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."

Comments

Use it on hippies first!

[jmorris42]

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.

How about

[kalirion]

testing these weapons on the people in charge of the project? I mean they're non-lethal, so what's the problem?

Re:How about

[Vancorps]

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!

Re:How about

[TubeSteak]

Because even a non-lethal weapon is going to kill Dick Cheney?

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."

Riiiight. Just like tazers & stun guns are "non-lethal" and never injure people in a way that was not intended.

Re:How about

[twofidyKidd]

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.

Re:How about

[gstoddart]

What makes you think they gaven't tested these weapons on individuals already? Maybe they just want to test them in real-life situations, like demonstrations gone out of hand or riots?

Yeah, but have they tested them enough? From TFA ... "The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved."

You know, we damaged the testers, and we need medical people to tell us how likely this is to happen when we hose down protesters.

Wanna test it in a riot scenario, pay yourself a bunch of Army recruits to stage a riot under controlled circumstances. Disarm/disable them. Do it enough to be statistically significant. Find out all those little injury problems and resolve them. Don't take something you haven't adequately tested on willing volunteers and send it out on protesters in Free Speech Zones or who have decided Free Speech doesn't have zones.

I understand why they would publically state one shouldn't be so callous as to try this out on foreign nationals without having tested it; but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be testing it on the people who are building it or will be using it in real life. And it sure as hell doesn't mean you should put a bunch of your own citizens into harms way so you can feel better about deploying it abroad. There's a big gulf in between those two, and I don't think they've addressed it.

As I recall, pretty much every police office is going to get sprayed with pepper spray so they understand what it does to you. Likewise, if you're going to give them some of these other things, they should be trying to create realistic situations in which to test them; not just one volunteer standing still under optimal conditions.

Cheers

Re:How about

[Amouth]

that is what the guy to invented the bullet proof vest did..

he made it and no would would buy it.. so he video taped him self shooting him self in the gut.. and sent the tape to the police departmnets - and well we all know how well that worked out...

hell i would take a bullet to have that credit to my name

Re:How about

[Com2Kid]

Wanna test it in a riot scenario, pay yourself a bunch of Army recruits to stage a riot under controlled circumstances.

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.

Re:How about

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:How about

[ultranova]

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 think the CIA just found a new favored method of information extraction / recreation.

Mod me down if you will, but you have to admit that that's a torturers dream - hurts like hell but won't leave evidence or run the risk of killing the subject prematurely. And with any luck it will also destroy any video tapes and photos of the incident.

Re:How about

[Culture]

What is especially cool about sniper training is how they apply pressure to these points from a distance as great as 1000 meters. I mean, think of how hard it is to apply the vulcan nerve pinch from point blank range. Now imaging the same thing from even 10 meters, much less 1000! Amazing!

In my opinion snipers are at least as awesome as ninjas.

Re:How about

[Suidae]

You're right, and if you enemy is pretty low-tech you can play up the 'magical' aspects of the infliction of pain, using incantations and hand-waving to really scare the bajesus out of them. With some other cutting-edge special effects you could develop some heavy-duty supernatural questioning techniques.

Horrible idea...

[cayenne8]

....they need to test it in foreign countries that have FAR fewer lawyers!!!1

Yeah

[xihr]

How dare we use non-lethal methods on our own citizens. Instead we should stick to lethal ones, right?

'Unruly crowds?'

[Captain Sarcastic]

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?

read this earlier

[thefirelane]

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

Re:read this earlier

[Dr Caleb]

"OMG the Military is using deadly force against civilians"

The question you should be asking is "Why is the Military being used for civillian law enforcment?"

Major Flaw

[WebHostingGuy]

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.

Re:Major Flaw

[Red Flayer]

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.

Wars have always been fought for things other than destruction of your enemy.

Independence (which doesn't require destruction of enemy.
Territory (ditto).
Other scarce resources (food, water, oil, gold, etc. -- doesn't necessarily require destruction of your enemy).

War isn't about destroying your enemy (that's genocide you're thinking of, there). War is typically about the control of resources, and one of those resources is popular opinion. Plenty of wars have been fought for PR reasons -- an external enemy is one way of helping ensure you don't have to deal with an internal enemy.

Re:Major Flaw

[HarvardAce]

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.

And this is why we're losing -- or at least not winning -- the "war" in Iraq. Wars in the last millenia are not like the ones you get in Civilization games -- they rarely (if ever) result in the total annihilation of the enemy, nor is that usually the goal of a war either. Wars with that goal in mind (e.g. the Germans in WWII) are doomed to fail because there are always more "them" than "us."

Wars these days are as much ideological wars as they are wars over territory or economics. Especially in the war on terror, public relations is a huge issue (and perhaps the most important one). The problem we are currently having is that the insurgents are recruiting people faster than we can neutralize (either by killing or capturing) them. If we were to use unethical or excessive force in dealing with the insurgents, we will only succeed in driving more and more people to the insurgent's cause. Events such as the prison abuse scandal have hurt our efforts in Iraq and in neighboring regions. Some people will be driven to the insurgency regardless of what we do in the Middle East and across the globe, but we must take whatever steps possible (and reasonable) to limit the number of people who join the insurgency.

If winning a war was just about destroying the enemy without regard to any reprecussions, we would just drop a ton of nukes on Iraq and Afghanistan and call it a day. Obviously the world does not work like that, and hasn't since the middle ages.

Re:Major Flaw

[sheldon]

Especially in the war on terror, public relations is a huge issue (and perhaps the most important one). The problem we are currently having is that the insurgents are recruiting people faster than we can neutralize (either by killing or capturing) them. If we were to use unethical or excessive force in dealing with the insurgents, we will only succeed in driving more and more people to the insurgent's cause. Events such as the prison abuse scandal have hurt our efforts in Iraq and in neighboring regions. Some people will be driven to the insurgency regardless of what we do in the Middle East and across the globe, but we must take whatever steps possible (and reasonable) to limit the number of people who join the insurgency.

What's interesting is that in the past 50 years we've fought two or three such wars, losing every one and we still have optimists who believe "This time for sure!".

You can't fight a war this way. The fundamental problem is not the rules have changed, but rather you start with a false assumption.

This is not to say military might is not necessary. But it is necessary in the classic sense that you rejected and say is no longer possible. It exists in the sense of when all else has failed. It exists in the sense of the Powell Doctrine, that when you go you go balls to the walls. You throw everything at the war and end it quickly.

Sun Tzu understood this. The Romans understood this. This is not a new concept.

The problem is, in a republic like ours, war of this nature has to be justified. The President has to go to the people and say "We need your sons and daughters. We need your wealth. We need the sweat of your brow. With all these things, we can win this war." Franklin Roosevelt did that. No other President since has. It's interesting that FDR won WWII in not much more time than we've been in Iraq.

So the problem is either the cowardice of Presidents to make that argument, or the lack of a proper justification of war, or maybe both. It's not because the rules changed.

War is heck?

[Hahnsoo]

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.

Out of context

[liak12345]

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'm a hippy, and I still think this post is funny

[spun]

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.

If you don't like it,

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

you can always comply with the wishes of authority...

Or you can go here.

This is to save lives, period.

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:This is to save lives, period.

[wsherman]

Plus, it will freak out the natives. Excellent idea.

Right. And, if there was some demonstration outside the Chinese embassy in Washington DC and the Chinese started blasting US citizens in the vicinity of the Chinese embassy with high intensity microwaves, then the Washington DC "natives" would think that was totally OK.

While I'm not necessarily opposed to non-lethal weapons, what I don't like about the microwave weapon is that it seems more like an offensive weapon. I mean, if you just want to protect an embassy from a crowd of people throwing stones then why not just build a really high wall?

It seems more likely that this will be used to disperse crowds that are exercising their right to assemble in a way that is embarrassing the government.

Re:This is to save lives, period.

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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.

FUD, FUD, FUD

[lbrandy]

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.

Re:FUD, FUD, FUD

[voice_of_all_reason]

I keep hearing about these "nonlethal alternatives" and have to wonder why they are being used more and more often in cases where a lethal alternative would never be condoned. That is not an "alternative", it is an entirely different justification and punishment altogether.

Man-o-man, you sure have the right name.

[ScentCone]

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.

Wasteful

[MobyDisk]

This is why we Americans invade small countries: to get test subjects! Why waste them?

Great for torture!

[PontifexPrimus]

[...]but leaves no physical trace of injury.

So if you had, say, a "suspected terrorist" (read: anyone looking vaguely arabic) you could just tie him down on a chair, and with those things readily available leave him "boiling alive" for a couple of hours with no visible damage done? Really great, you can do it over and over and over again! And since it leaves no marks it is impossible to prove he was tortured!
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.

1/64" vs. cornea?

[Tackhead]

> Read the product sheet on the page linked in my comment. It will explain why damage isn't permanent (non-lethal). Also, while I am not positive about this) the system isn't designed to sustain energy for durations long enough to cause damage (pulsing, maybe).

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 :)

Re:I'm a hippy, and I still think this post is fun

[Scrameustache]

Use it on hippies first!
I think the military has a point.
this will give hippies a chance to do their part
and do what comes natural.... toke up, get rowdy and start smashing stuff
the barbarian hordes
inventing the strange symptoms they will claim to suffer and even have a cute name for the syndrome

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.

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.

Re:Trolling

[spun]

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. ;-)

Re:Great...another new weapon...

[Walt Dismal]

What a great idea! When is the next Republican convention in New York, and this time, let's REALLY show those stinking liberal commie traitor demonstrators what Free Speech Zone means! It'll make great video for FOX as those loonies have their eyeballs seared with cataracts from the microwaves! Yee-haw.

Yeah, laugh about while you can, but it's going to happen. Oceanea is our friend; we have always been at war with Eastasia. Good news! Chocolate rations have been increased to 4 grams!

The only difference between today and Rome is that in Rome, the emperor named a horse as a senator. Now, we only have horse's asses.

Re:Great...another new weapon...

[RAMMS EIN]

``Not doing anything illegal?''

You don't even have to be doing anything illegal. The government will do that for you. Can't find a crime to charge the arrestee with? No matter, the President has special authority which allows the government to hold people indefinitely without charging them, allowing them to see a lawyer, or treating them humanely.

Sure, when the shit hits the fan, some people will be fired. Preferably someone close to the action, but definitely someone low on the food chain. Oh, and by the way, we did mistreat those people who were being held in the secret CIA prisons, despite what we've been saying for the past months. But it's ok, we're the Administration.

I don't usually agree with the Cowards, but...

[benhocking]

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.)

Re:Rich = Powerful = I Do Whatever I Want

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Re:Great...another new weapon...

[Chowderbags]

No, it's the liberal stance to not use unnessicary force (even if it is nonlethal) to abridge constitutionally protected freedoms (like freedom of speech, and peaceable assembly, for example).