I'm speachless

[mostasteless]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AIR_FORCE_WEAPONS?SITE=TXDAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


"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"

Does this mean the military is more concerned with the safety of our enemies than it is with the citizens they are suppose to protect?

[wrx_snobordr]

I think is shows a growing problem with a military and our gov. We are more concerned with world opinion than we are with getting the job done and getting our troops home. Total crap.

[driftingeric2k4]

I think is shows a growing problem with a military and our gov. We are more concerned with world opinion than we are with getting the job done and getting our troops home. Total crap.

I agree. However, propaganda is an amazing tool if you can harness it. If we used some wartime weapon and it was found out that it had a detrimental effect other than what it claimed it would do, then it will and would have a global impact on us.

For example, if microwave technology was used and claimed to be a nonlethal solution, yet it was later found that those that were hit by/in contact with the weapon manifested cancerous tumors - we would have a major PR battle on our hands. Depleted uranium cased bullets and shells come to mind as well. Like it or not, the pen is and always has been mightier than the sword.

I don't agree that using it on citizens is the greatest idea either however, but I do understand where they are coming from, regardless of whether or not I think it is the correct mentality.

[MPowerKai]

Screw what everyone thinks and if they started it then we shouldn't be using non-lethal force.

"Set phasers to kill."

[Intercooled T]

the world has gotten too politically correct. end of story.

[driftingeric2k4]

the world has gotten too politically correct. end of story.

Indeed.

[NJGOAT]

Well, that is a pretty small quote and can rather easily be taken out of context. It would seem that the "battlefield" the general is referring to is a general term and not necessarily referring to a military on military engagement. If we were to be engaging targets in a primarily civilian area, let's say Baghdad, right now there will be civilian casualties from the bombs that would be used. What the military has been trying to develop for a long time are weapons that would incapacitate the enemy for a time period and allow troops to move in and take out the military threat. However, like was said above what if we use an area of effect weapon that is non-lethal only to later find out that we caused permanent long term damage that won't manifest itself for a long time. By "testing" and using it here first we can ensure that there will be no side effects from the weapons.

You may think that the world is to PC, but don't you think we need to live up to our own moral standards? Who are we to criticize anyone if our military used microwave weapons that were later found out to cause permanent genetic damage and birth defects? As the most powerful country in the world, we are always under the microscope.

[SexyDSM95]

To the OP:
If you are going to make any point or argument at all against the government or the military...I would hope that you would be s-p-e-e-c-h-l-e-s-s

[wrx_snobordr]

the world has gotten too politically correct. end of story.

Not the world, America. Most of the people in the middle east have no problem saying they hate jews. Europe also, they were real quick to condem Isreal for retaliating against hezbola and i didnt hear to many of them complaining about the rockets landing in isreals cities. The ya have the whole nut block, North Korea, Cuba, venezuala and possibly soon to be joining mexico, whos people are more and more coming out in suport of socialist leaders who speak out against isreal and actually support iran and other nut job countries who look to do us harm.

[driftingeric2k4]

Who are we to criticize anyone if our military used microwave weapons that were later found out to cause permanent genetic damage and birth defects? As the most powerful country in the world, we are always under the microscope.

We do this already with depleted uranium. Like I said, that stuff is bad news and the effects are just starting to show. I'd be real hesitant about using microwave based technology on people for the same reason. I dont know much about microwave technology, but I'd need years of evidence showing that it didnt do any lasting harm to a subject before signing off on that project.

EMP is a cool technology though. EVERYTHING is electronic now. An EMP blast could go a long way toward ending a fight very early.

[97TurboDSM]

im glad that the gov/military is willing to test potentially harmful weapons on its own citizens rather than on the people we are fighting. absurd if you ask me.

[NJGOAT]

The depletede uranium is another issue entirely. The DU rounds are specifically designed as a military vs. military weapon. They are extremely effective. There may be severe consequences to there use that are just starting to surface, but at the end of the day it is a weapon used by soldiers to kill other soldiers, not civilians.

As for the testing on American civilians, I don't think the general was proposing that we line up a bunch of people, bombard them with microwaves and see what happens. I think he was trying to get at the point that unless the weapon was safe enough for use on American citizens, the military would not use it. Indescriminate killing of civilians is not our military's job. Most of the weapons we have now are pin point accurate and minimize casualties (akthough they do happen). If we were to bombard an area of several city blocks with microwave energy and incapacitate everyone in that area while your troops took out a threat, wouldn't you want to know that we weren't causing permanent damage. If we don't care about permanent damage, than why develop the weapon? Drop a few 1,000 pound bombs and kill them all.

[driftingeric2k4]

The depletede uranium is another issue entirely. The DU rounds are specifically designed as a military vs. military weapon. They are extremely effective. There may be severe consequences to there use that are just starting to surface, but at the end of the day it is a weapon used by soldiers to kill other soldiers, not civilians.


Yeah, my comparison was in regards to a "good idea now, bad idea down the road" kind of mentality. Microwave technology seems to me would fit in that. I was comparing the mentality, not the application. Sorry for the confusion.

[mostasteless]

I absolutely think the weapons should be tested before they are used but using them as crowd control (during riots I assume) on Americans doesn't sound like the best way to test, it is not only morally wrong it would be a poor way to get solid scientific evidence (too many uncontrolled variables). The government has gone this route in the past with Agent Orange, nuclear radiation, mind altering drugs such as LSD, and I'm sure many other things I missed with some willing participants, some unwilling, and some unaware and look at the results. If they want human guinea pigs fine, I'm sure you can find plenty of willing participants if the price is right but using random citizens to test the effects of a weapon that "should" be non-lethal is just wrong.

[Intercooled T]

Did you imply Border Control testing? lol j/k

[smoger]

I absolutely think the weapons should be tested before they are used but using them as crowd control (during riots I assume) on Americans doesn't sound like the best way to test, it is not only morally wrong it would be a poor way to get solid scientific evidence (too many uncontrolled variables). The government has gone this route in the past with Agent Orange, nuclear radiation, mind altering drugs such as LSD, and I'm sure many other things I missed with some willing participants, some unwilling, and some unaware and look at the results. If they want human guinea pigs fine, I'm sure you can find plenty of willing participants if the price is right but using random citizens to test the effects of a weapon that "should" be non-lethal is just wrong.

I think what they are implying is less of a "test", and more of a "proof". They probably have the weapons to a point where they are generally known to be safe.. however,.. you use them on international citizens and suddenly all kinds of tales start to arise about what the weapons did. If those weapons had previously been used here, you have a public record that they're safe.