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."
That line of thinking does seem reasonable, but since its practice has weeded out all commanders who saw your logic (using weapons that were previously untested and uncertainly non-lethal), we're left with what we have today.
Support the FairTax
I'm not sure you know how right you are here. I have a friend that worked in a maximum security prison as a sniper. 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!
Actually, I've had such a system (millimeter wave emitter) tested on me. I voluteered myself, as did the people in charge of the project. The thing hurts like you're being cooked alive, and stops immediately once you're out of the way, but leaves no physical trace of injury.
I work for Raytheon.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
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..."
Of course, there have been many efforts recently to subvert such principles.
Exactly. In the current climate, it would seem that all the military needs to do is provide the weapons to the police for use in the War on Drugs/Terrorism and let them do the testing. For a very interesting (but a bit on the long side and to be taken with salt) paper on the topic of police and military cooperation that takes huge chunks out of the Posse Comitatus Act, check out "Overkill" at Cato.org.
Drat..it seems that they've removed free access to the text of the study and you now have to buy the book to read it. Still, interesting stuff if you've got $10 to burn.
Hell with that.
You know those carnival/fair events where you get to dunk "Insert Person Here"?
I say we make the congress critters + president and cabinet sign up for non-lethal weapon tests performed by citizens who buy tickets to fire off said weapons. The more painful weapons have higher ticket prices.
Make all of them rotate through the program until the national debt is paid off.
I bet you that as a side effect, the budget would get balanced REALLY quick.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
No, after reading the article they're not interested so much in TESTING as they are in USING - that is - police using them to dispel riots, or control prisoners, that sort of thing. The argument is that "if we're not willing to use them on our own population, how are they acceptable to use on the battlefield?" I think that's a fair enough argument.
My concern with non-lethal weaponry is that it encourages the use of force, and in an age when police are becoming
a) increasingly jittery even at small infractions, afraid someone is going to pull a sawed-off shotgun on them, and
b) becoming more enamored with their ever-growing amount of authority and power,
encouraging the use of force is probably not a good idea.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Yes, it's true. I'm not in law enforcement but know people. Likewise, not long ago on TV I saw a video of a cop going through his taser training. Seems the instructor had only just completed his training too. As a result, the instructor forget to properly elevate the taser to account for the rapid sink in the darts. As a result, the copy got a taser dart in the nuts. Worse, the instructor and other cops standing around started laughing their asses off...all the while, forgetting to turn off the taser. So while the other cops are all laughing, this poor guy is flopping around like a fish on a not tin roof.
Needless to say, I seriously doubt that cop will forget what a taser feels like.
And yes, pepper spray is also tested.
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)
Riiiight. Just like tazers & stun guns are "non-lethal" and never injure people in a way that was not intended.
You should also mention the chemical sprays that police like to aim into people's eyes and pretend were meant to "subdue" a person (they have quite the opposite effect) as well as not harm (irreparable harm to vision by way of corneal abrasion is a direct consequence). Plus it really sucks to be you if you are asthmatic and get exposed to these chemicals. Talk about difficulty breathing and cardiac arrest.
But the government that is supposed to protect us seems destined to always deny the harm it causes. In other words, the Air Force can take its "non-lethal" weapons and shove them up its ass (just like those New York police officers did with that broom stick).
"So if you had, say, a "suspected terrorist" (read: anyone looking vaguely arabic) "
Outside of McVey and Nichols (Murrah Bldg., OKC, OK), when was the last terrorist attack NOT carried out by someone arabic (and lets not sink to the "Bush is a terrorist" crap being spewed out of the mouths of those still mad about the last election)?? If arabs don't like being racially profiled then arabs need to stand up and put a stop to the madness. Last time I checked, 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'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?
I like your idea.
I'd recommend charging more for crotch-shots especially with the heat ray-gun.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Holy crap.
People would take out (another!) mortgage on their house for that.
My state (Washington) has an initiative process, I wonder if this is a valid initiative to have passed.
Yo, anybody down in Cali, you all have initiatives as well, get on this!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
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.
I am a Marine, one who's done a tour in Iraq already, and I can tell you we are literally dying to have something like this. The current ROE is such that you're severely limited in the action you can take when somebody starts shooting at you or your convoy. You basically can either choose not to respond at all (i.e. disengage) or you can choose to excercise deadly force. There is no option three.
With all the reporters crawling around just hoping for a dead baby with an M-16 bullet lodged in it just in time for the evening let's-bash-the-U.S.-military evening newscast, I can assure you we all spend far too much time debating about pulling that trigger. We have dead Marines because of it, and because our enemy chooses to hide amongst civilians hoping we'll kill some of them. These people are animals, barbarians, sub-human scum, but don't get me started.
With a reliable, ranged, non-lethal weapon of this type, we could be much more indiscriminate about how we apply it. Don't take that the wrong way; I don't mean we run around zapping everyone in sight. Instead, when a threat develops, we could "stun" the person without fear of wounding or killing non-combatants. Fewer dead Marines, fewer dead civilians, and (maybe) fewer dead terrorists (captured alive instead and then used as a useful source of intelligence). Only the stupidest Peacenik would oppose the availability of such a weapon. It would save lives no matter how you look at it.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
They've been using guns on their subjects since pretty much as soon as the memory of the Boston massacre faded.
Why aren't the Muslims ratting out the terrorists?
Sort of a good question. "The Muslims" is a little vague. Why do the ones culturally closest to the jihaddists keep quiet? Because they'd rather back their culture, I presume, than face what those people are doing to their culture. Of course, that has nothing to do with your ability to get a couple of your friends and physically stop someone from trashing a store at your peaceful demonstration.
Why aren't the Christians ratting out the abortion bombers?
Again, not a very good question. "The Christians," I'm guessing, aren't a homogenous enough group to even describe in that way. The better question would be, "Why aren't the militant anti-abortionists giving up the people they support?" Which is pretty self explanatory.
Why isn't the NRA ratting out gunmen?
Now that's just a ridiculous question. That's like asking why people who go to NASCAR events don't rat out drunk drivers. "The gunmen" (in the sense that I assume you mean: criminals) are rarely NRA members, and for that matter rarely use legitimately purchased and carried firearms.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
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...
Using human shields is not fighting unfair, it's fighting dirty.
Not to be a right-wing nut-job, but I know it's going to sound like it:
... and I'm in the military.
1. Clinton presidency - Liberal? If yes, goto 2
2. Clinton era FBI/ATF - Controlled by liberal presidency? If yes, goto 3
3. Ruby Ridge / Waco - Constitutionally protected freedoms abridged by liberal government?
No one is perfect. Saying that your side of the ideological spectrum is perfect and would never do something is fundementally ignorant... there's always someone who screws it up for everyone. Yes, my votes are usually republican (or libertarian if there's an option) but that's because I vote on issues. I hate gun control, I'm pro-choice, I don't care if there's prayer in school, I dislike the idea that the local gov't can't have a christmas display, I don't like seeing innocents harmed/killed (to the point of arguing with a superior officer)
Don't be a hypocrite, open your eyes and realize that the current political landscape is socially sanctioned corruption and it's not not exclusive to one side of the fence.