T Nation

Test Weapons On US Mobs


Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

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.

On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).

Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.

Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.

He said he can’t cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.

“We’re finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts,” said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to “take some appetite suppressant pills.” He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.

The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I would take great pleasure in testing weapons, non-lethal or otherwise, on Fred Phelps and his mob of American citizens.
Other than that I think the Secretary of the Air Force must be retarded. US citizens rate some tear gas and maybe a good lathering from a PR-24, at most. Lets save the really exotic microwaves and such for the foriegn heathens.

As the boy scout motto goes: Be Prepared. We are going to see some interesting times in the coming decades. I almost recommend buying a gas mask. Not for chemical and biological weapons from terrorists, but rather CS gas from Uncle Sam.

Mike

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
[/quote]

now if he had said “test weapons on politicians” then I would be all for it…

if this complete dumbass doesn’t quickly loose his job then there’s something really really wrong with the people above him…

I think the non-lethal weapons should be used on those fucks that throw paint on people wearing fur coats, the PETA demonstrations, and Jehova’s Witnesses.

Check that - maybe they could try out some lethal weapons on those guys. I know I want to.

What’s the issue? I doubt he means to use it on peaceful protestors. More like riots, mobs that won’t disperse, the guy with a knife trying to commit suicide by cop, and hostages takers. Non-lethal being the alternative to using possibly lethal methods in the above situations.

Maybe some of you are reading too much into this? After all, law enforcement already uses non-lethal weapons on US citizens. Not really a new thing here. Maybe I’m not catching something in the article. Dunno.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
As the boy scout motto goes: Be Prepared. We are going to see some interesting times in the coming decades. I almost recommend buying a gas mask. Not for chemical and biological weapons from terrorists, but rather CS gas from Uncle Sam.

Mike[/quote]

That won’t do much good for the stuff they’re talking about. The phased array microwave “pain ray” for instance might just make those tinfoil hats useful.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think the non-lethal weapons should be used on those fucks that throw paint on people wearing fur coats, the PETA demonstrations, and Jehova’s Witnesses.

Check that - maybe they could try out some lethal weapons on those guys. I know I want to. [/quote]

Funny comment, but it’s the right thinking for the coming police state.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s the issue? Maybe I’m not catching something in the article. Dunno.
[/quote]

first…the weapons are untested, so what happens if the test kills more protestors than it stuns?

second…who gets to define ‘testy mob’ for us? politicians? fuck them…

His reasoning is completely insane. Who gives a rats ass if something our soldiers were doing INSTEAD of just machine gunning the scum ends up hurting them? Option A: Shoot them between the eyes. Option B: Test some non-lethal device on them.

If he had suggested it needs to be tested on US mobs before it is used on the battlefield to make sure it works before our soldiers rely on it in a dangerous situation, he might of had a point.

[quote]DPH wrote:

first…the weapons are untested, so what happens if the test kills more protestors than it stuns?

second…who gets to define ‘testy mob’ for us? politicians? fuck them…[/quote]

first…I doubt the weapon wouldn’t have gone through internal single person/small group tests. I believe what he’s trying to say is that we should set a standard of confidence in using them here before we allow them to be used overseas. Or, it’ll be claimed we’re using the oppurtunity to test them on mobs of non-combatants, without being willing to use them on our own mobs…

Second…we already make such definitions. You have heard of riot police? Police have to deal with such mobs already. And, not to forget Swat Teams. Both, make use of non-lethal weapons. And I’m sure rubber bullets, gas, concusive grenades, mace, all had their firsts for use. I don’t see what’s new about this.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
DPH wrote:

first…the weapons are untested, so what happens if the test kills more protestors than it stuns?

second…who gets to define ‘testy mob’ for us? politicians? fuck them…

first…I doubt the weapon wouldn’t have gone through internal single person/small group tests. I believe what he’s trying to say is that we should set a standard of confidence in using them here before we allow them to be used overseas.[/quote]

Who are these weapons being “small group” tested on? THAT would be the test. There would be no point in using them on the populace if they had already been convinced they work on people to begin with.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DPH wrote:

Who are these weapons being “small group” tested on? THAT would be the test. There would be no point in using them on the populace if they had already been convinced they work on people to begin with.[/quote]

Volunteers. I’m sure they had to test various gas and irritant sprays on volunteers for some level of safety before allowing general use by LE or military. I’d imagine bean bag ammo was tested on a volunteer also. The point of using them on the populace is to subdue/disperse unruly mobs.

However, in this case I believe he’s saying that we should wait for real applications of the newer non-lethal products in our country before using them overseas. In order to head off the “not willing to allow our own law enforcement to use them” arguements.

Now, I don’t know the process as it is now, so I should clearly state that. But, I’d imagine that even after volunteer tests and such are concluded, only a limited number of departmens and agencies have these products distributed to them. Then, after real world “test runs,” perhaps then these new non-lethal weapons are more widely distributed to other departments across the country.

Basically, it seems some have the impression that as soon as the last bolt is in place on the “Hurt-o-matic 2006” prototype, that they intend to drive downtown and blast lines outside of dance clubs.

Well, there’s always the internees at Guantanamo. Plenty of American citizens there.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, there’s always the internees at Guantanamo. Plenty of American citizens there.[/quote]

heh heh.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DPH wrote:

first…the weapons are untested, so what happens if the test kills more protestors than it stuns?

second…who gets to define ‘testy mob’ for us? politicians? fuck them…

first…I doubt the weapon wouldn’t have gone through internal single person/small group tests. I believe what he’s trying to say is that we should set a standard of confidence in using them here before we allow them to be used overseas.

Who are these weapons being “small group” tested on? THAT would be the test. There would be no point in using them on the populace if they had already been convinced they work on people to begin with.[/quote]

Maybe You Fellers from Tejas ,remember back in the 80’s ,when there were several towns in your state reporting that govt. helicopters were spraying some kind of chemical over small towns at night and people were becoming ill? Whatever happened on that deal??

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DPH wrote:

first…the weapons are untested, so what happens if the test kills more protestors than it stuns?

second…who gets to define ‘testy mob’ for us? politicians? fuck them…

first…I doubt the weapon wouldn’t have gone through internal single person/small group tests. I believe what he’s trying to say is that we should set a standard of confidence in using them here before we allow them to be used overseas.

Who are these weapons being “small group” tested on? THAT would be the test. There would be no point in using them on the populace if they had already been convinced they work on people to begin with.[/quote]

Maybe You Fellers from Tejas ,remember back in the 80’s ,when there were several towns in your state reporting that govt. helicopters were spraying some kind of chemical over small towns at night and people were becoming ill? Whatever happened on that deal??

[quote]ron33 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DPH wrote:

first…the weapons are untested, so what happens if the test kills more protestors than it stuns?

second…who gets to define ‘testy mob’ for us? politicians? fuck them…

first…I doubt the weapon wouldn’t have gone through internal single person/small group tests. I believe what he’s trying to say is that we should set a standard of confidence in using them here before we allow them to be used overseas.

Who are these weapons being “small group” tested on? THAT would be the test. There would be no point in using them on the populace if they had already been convinced they work on people to begin with.

Maybe You Fellers from Tejas ,remember back in the 80’s ,when there were several towns in your state reporting that govt. helicopters were spraying some kind of chemical over small towns at night and people were becoming ill? Whatever happened on that deal??[/quote]

I think it was mosquito spray - not non-lethal weapons.

But I could be wrong.