electricity across your heart, tazers sometimes stop them from beating. Beanbags kill by internal bleeding. Pepper spray has been known to cause respiratory failure.
That's not to say that we shouldn't keep looking for better and better ways to inflict pain without feeling moral reprocussions about it. But that is to say that every "non-lethal" weapon will kill somebody somewhere.
The ______ Agenda
Most of these nonlethal systems can be countered with something else. Sonic weapons and microwave devices can be defeated with other technology.
So how about a MAKE Magazine article on thwarting nonlethal technology weapons? After all, if the government believes it's safe to use on us (I am an American,) shouldn't it be safe to cancel out their effects?
W
Personally, Libertarians are my favorite target. Hippies are too damn mellow, they're all like, "I support your right to your opinion, man, but I, like, respectfully disagree."
What about someone who's both a hippy and a Libertarian? Where do they fit into your target scenario?
FalconShould there be a Law?
As I recall, pretty much every police office is going to get sprayed with pepper spray so they understand what it does to you.
When I was in the army we were tested on how well we could handle tear gas. There was this building setup to dispence the gas and we'd go into it with gas masks on then they'd close the doors and turn on the gas. Once the room was filled with gas then we'd take off the mask and stay in the room as long as we could. We went through this several tymes and each tyme a group of us would try to be the last person to leave.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That is my main objection is that the military shouldn't be doing anything to the citizens of this country, they are not here to protect us from ourselves, that is what police are for.
No, the police are here to protect us, our freedom, life and rights, from others not from ourselves.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We have also developed a new non-lethal way to produce Soylent Green. Who wants to sign up? One free meal per day!
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
As an anarchist myself, whenever I see one of those types of anarchists, I do us all a favour and slam them up against the wall and punch them in the gut a few times, demonstrating to them exactly what their idea of 'anarchy' really is.
While not an anarchist I do believe in having the smallest government possible. Something many people don't know is that it wasn't just communists who fought the Czar in Russia, anarchists did as well. However after the end of the revolution the anarchists walked away and left the communists to take control.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sure... I mean, Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, so that must make it OK for him to use them in warfare, then.
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
Just what we need for Room 101. Somehow I think you wouldn't need victim-specific tortures anymore.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Send this new weapon to Israel and let them test it.
Here you go:
s c_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html
us code title 50, chapter 32, subsection 1520(A), paragraph B
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u
Coincidentially, that's how I see the whole NATO Kosovo invasion: stop Serbs from ethnically cleansing Albanians, only to have Albanians ethnically cleanse the Serbs. If both sides are dead set at tearing each others' throats, they'll do it anyway once you leave, so it's probably not a good idea to intervene.
Ummm - Eric Rudolph, Theodore Kaczynski, Steven Hatfill... You are clearly as well-informed as you are bigoted, sir.
Why are we in "Carjakistan" in the first place? I'm dead serious the reason "they hate us," is not because of our freedom and democracy but because we fuck with other countries, routinely doing things like supporting coups, and building military bases that guess what make people angry. Hint you don't see angry Muslims burning Swiss flags, nor do you see the Swiss government talking about how wonderful it would be to test experimental weapons on it's citizens.
The U.S. has strayed very far from it's rightful foundation as a small non interventionist freedom respecting republic. If the idea of the government testing experimental weapons on it's own citizens doesn't terrify you then you never understood what freedom or a constitutionally limited republican (small r) government meant in the first place.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Here in the UK we've had bombings and innocent deaths for the last 30 years due to the IRA - funded in part by the US organisation NORAID. The IRA used the Armalite as one of their preferred weapons.
:-)
Of course this isn't the only group to carry out terrorist activities here in the UK and the rest of Europe has had it's fair share of home grown terrorists from different political persuasions. Plenty of multicultural diversity here!
"Muslims (the majority of whom are Arabic) are the only ones I've seen who go on a rampage just for printing a picture the "prophet" Mohammed."
I heard white Christian guys in your country have a history of burning black people alive / hanging them for wolf whistling at white girls? Careful about who you accuse of being savages, or making broad sweeping statements eh? generalisations are never good...
Hello,
If I have a pacemaker in my chest and tell the police, is it attempted murder if they try to non-lethal shoot me? Will officers be more trigger happy with these devices, so as to increase such an incidences likelyhood of occurring? Good day.
Yemi Bedu
abstraction is 2 keep the weak from knowing the truth. show your source code && always seek the knowledge within
You'd rather be shot with a 9mm pistol? Sure, tazers are not completely non-damaging, but they're a hell of a lot less damaging than bullets. Or, for that matter, clubs.
Best Slashdot Co
.
South Americans?? I say, Go For It !! What else do they do down there ??
.
How can they justify using these... weapons... on... ugh.... ARRRGHGHGGHHHHHH!
---no carrier---
The operator who elects to fry the hell out of some poor schmuck like an ant under a magnifying glass does so at the risk of having his position very quickly overrun by the remaining 99 ants :)
I would like to share your optimism but I cannot...
WHAT IF *you* are the only ant and are being held for questioning....
Then what?
Forget the tinfoil hat... A body-suit would be more useful.
Line up, boys, and get your asses microwaved.
Awwww! This is only about 40 years too late.
Just imagine how much less problems we would have had with Napalm if it had been used to clear property for malls, apartment buildings, and parks?
As you can see, I'm a bit skeptical about this approach!
Our test pool could be trators, liberals, and Democrats: your basic non-rich-non-white-non-Christian.
Hey, we could even turn it into a reality show! Amuuika's Funniest Weapons Test Videos!
I don't know if you finished reading the comment you replied to, where he ended with:
His point is that those examples he gave are just as ridiculous as the one you gave in the first place.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Is there a magic "profile" that allows you to spot the "Starbucks-smashers" or "car-burners" in the middle of a "glowing, rosy, smiling Rainbows And Unicorns Society Of Gentle People demonstration"?
You've never been to a demonstration if:- You think you'll spot them by their baseball bat. (They won't have one.)
- You think that people within the crowd can somehow control each other.
- You use phrases like "Rainbows and Unicorns Society".
- ...
The list could go on, but I'm not the best one to do it, as there are far wittier people onBen Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I used to have a job where police officers helped keep me safe. They're regular people and make mistakes like the rest of us. The fact that they have more power means that the less savory police officers can make really bad mistakes. My guess is that your profession has a selection bias for meeting these types of police officers. However, I imagine that if you took an accurate statistical sampling you'll find that the majority of police officers are decent, hard-working individuals.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Yeah, it's not easy for the police to find the right balance between keeping the peace and not applying force inappropriately. In this particular case, however, there was not wide-spread rioting and since the police officer was close enough to club me, he was also close enough to see that I was complying with the request to disperse and that I wasn't causing any problems. In a situation where there's significant rioting finding the proper balance is much, much trickier.
However, my point was mainly meant as a rebuttal to the comment:
That kind of thinking is just wrong. You can't blame me for not being able to stop other people from rioting just because I happen to be nearby and "commited to peaceful speech and non-aggresive demonstration". Of course, perhaps I misunderstood his point. Maybe he's just saying something along the line of "hey, your non-aggressive techniques aren't stopping the rioting, so acknowledge that the police need to use a little aggression to stop the rioting". I know that Gandhi et al. wouldn't agree with this, but my pragmatic side says that there's some logic to it. Well, not so much "aggression" as "non-harmful force", or at least "non-fatal force". (I really prefer "non-harmful force" if such a thing can exist.)Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Keep your powder dry.
This sounds like the nuclear tests in Nevada in the 1950's and the military tests in the Pacific ocean after 1946. The mindset of "Trust me, I'm the goverment/military. I know best." Yeah, Right. As a boomer, I'm a little cynical of this. Nothing like a car wreak. http://clevelandredlightcameras.com/
something something something ourselves, we need to smoke more pot, am I right?
DUDE YOU ARE SO RIGHT. Pass the dutchie, yo...
what were you talking about?
-- "Oh. This guy again."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor
As he stated, some "non-lethal" weapons turned out to be quite lethal.
To Americans - do you REALLY think these weapons are being developed for use overseas? The US doesn't care if it kills 100,000 civilians in Iraq. You think they need a non-lethal alternative which leaves the "enemy" alive to retaliate??
A more important question to ask is why do non-lethal weapons exist? They exist because of political repercussions to those who use lethal force on their own citizens. Better to say we are being gentle, thereby allowing far more liberal use of such weapons locally while having the plausible deniability of saying they were never intended to be lethal.... even if they turn out to be after the fact.
Wake up and smell reality - you are headed into a totalitarian abyss from which the only extrication is a second civil war.... and it's coming, believe me. Prepare yourselves now or regret it in five to ten years' time.
Visceral Psyche Films
Well, considering the Gov't has freely tested Military and Civilians before without their knowledge, I'd venture to say the testing has been long since completed.
The difference being, of course, that in Project 112 they used the most lethal agents on 10's of thousands of people.
I would prefer that we not involve ourselves in other countries civil wars that are none of our damn business in the first place. I believe Thomas Jefferson got it exactly right when he said:
j eff157206.html
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none"
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomas
U.S. marines ought to defend the nations borders from attacks from other nations militaries, period, end of story. Situations like you describe at most ought to be handled by U.N. peace keeping forces and even that OFTEN does more harm than good as is happening in Haiti currently where U.N. troops are raping and murdering innocent civilians and supporting the government that came to power through a coup.
And yes I do walk the talk I protested Clinton's destructive NATO bombing of Serbia in the same way I protest Bush's destructive and pointless attack on Iraq. Time for Americans to focus on American problems from crumbling infrastructure to 46 million people who lack access to basic health care. let the rest of the world take of itself they are big boys and girls. Whatever happened to American self reliance? Hint the 300 billion plus Bush spent on the disastrous destabilizing war on Iraq would have better spent almost anywhere including drawing down the debt or tax refunds. We just WASTED 2600 young American lives, 50,000 Iraqi lives, and 300 billion dollars THAT is what meddling in other peoples affairs gets you.
Further to get back on topic foreign interventionism leads to domestic unrest when people get tired of paying and dying for foreign wars which then gives the government "excuses" to test experimental weapons on it's own citizens. Screw that police state jazz.
What part of small constitutional republic not an empire don't you understand?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
What part of small constitutional republic not an empire don't you understand?
What part of "defense" don't you understand? There are places in the world (say, Taliban-run Afghanistan) that are used as bases to train for and launch attacks on our soil. Our requests to such government as there was there to turn over the people who had set up shop in that country for that purpose were, of course, ignored. Self defense demands that we put a stop to such threats, especially as the people involved openly proclaim their desire for large-scale WMDs. That's not something you can react to, it's something you have to prevent. To the extent it has to be prevented elsewhere, that's where we have to go.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Anyone else remember the CIA's MK Ultra tests?
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
...they'd get their gun and then miss your dog's face because they were too stoned to see straight. ;)
Parent sed: "To the extent it has to be prevented elsewhere, that's where we have to go." Yeah you mean like Iraq's "WMDs" oops. Why would I believe the lying sacks of shit in our government Dem. or Rep. when they claim we are in danger of being attacked? "Our" government throughout history has consistently lied before going to war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that didn't actually happen ring a bell? Or how about the coal explosion on the "Maine" blamed on the Spanish to jump start the Spanish American war? Anyone who believes governments reasons for going to war is an utter fool.
Furthermore preventive war was the casus belli used by the Nazis. Nice company you keep there dumbass. I'll stick with the prudence of the founding fathers and urge the military only be used in direct response to a military attack on our soil.
And you are also wrong about the Taliban turning over Bin Laden it was BUSH that broke off negotiations not the Taliban he then attacked Afghanistan outside the legal channels of international law using a coalition of the willing which is a shocking similar concept to the fascists extralegal axis coalition.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Here's how well loved you are in Iraq imperialist scum bag:
"Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
And even more Iraqis support the U.S. leaving peacefully and don't trust the U.S. occupiers:
"Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.
In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A224 03-2004May12.html
And that was in 2004 before the torture at Abu Gharaib had been revealed to the world, the numbers are no doubt worse now.
You aren't wanted you aren't needed, get gone already.
You sed: "None of my Marines would ever grab a civilian to hide behind while advancing on an enemy position. We would never kidnap the children of a family and threaten to kill the kids if the family didn't allow a weapons or bomb cache to be located in the house. And we sure as hell would never drive a carbomb into a crowd of kids hoping to kill as many of them as we could just so it would make the evening news."
No instead you bomb an ENTIRE CITY into rubble killing hundreds if not thousands and making life miserable for tens of thousands of people of now homeless people. You would then write off that great number of civilian dead as collateral damage.
"The video shows a good deal of the damage to the city (2/3s of buildings damaged) and has some graphic shots of the dead. At one point the health workers excavate a shallow grave with a body bag. They look inside and say "Atfal"-- "children." Someone had had to bury them hastily."
http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/fallujah-film-ital ian-magazine-diario.html
" * On 9 November, CNN Correspondent Karl Penhaul reported the use of cluster bombs in the offensive: "The sky over Falluja seems to explode as U.S. Marines launch their much-trumpeted ground assault. War planes drop cluster bombs on insurgent positions and artillery batteries fire smoke rounds to conceal a Marine advance."[17]
* November 10, 2004 reports by the Washington Post suggest that US armed forces used white phosphorus grenades and/or artillery shells, creating walls of fire in the city. Doctors working inside Fallujah report seeing melted corpses of suspected insurgents.[18] The use of WP ammunition was confirmed from various independent sources, including US troops who had suffered WP burns due to 'friendly fire'. On November 16, 2005 The Independent reported that Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable "disclosed that (white phosphorus) had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city"..."We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants." [19] But a day before, Robert Tuttle the US ambassador to London denied that white phos
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Perhaps it would be better to be self sufficient non supper power like the Swiss. They have an equally high standard of living to the U.S., a lose decentralized government where power is local and accountable, no one in the middle east wants to blow up their citizens, and their money ends being spent of their citizens and not foreign misadventures, what's not to like?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
The government should exist only to protect the people from outside harm (other governments,) and to make it easier for public works projects to exist that are easier for the government to do than for individuals and small groups. However, the government should not intervene in virtually all public and private matters. It is better for the people to regulate themselves.
It is also government's job to protect people, mostly the weak, and their rights from internal harm through the police and courts. But that's best handled locally unless there's a bunch of bigets, racists, and others like them. I can also see local communities owning the infrastructure, like cables and fiber optics for net access and phones, with the stipulation that anyone with the wherewithall can use them to provide services to clients or customers. And of course roads. Private matters though stay private with no government interference unless someone is harmed. Marriage, whether between heteros or homos, government should have nothing to do with. Divorce I can see but not marriage, but even then as more an arbitor. Drugs, the fake "War on Drugs" should be ended and all drugs legalized. If someone commits a crime because of or while using them treat them the same as someone who commits the same crime but who isn't on drugs and charge them.
FalconShould there be a Law?