You first.
No, seriously, test the microwave pain beam on yourself first, jackhole:
“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.”
Via boingboing.
Update: Apparently this paragraph was taken out of context by AP. Quote in context below the fold. My apologies to all involved, especially Sec. Wynne.
SECAF COMMENTS ON NON-LETHAL WEAPONS
Context: Defense Writers Group, 12 Sep
Current line of questions concern F-3515 minutes, 13 seconds into interview
Q. Why haven’t you sold the capabilities, the non-lethal, the HPM,
capabilities of this (the F-35) airplane? I went to talk with the
Australians and that was one of the big things they wanted out of it,
was the weapons and jamming capability and the communications
capability and the radar. The Italians said the same thing, they said
‘our parliament hates dropping bombs on people’ they want a non-lethal
weapon, but yet, nothing is said about those capabilities and your
desire to push them. Do you want to push them? Is there resistance
against it?A. Non-lethal weapons are still being reviewed by the medical
group. It’s a kind of an interesting thing about non-lethal weapons. I
will tell you that having seen the high-powered microwave that is a
crowd disperser, the ADS system, used in a system and actually being
invited to put your finger in the hole and by golly you’ll see that
your resistance is somewhat weakened when the beam hits you. Basically
my point to them was (that) we need to start using that here in the
United States on Americans. And if we start using that here in the
United States on Americans and you start getting relief from people,
because if the first people you use it on are your enemies, then
unfortunately the first thing they will do is cry out that you have
hurt them medically in a way that is pejorative.Q. You mean like in police work?
A. Yes. So I think we should use it, 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. And I say that knowing the way the world
works right now is that - the Indians as you remember in the early
1800s and mid-1800s thought you were stealing their soul when you hit
them with a flash camera. You were actually covering them in soot,
which may have been the same thing. But nowadays if I hit someone with
a non-lethal weapon and they claim it injured them in a way that was
non-intended, I think I’d be vilified in the world press.Q. So we’re not going to see funding to develop those non-lethal capabilities in the F-22 and F-35 then until?.
A. Until that is resolved.
Q. Ok, would that then put a horizon on the development of those kind of capabilities out 10-15 years?
A. I’d say that the platform as a platform contains enough
power, which is derived from the engines. I think the power is there to
support a high-powered non-lethal device, but right now the tech lags,
and it lags primarily in size. Fighters are only so big. And the scope
of usage. It’s right now the stuff of great novels.