USAF Chief says Be willing to use same treatment on US citizens as used on the enemy

[~hellbaby~]

JUSTIFUCKINGFY THIS ONE
The AF says nonlethal weapons should be used on Americans before they are used in wartime because they might accidentally hurt the enemy and that would "villify the US'. He says anything done during wartime you should be willing to do to AMERICANS.
Keep that in mind all you people who think it is OK for your government to torture terror suspects!!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

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.

"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."

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.

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...."
.................​

.

 

[unculbact]

That's consistent with history.

In September of 1921, Billy Mitchell, the great "hero" of U.S. combat aviation, led the newly created Army air forces on their first combat mission, an airstrike directed at coal miners striking at Blair Mountain in West Virginia. The air attack failed when the planes got lost in the fog, but the willingness of the U.S. to use military force against it's own citizens during the Roaring Twenties pretty much speaks for itself.

That the airport here in Milwaukee is named after Mitchell is one of the great disgraces of this city.

 

[shoulderblade]

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.

But testing them first on your own people is crazy. If they are effective they are going to inflict damage at some point anyway.

 

[Gringao]

But testing them first on your own people is crazy. If they are effective they are going to inflict damage at some point anyway.

I think the key word here is "nonlethal." That implies that they would be used in a crowd control scenario, something to break up a riot.

 

[HeavyStick]

Sounds good to me.

 

[~hellbaby~]

That's consistent with history.

In September of 1921, Billy Mitchell, the great "hero" of U.S. combat aviation, led the newly created Army air forces on their first combat mission, an airstrike directed at coal miners striking at Blair Mountain in West Virginia. The air attack failed when the planes got lost in the fog, but the willingness of the U.S. to use military force against it's own citizens during the Roaring Twenties pretty much speaks for itself.

That the airport here in Milwaukee is named after Mitchell is one of the great disgraces of this city.

Well it is nice to know at least they are consistant.

 

[~hellbaby~]

I think the key word here is "nonlethal." That implies that they would be used in a crowd control scenario, something to break up a riot.

But it sounds like any resulting damage to people is unknown. The presumption it is ok to do something like this to your own but not to an emeny during war is absurd. Or is it because experimentation at home is easier to keep secret or harder to be held accountable for?

 

[Gringao]

But it sounds like any resulting damage to people is unknown. The presumption it is ok to do something like this to your own but not to an emeny during war is absurd. Or is it because experimentation at home is easier to keep secret or harder to be held accountable for?

Please. Anyone who has worked military contracts knows that everything is tested out the ass before it's put in live situations.

 

[Ishmael]

Please. Anyone who has worked military contracts knows that everything is tested out the ass before it's put in live situations.

I think everyone has missed the point of what he was saying. Ya know?

Ishmael

 

[Worm]

It does sound bad when you hear it. I imagine the best way to test a non-lethal weapon would be to put it in use in a situation where you would normally use the gun. The worse case scenario is you kill the person like the gun probably would have. I'm curious how they test microwave weapons on people tho...who signs up for that?

 

[unculbact]

It does sound bad when you hear it. I imagine the best way to test a non-lethal weapon would be to put it in use in a situation where you would normally use the gun. The worse case scenario is you kill the person like the gun probably would have.

Isn't that the opening scene of ROBOCOP?

 

[Ishmael]

It does sound bad when you hear it. I imagine the best way to test a non-lethal weapon would be to put it in use in a situation where you would normally use the gun. The worse case scenario is you kill the person like the gun probably would have. I'm curious how they test microwave weapons on people tho...who signs up for that?

That isn't what I read/heard at all worm. What I heard is that the military is being backed into a corner where the only way they can use a weapon system without exposing themselves legal liability is to use the system on their own population and survive court tests at home.

It was a subtley worded swipe at the society of litigation.

Ishmael

 

[Worm]

Isn't that the opening scene of ROBOCOP?

Star Wars

 

[Worm]

That isn't what I read/heard at all worm. What I heard is that the military is being backed into a corner where the only way they can use a weapon system without exposing themselves legal liability is to use the system on their own population and survive court tests at home.

It was a subtley worded swipe at the society of litigation.

Ishmael

It would be helpful to hear the whole conversation. Context context context.

 

[Ishmael]

It would be helpful to hear the whole conversation. Context context context.

And your point is? Surely you have some specific refutation.

Ishmael

 

[Gringao]

And your point is? Surely you have some specific refutation.

Ishmael

I don't think so, I think he agrees with you.

 

[unculbact]

That isn't what I read/heard at all worm. What I heard is that the military is being backed into a corner where the only way they can use a weapon system without exposing themselves legal liability is to use the system on their own population and survive court tests at home.

It was a subtley worded swipe at the society of litigation.

Ishmael

Lawsuits are against the manufacturer as a third party, if I remember correctly. I can't remember exactly when it happened, but it was an episode of 60 MINUTES. Some woman won a humongeous judgement against General Dynamics. Her husband died in an F-16 crash, and she was able - all on her own, by the way - to prove that it was inadequate testing of the wiring system. At high G's, the wiring chafes and sooner or later breaks, wrecking the avionics.

Manufacturer's are the ones in the corner?

 

[Ishmael]

I don't think so, I think he agrees with you.

That'd be a first.

If so, I apologize to worm.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Lawsuits are against the manufacturer as a third party, if I remember correctly. I can't remember exactly when it happened, but it was an episode of 60 MINUTES. Some woman won a humongeous judgement against General Dynamics. Her husband died in an F-16 crash, and she was able - all on her own, by the way - to prove that it was inadequate testing of the wiring system. At high G's, the wiring chafes and sooner or later breaks, wrecking the avionics.

Manufacturer's are the ones in the corner?

It wasn't on her own, but you do have the essentials right.

But that is NOT the case when a product is purposely used as designed.

Ishmael

 

[Worm]

And your point is? Surely you have some specific refutation.

Ishmael

Not really. I can see where get your opinion from the article and now that I think about it you are probably right.

 

[Ishmael]

Not really. I can see where get your opinion from the article and now that I think about it you are probably right.

And once again I apologize for taking you to task.

Ishmael

 

[Worm]

And once again I apologize for taking you to task.

Ishmael

No biggie.

 

[~hellbaby~]

Please. Anyone who has worked military contracts knows that everything is tested out the ass before it's put in live situations.

Thanks for the enlightenment, all this time I thought they were just lucky

 

[~hellbaby~]

In a wartime setting isn't it preferable to use lethal wepons?
I mean if there are insurgents trying to kill you why woluld you not kill them first, it is a war not a game of laser tag.

 

[~hellbaby~]

That isn't what I read/heard at all worm. What I heard is that the military is being backed into a corner where the only way they can use a weapon system without exposing themselves legal liability is to use the system on their own population and survive court tests at home.

It was a subtley worded swipe at the society of litigation.

Ishmael

That is how it sounds, but why are they discussing it like they don't know theres rules on when weapons like that can be used?