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."
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?
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
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.
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
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 right in line with expectations. (see point #12 in 2nd link)
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm [hermes-press.com]
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm [oldamericancentury.org] [oldamericancentury.org]
http://www.hermes-press.com/etch1.htm [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com]
In the land of the NOT free, All hail the shrub!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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 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
...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.
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.
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.
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.
They can inflict torture-level pain on people without leaving any evidence that it happened.
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.
I say test it on pedophiles and other criminals serving time. Microwaves on the testicals can't be good.
Can I bum a sig?
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)
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.
That you are a registered republican, I find forgiveable. What you (Mr Republican) and I (Mr Socialist) have in common is this: we believe in the rule of law and the government as a utility for positive public policy. You and I can (and will) disagree with a WIDE range of what the .gov should or should not do. And as far as I am concerned: that's OK. That's what makes America great.
But what has happened is very sad: the Republican party has been largely hijacked by (for want of a better word) fascists. They don't care about you and your pissy little ideas about limited gov't and they don't care about me and my pissy little ideas about economic justice. These fascists have manipulated the more delusional religionists in the USA into working as their footsoldiers. In fact, they basically don't give a rats ass about them and their pissy little ideas about Jebus. The net result is I, Mr Socialist, actually find myself often AGREEING with Pat Buchanan, a circumstance I find VERY disturbing. Mr B and I (like you and I) would and SHOULD disagree about a variety of topics, but what you and I and Mr B (AND Gore Vidal AND Howard Zinn AND just about anyone with an IQ over room temperature) agree on is the utter evil that is this Administration.
When we get our country back, it will be nice to debate issues on their merits and from a point of rational analysis, rather than this contemptible situation of an incompetent bunch of fascists scuttling the American Project and thusly precluding any rational appraisal of reality.
Here's to being able to disagree with you! Cheers!
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
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 :)
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...
Oh, indeed. I myself enjoy a good troll now and then. GNAA and their ilk may be infantile amateurs, but some of the best trolls on the intarweb still ply these waters. Heck, you almost had me.
;-)
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." Boring. Quote some Proudhon at them and Libertarians are like, "I'm gonna git mah gun and come shoot your dog in the face iff'n you tries to mess with my propuh-tie!" Much more entertaining.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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?
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.
It's a recipe for abuse.
Why, because the commanders in the ranks of your municipal police department answer to no one? Because the media isn't watching events like that? Because the mayor or governor they work for has no authority over them and their policies?
The police already have vastly more dangerous/lethal tools at their disposal. These are simply different tools. Just because both the military and the police each use teargas doesn't mean it's a "recipe for abuse." Same thing for a crowd dispersing technology that doesn't (unlike teargas) involve ballistic projectiles, incindiary mechanisms, and vision/respiratory damage. Why haven't you been railing about that for the past several decades? That's much worse.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Does anyone get the feeling that sometimes America is a place where rich, powerful people do whatever they want?
Yes, it's been that way since a Supreme Court Clerk Decided that corporations were persons back in 1886. We lost our democracy then.
Yesterday, we learn that the HP executive who authorized the illegal surveillance has been slapped on the wrist.
Of course- she's not in your class.
Today, we learn that government officials will arbitrarily test military weapons on American citizens.
But only in keeping with what the Corporations want- in other words, they'll be used on protestors who are blocking streets and endangering profits.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Again...the knee jerks both ways. You are careful to neglect to mention the bonfires, stopped traffic, and the burning ROTC building. What happened there was a trajety, but that is what happens when you have 19yr old kids with guns told to try and prevent a riot and a bunch of 'peaceful' protestors burning things and throwing stuff and otherwise being a rather violent peace protest. People get nervous and then people get dead.
If you really think that this is just about allowing governments to use force without being held accountable...you really need to get out more. Knowing the government can use lethal force tends to...well...stop and prevent protests a little more effectively... Knowing that they will only use nonlethal force tends to have a far less of a chilling effect on peoples right to free speech. If you don't believe me, compare the number of protests in the US (where they already use nonlethal weapons, this is just about using newer non lethal weapons) to the number of protests in China.
Again finally, while I believe that the current state of affairs certainly has free speech suffering, the government replacing an older arsenal of non lethal weapons with a newer arsenal of non lethal is going to have a pretty minimal effect on this in either direction. And again...mob rule pretty frequently takes over and people start burning things, throwing things, flipping cars, and otherwise hurting eachother, themselves, or damaging property, and quite frankly I would rather see a bunch of people dispersed with a new nonlethal weapon than have to deal with the fact that I may have to hole up and pray the rioters don't come down my street, because I and many others won't hesistate to use lethal weapons to defend our families and I would rather have some kids sent home crying in pain than bleeding to death for getting caught up in some stupidity.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
They've been using guns on their subjects since pretty much as soon as the memory of the Boston massacre faded.
It would make a change from the current policy of testing them out on foreigners.
How about 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C.?
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
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...