Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Just things I wonder about ... and some people are nice enough to answer. You are welcome to answer, too ... just click on "Comments" and off you go! IF you don't want to be Anonymous, use the Name/URL option and just put in your name ... no URL required .... Starting Jan 28th, 2009, I am using questions from "Table Topics: Right or Wrong?"
9 comments:
1. In any other situation they would use guinea pigs or rats for this kind of research.
2. If you are not involved in any sort of riot situation, or Dallas Cowboys celebratory parade in Dallas, you should be O.K. Speaking from the prespective of an engineer who worked on Microwave equipment in the Air Force if you are indoors, you needn't worry about this microwave device affecting you. Outdoors just palce your items to be heated and voila'.
3. Ben Stein had an article on Military.com which essentially said that why are WE fighting by the rules when our opponents ARE NOT following any rules? In my honest opinion that is a very valid point. In conclusion he stated that we will lose if we keep playing by the rules. That is possibly one of the most intelligent things I have read thus far on the War on Terror which is what this weapon is all about.
In short think how you would feel and your game situation turn out if your opponent at say the game, let's say Monopoly for the sake of argument, cheated? You wouldn't last long would you.
THAT CLOWN IS A CRACKPOT RIGHT IN
THE BUSH LEAGUE. LET'S ALL PRAY WE
CAN HANG ON TILL THAT CROWD IS GONE.
Assuming they have already tested it as Hugh suggests, then I do not have a problem with using non-lethal weapons for crowd control in the US. The Police already use non-lethal weapons for crowd control here in the US (tear gas, water cannons come to mind).
But, doing so before using them in combat? Forget it! Screw a bunch of mujahedeen and insurgents and terrorists and Islamofascists. If they are alive to complain about the weapons used on them, they should consider themselves lucky.
We should just bomb all those f---ers into the Stone Age - which for them is about last week.
Microwave them until they pop for all I care.
Gumdrop - you may have lived a long time, but you seem rather clueless about what is going on in the world today.
I think the paragraph that gets to me is: "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."
This just wrong in so many ways!He's worried about human relations and our men and women are dying over there! I agree with Hugh and Bronco (and Ben Stein). (Hey-let's test it on Wynne....over and over again!) WHY would we use NONLETHAL weapons on the battlefield during wartime? It makes no sense!
This is taking political correctness to an extreme! What is he thinking? I say whatever weapons we are testing should be tested over there, why wait? You would think after U.S. GI's getting mustard gassed, napalmed, agent oranged - that we should care less about the sensitivity of our weapons. I am with hugh and bronco on this one.
Okay, to say this in a PUBLIC forum is what strikes me as odd...
I'm glad they didn't do this with the A-Bomb... Oh wait, they did in a way, out in the desert, didn't they?....
I guess there are some that are afraid of what the goverment of France might say.... (Was that my outside voice?)
Since I was the one who forwarded this lovely article to Cindy for QOD, guess it is time to weigh-in.
As a former member of the United States Navy, I was appalled that any government official would make such a statement, especially a Secretary of one of our military services.
No weapon devised should be tested on United States Citizens before it is used in combat no matter the actions of those citizens. U.S. Citizens are NOT a test-bed!
The use of non-lethal weapons on an enemy probably is a non-issue. If I am truly dealing with an enemy in combat, I am looking for a LETHAL solution. Even if the non-lethal capability is at my disposal, I am probably using it to ultimately achieve a LEATHAL outcome. In other words, I disable them so that I can position for the kill.
Absurd is all I have to say.
GUMDROP ADDON TO YESTERDAY:
BRONCO IF YOU THINK THIS "WAR"
IS SOMETHING NEW......BUZZ BACK
TO EVEYTHING FROM WWII ON AND NOTE WHAT THE WASHINGTON CROWD SAID
AY EACH OF OUR "MAKE FULL EMPLOYMENT" CAPERS.
Post a Comment