1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Air Force Chief Proposes Testing New Weapons on Americans

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by geeimsobored, Sep 13, 2006.

Tags:
  1. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,974
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html

    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 (€15.75 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 (€1.4 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.
     
    #1 geeimsobored, Sep 13, 2006
  2. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great, now American citizens can be guinea pigs for the military. Maybe they'll only use on people at immigration rallies, then they can say it wasn't on citizens but wanna-be citizens of the U.S.
     
    #2 Saint Louis, Sep 13, 2006
  3. Kam

    Kam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    30,477
    Likes Received:
    1,322
    wouldnt you rather use it on them first instead of us americans?
     
    #3 Kam, Sep 13, 2006
  4. arkoe

    arkoe (ง'̀-'́)ง

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    I'd allow them to test it on Kam.
     
    #4 arkoe, Sep 13, 2006
  5. halfbreed

    halfbreed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,157
    Likes Received:
    26
    Haven't these weapons already been proven safe?

    It amazes me that some of you claim we don't care about anyone but Americans and then when an Air Force chief says "If we're not willing to use it at home, we shouldn't use it overseas" you blast him.
     
    #5 halfbreed, Sep 14, 2006
  6. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,333
    Likes Received:
    15,677
    Actually they haven't been proven safe outside of very strictly controled conditions on extra healthy test subjects and even then there are still outstanding issues.

    If you read the article:

    [rquoter]
    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.

    [/rquoter]
     
    #6 Ottomaton, Sep 14, 2006
  7. halfbreed

    halfbreed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,157
    Likes Received:
    26
    The thing is, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Remember the girl who died from a rubber pellet in the Red Sox celebration.

    Injuries happen all the time in crowd control situations. Now maybe testing them further on non-American subjects would help but you're never going to get something that is 100% safe on all people.

    My point is that all the AF chief was saying was that if we're not willing to use it on our own why use it on others? I figure most of you would have little problem with this sentiment, no?
     
    #7 halfbreed, Sep 14, 2006
  8. Master Baiter

    Master Baiter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    9,608
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    It doesn't really matter what this dude says because he's enlisted. If you aren't an officer, your opinion doesn't really count.
     
    #8 Master Baiter, Sep 14, 2006
  9. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,333
    Likes Received:
    15,677
    Michael Wynne is the Secretary of the Air Force. He is a political appointee and heads the Air Force but is not technically even in it. He is, however, a former officer who retired as a Captain and was a professor at the Air Force Academy.

    Here is his official bio. Not sure where you are getting the 'enlisted man' idea.
     
    #9 Ottomaton, Sep 14, 2006
  10. Master Baiter

    Master Baiter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    9,608
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Settle down Beavis, it was a joke. A chief in the airforce is an enlisted rank.
     
    #10 Master Baiter, Sep 14, 2006
  11. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,974
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Heres the key though. When we test things on humans, whether they be medical or some other type of testing, we do it WITH CONSENT.

    These are non-consenual tests in which the person's being tested on have no prior knowledge. That's what makes this highly unethical. We certainly don't support medical testing on subjects without their knowledge, so why would military testing be any different.
     
    #11 geeimsobored, Sep 14, 2006
  12. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,057
    Which is why this could potentially backfire onto the military planners. If someone unfortunately dies in a civilian situation, then it's far less likely they'll be able to deploy it sooner.

    It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
     
    #12 Invisible Fan, Sep 14, 2006
  13. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    I can see a lot of problems with this but overal I'm glad to see the military work on developing non-lethal weapons. I guess they have to be tested sometimes and knowing its Americans it might be used on I'm guessing the USAF will double check on safety.

    Of course

    is almost invevitable if ithese are used here first.
     
    #13 Sishir Chang, Sep 14, 2006
  14. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,333
    Likes Received:
    15,677
    If you read most of the trade publications they call them 'less than lethal' instead of nonlethal. Apparently this is an important point because these weapons do and will kill people regularly. If you call them nonlethal, the people who use them become caviler in their use.

    When these things are used people do die. These are supposed to be used only when the next best option significantly endangers lives. There are very few instances in the history of the United States when it would clearly be a good idea to use these things as far as I can tell.

    As an example, in the 1992 LA riots Wikipedia says 50-60 people died. If they had used these weapons during the riots they would have had to use them many times over the 5 or so days. I don’t know that it would be safe to say that less than 50-60 people would have died. If they ended up being used on a total of 10,000-20,000 people total (which is a total guess) 50 to 60 people would be and death rate of between 0.25% and 0.6%. I don't think (again a guess) that they can do much better than that.

    If the people who use them actually begin to believe that they are 'non-lethal' these things can cause more danger than they prevent.
     
    #14 Ottomaton, Sep 14, 2006
  15. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ottomatton is right that there really isn't a non-lethal weapon. A tazer used on someone with a weak heart very well might kill them but then again so might sneaking up behind them and popping a paper bag. So yes even a non-lethal weapon can kill but would you rather have police using pepper spray and tasers for crowd control or machine guns and flame throwers?
     
    #15 Sishir Chang, Sep 14, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page