US Air Force to Test Hi-Tech Weapons on Americans? 670
GayBliss writes to tell us CNN.com has an article about how the US Air Force secretary proposes testing new 'non-lethal' weapons on American citizens before deploying them to the battlefield. New weapons like a high-power microwave device are designed to incapacitate people or sometimes even electronic devices. From the article: "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."
Have you not heard of the Posse Comitatus Act? (Score:1, Informative)
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 67, Sec. 1385
Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Of course, there have been many efforts recently to subvert such principles.
We're already guinea pigs (Score:2, Informative)
Luckily I never had to take any of the anthrax shots while in the Navy, but I remember talking to another Navy guy who said part of the enlistment contract requires service members to accept drug testing on them. That's why the anthrax shots were so debilitating; they were using the military to test it. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I certainly wouldn't put it past our government.
(Man, I was submitting this to
Re:Sounds like a police state. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com]
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm [oldamericancentury.org] [oldamericancentury.org] [oldamericancentury.org]
http://www.hermes-press.com/etch1.htm [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com]
In the land of the NOT free, All hail the shrub!
Re:Major Flaw (Score:5, Informative)
Independence (which doesn't require destruction of enemy.
Territory (ditto).
Other scarce resources (food, water, oil, gold, etc. -- doesn't necessarily require destruction of your enemy).
War isn't about destroying your enemy (that's genocide you're thinking of, there). War is typically about the control of resources, and one of those resources is popular opinion. Plenty of wars have been fought for PR reasons -- an external enemy is one way of helping ensure you don't have to deal with an internal enemy.
Re:Major Flaw (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong
War is an extension of politics. War is what you do when your other methods of persuasion have failed.
The point of war is not to destroy the enemy, it is to make the enemy do what you want. The U.S. used two atomic bombs to get that point across to the Japanese people.
Maybe you've absorbed too much "ZOMG Teh War On T3rr0r!!1 Must k1ll teh terrorists b4 tehy k1ll US!eleven" ?
Out of context (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
he made it and no would would buy it.. so he video taped him self shooting him self in the gut.. and sent the tape to the police departmnets - and well we all know how well that worked out...
hell i would take a bullet to have that credit to my name
Re:Major Flaw (Score:2, Informative)
troops without any fighting; he captures their cities
without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom
without lengthy operations in the field."
Re:How about (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, if you're dealing with large crowds, it's usually a lot easier to use force than to try and solve the situation in a peaceful manner.
This isn't new, nor is it right (Score:1, Informative)
"The Army used serratia to test whether enemy agents could launch a biological warfare attack on a port city such as San Francisco from a location miles offshore. For six days in late September 1950, a small military vessel near San Francisco sprayed a huge cloud of serratia particles into the air while the weather favored dispersal."
"Army tests showed that the bacterial cloud had exposed hundreds of thousands of people in a broad swath of Bay Area communities including Sausalito, Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, San Francisco, Daly City and Colma, according to reports that later were declassified. Soon after the spraying, 11 people came down with hard-to-treat infections at the old Stanford University Hospital in San Francisco. By November, one man had died. Edward Nevin, 75, a retired Pacific Gas and Electric Co. worker recovering from a prostate operation, had succumbed to an infection with Serratia marcescens that attacked his heart valves."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
Re:I'm a hippy, and I still think this post is fun (Score:4, Informative)
Flamebait [slashdot.org] -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Troll [slashdot.org] -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
ac (Score:1, Informative)
Not a large step.
Re:Rich = Powerful = I Do Whatever I Want (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's been that way since a Supreme Court Clerk Decided that corporations were persons [mcn.org] back in 1886. We lost our democracy then.
Yesterday, we learn that the HP executive who authorized the illegal surveillance has been slapped on the wrist.
Of course- she's not in your class.
Today, we learn that government officials will arbitrarily test military weapons on American citizens.
But only in keeping with what the Corporations want- in other words, they'll be used on protestors who are blocking streets and endangering profits.
Re:How about (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't a bad idea. The air force is basically proposing that the burden of proof that the weapons are truly 'non-lethal' be set very high. This isn't the armed forces proposing that weapons testing be conducted on civilians. This is the armed forces proposing that before we let 20 year old kids run around with "non-lethal" microwave guns zapping Iraqis that they meet US standards for non-lethal. If they don't meet US standards of what a "non-lethal" weapon is, then we probably should not be blasting pissed off crowds in other nations with them.
My only complaint against the idea is that it is probably a little too conservative. Telling a bunch of 20 year old kids with guns to hold off a crowd of pissed off civilians with armed militia in their midst in a non-violent way is pretty damn hard. People get nervous when they get shot at, civilians be damned. Better to have something that is a step below a full auto-blast from an M16 into a crowd then only an M16.
Re:This is to save lives, period. (Score:2, Informative)
Oh for god's sake! Try a little less idiocy and a bit more thinking. The "high power microwaves" you're so busily castigating can no more make a baby "boiled to death" than your little finger can. If you were half as quick to read the article as you are to hurl invective, you'd know the non-lethal microwave device causes no physical injuries. Dumb ass.
You also have dead marines because you didn't debate hard enough and killed innocent people and inspired more Iraqis to join the insurgency.
More stupidity from you, I see. The point of the non-lethal weapon is to allow us to reduce the probability of killing innocents. Or would you prefer we just set everything on full auto and spray down babies and old ladies with hot lead? What kind of monsters do you think we are? I don't know what kind of world you live in, bud, but the Marines I know and served with hate seeing innocent people hurt. They hate it so much that they willingly risk their lives on a daily basis just so that civilians don't die. After all, a single W-88 warhead in the center of Baghdad would pretty much end the insurgency in that city, wouldn't it? So would saturation bombing, nerve gas, or any other mass-killing weapon we have in our arsenal. It would do so with little or no risk of injury on our part. But we don't do that, do we? We have leathernecks on the ground, making targets of themselves, getting killed, all because we have more respect for civilian casualities than do the scum we're fighting.
Of course, by your writings, I see you think we should just knuckle under and surrender to those who don't like us. It's a good goddammed thing people like you aren't running the country. With someone like you, the fucking French could invade and take us over.
Now, granted, even though sending American soldiers to their deaths is way down the list of things that Republicans care about...
You know what? The vast, huge, unbelievably overwhelming majority of those fighting in Iraq are (a) Republicans and (b) fully supportive of their mission. Quit thinking we're some kind of lamb being led to the slaughter by evil Republicans trying to line the pockets of Big Oil. We don't feel ourselves to be victims, we believe in our mission, even if you don't. It doesn't have one goddammed thing to do with SUV's or anything else so petty. Saddam was given an ultimatum. He chose to ignore it. We had a choice to either (a) do nothing and be viewed as a powerless paper tiger in world events or (b) follow through and kick his ass. I, for one, am damned glad the second option was followed.
For those that don't, the fact that this weapon could be used to prevent freedom of assembly may make them opppose this weapon.
Again, you must think the wielders of such a weapon are nothing but a bunch of crazed maniacs just aching to zap your liberal ass. I've got news for you, sonny. The first person to use this weapon indiscriminately on an otherwise-peaceful demonstration is going to find himself in jail -- jailed by the very government and laws you claim are so "out to get you." Now if the demonstration was a bunch of hooligans out smashing stores and burning cars, that's exactly what kind of thing this weapon is good for. If you want an effective demonstration, think "Ghandi" not "bin Laden." But I forget that, in your mind, the government is always assumed to be evil, and the demonstrators are always assumed to be noble. Wait unti you grow up a bit and then try re-examining that premise. You'll see just how silly and naive it is.
Anonymous Coward suits you well. I love how you insult and second guess those who are trying to defend this nation while hiding yourself. Your method of dealing with a potential adversary speaks volumes about how effective your ideas would be if put into practice.