Forums > Social Chat > Chief of US Airforce "Test weapons on US mob"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I am speechless and somehow can't help myself from compulsive giggling:
https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html
Maybe this should be in discussion, but I find this too whacko by far to seriously argue about it...
At least he's trying to stick to his budget and save money
I am speechless and somehow can't help myself from compulsive giggling:
https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html
Written by: AP
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.
Maybe this should be in discussion, but I find this too whacko by far to seriously argue about it...
At least he's trying to stick to his budget and save money
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
enthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
Seems sensible to me
I think this should be applauded. Non-lethal weapons must be a step forward and they need to enter service sometime. There is always resistance (particuarly in an institution as old and conservative as the military) to new ideas and practises.
Using new non-lethal on your own citizens before foreign battlefields seems very laudable and shows a lot of confidence in the weapons. If something went wrong and Americans were harmed you can bet the weapons would be pulled instantly and the legal and compensation bill would be enormous not to mention the bad publicity.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if things were always done this way? Would agent orange or depleted uranium shells have been released on the world if America had asked itself if it was willing to use these things on home soil?
It's like having a drug dealer take one of his own pills before selling them to you.
Seems sensible to me
I think this should be applauded. Non-lethal weapons must be a step forward and they need to enter service sometime. There is always resistance (particuarly in an institution as old and conservative as the military) to new ideas and practises.
Using new non-lethal on your own citizens before foreign battlefields seems very laudable and shows a lot of confidence in the weapons. If something went wrong and Americans were harmed you can bet the weapons would be pulled instantly and the legal and compensation bill would be enormous not to mention the bad publicity.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if things were always done this way? Would agent orange or depleted uranium shells have been released on the world if America had asked itself if it was willing to use these things on home soil?
It's like having a drug dealer take one of his own pills before selling them to you.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Oh sure, we use weapons on other people... you guys whine... we use weapons on ourselves and you guys whine.
At least next time the Republicans will be able to have a peaceful convention without all those pesky protesters excercising their first ammendment rights.
Oh sure, we use weapons on other people... you guys whine... we use weapons on ourselves and you guys whine.
At least next time the Republicans will be able to have a peaceful convention without all those pesky protesters excercising their first ammendment rights.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I actually agree with Boy G.
Imagine a riot at a sports game. This isn't a new scenario, yanno. People die in those riots. These weapons could save lives.
I think the way the article worded it was very unfair.
However, as far as TESTING, it should be tested on consenting adult volunteers who are being paid and who are covered by injury and medical insurance to cover any damage done during the testing.
I actually agree with Boy G.
Imagine a riot at a sports game. This isn't a new scenario, yanno. People die in those riots. These weapons could save lives.
I think the way the article worded it was very unfair.
However, as far as TESTING, it should be tested on consenting adult volunteers who are being paid and who are covered by injury and medical insurance to cover any damage done during the testing.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
OK, fine... But the most sensible folks to test them would be public high school teachers no?
OK, fine... But the most sensible folks to test them would be public high school teachers no?
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
https://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7...f%20Personnel_T
I think I'd rather they just used the threat of force wisely, than come up with all these [censored] up uber nasty weapons.
https://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7...f%20Personnel_T
I think I'd rather they just used the threat of force wisely, than come up with all these [censored] up uber nasty weapons.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
So, have they actually discovered the "brown note" then? According to mcp's link they have. Oh the fun and games we could have with that.
So, have they actually discovered the "brown note" then? According to mcp's link they have. Oh the fun and games we could have with that.
GOLD Member
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Posted:
some of those sound pretttttty lethal to me.
Guess it's time to avoid student demonstrations
some of those sound pretttttty lethal to me.
Guess it's time to avoid student demonstrations
To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I think I like 'lubricants' best. I hope they try to break up the next rally I'm at with Astroglide Cannons.
I think I like 'lubricants' best. I hope they try to break up the next rally I'm at with Astroglide Cannons.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
You would prefer lethal weapons, instead?
One such non-lethal weapon is a directed sound device. It's like handcuffs. If it's pointed at you (and not at the person next to you) you can't help but stop whatever you're doing and cover your ears.
Strikes me as a hell of a lot more pleasant than a bullet through the skull in the long run.
Written by: mcp
I think I'd rather they just used the threat of force wisely, than come up with all theseup uber nasty weapons.
You would prefer lethal weapons, instead?
One such non-lethal weapon is a directed sound device. It's like handcuffs. If it's pointed at you (and not at the person next to you) you can't help but stop whatever you're doing and cover your ears.
Strikes me as a hell of a lot more pleasant than a bullet through the skull in the long run.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
I'm going to have to go down the less lethal path here.
Ok, sure. If you have a peacemaker/other medical problem, and if they fire the right/wrong (depending on the way you look at it) weapon at you, and if it interacts badly, you might die.
Doing some possibly useless sums here, but here goes:
Let's say that a quarter of the population has some form of medical problem that these weapons will affect. That's 1:4 odds.
Let's also say that there's four different weapons available to choose from. One of these weapons will affect a medical problem, but it's specific to the problem and weapon, eg a sound gun won't mess up a peacemaker. That's also 1:4 odds. two lots of 1:4 odds makes 1:16 odds.
We'll also say that the affecting weapon doesn't have an effect on all sufferers of said medical problem. for example, bob and rob both have pacemakers, but bob's is a different brand, and isn't affected by the weapon. For consistency, i'm going to say that's one in four as well. 1:4 x 1:16 is 1:64.
That's a pretty outside guess, i doubt that one person in every four is going to have a medical anomoly that has possible fatal consequences when being sprayed with sticky foam or being blinded by flashing lights. Same goes for the other numbers, i think one in four is much lower odds than is really out there, but meh.
So, for argument's sake, one person in sixty-four dies from a less-lethal weapon.
Let's take another 64 people, and shoot them with conventional weapons, in exactly the same circumstances. What're the odds on only one of them dying then?
I'm going to have to go down the less lethal path here.
Ok, sure. If you have a peacemaker/other medical problem, and if they fire the right/wrong (depending on the way you look at it) weapon at you, and if it interacts badly, you might die.
Doing some possibly useless sums here, but here goes:
Let's say that a quarter of the population has some form of medical problem that these weapons will affect. That's 1:4 odds.
Let's also say that there's four different weapons available to choose from. One of these weapons will affect a medical problem, but it's specific to the problem and weapon, eg a sound gun won't mess up a peacemaker. That's also 1:4 odds. two lots of 1:4 odds makes 1:16 odds.
We'll also say that the affecting weapon doesn't have an effect on all sufferers of said medical problem. for example, bob and rob both have pacemakers, but bob's is a different brand, and isn't affected by the weapon. For consistency, i'm going to say that's one in four as well. 1:4 x 1:16 is 1:64.
That's a pretty outside guess, i doubt that one person in every four is going to have a medical anomoly that has possible fatal consequences when being sprayed with sticky foam or being blinded by flashing lights. Same goes for the other numbers, i think one in four is much lower odds than is really out there, but meh.
So, for argument's sake, one person in sixty-four dies from a less-lethal weapon.
Let's take another 64 people, and shoot them with conventional weapons, in exactly the same circumstances. What're the odds on only one of them dying then?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
SILVER Member
water based
5,125 posts
Location: melbourne, Australia
water based
5,125 posts
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posted:
i cant help but think people would be lining up to help test these 'weapons'
Written by: Megs link
Hallucinogens: Narcotics that disorient, confuse and incapacitate.
i cant help but think people would be lining up to help test these 'weapons'
"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"
*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*
Precision instrument of speed and aromatics
240 posts
Location: Vienna
240 posts
Location: Vienna
Posted:
My favourite bit is
Surely the point of most wartime weaponary is that you use it on your enemy and not your "fellow citizens". Thats why the military build tanks and cluster bombs.
Or am I just being pedantic?
My favourite bit is
Written by: AP
"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."
Surely the point of most wartime weaponary is that you use it on your enemy and not your "fellow citizens". Thats why the military build tanks and cluster bombs.
Or am I just being pedantic?
Not a spinner!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,191 posts
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,191 posts
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia
Posted:
Possibly... but i agree.
One word- numptys.
Written by: _Y_
Or am I just being pedantic?
Possibly... but i agree.
One word- numptys.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I can't remember tear gas and high pressure waterguns to be lethal... furthermore they have are rubber bullets...
I guess the "US mob" make good "labrats" to the US military - why the heck spend a good taxpayers penny, if you can test your (nonlethal) weapons to teach your own scumbags a good lesson...?
Before you take those "non-lethal" weapons to the battlefield...
Nope, not quite: it would mean they test it on THEMSELVES, not on other people
I can't remember tear gas and high pressure waterguns to be lethal... furthermore they have are rubber bullets...
I guess the "US mob" make good "labrats" to the US military - why the heck spend a good taxpayers penny, if you can test your (nonlethal) weapons to teach your own scumbags a good lesson...?
Before you take those "non-lethal" weapons to the battlefield...
Written by: boy g
It's like having a drug dealer take one of his own pills before selling them to you
Nope, not quite: it would mean they test it on THEMSELVES, not on other people
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
compfuzzled
1,182 posts
Location: hastings, England (UK)
compfuzzled
1,182 posts
Location: hastings, England (UK)
Posted:
if they are that non-lethal then why dont the people who develop and will adminster these non-lethal weapons test them on themselves
if they are that non-lethal then why dont the people who develop and will adminster these non-lethal weapons test them on themselves
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [chief airforce weapon * mob] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Chief of US Airforce Test weapons on US mob [17 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com