"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 (Wynne) 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.
No moral dilemma here, the reason to NOT test on unsuspecting citizens is because he thinks he would be vilified in the press? ya think? I'm struggling that this confession was so casually spoken to a reporter as if they were discussing baseball box scores.
I'm not sure what more there is to say. We all know about the nuclear testing on unsuspecting civilians in the 1950's that resulted in thyroid disease, leukemia and other horrendous illnesses. In 2000, the Radiation Exposure Act was passed to define and process claims surrounding those illnesses.
So the next time you want to go out an unwelcome this president to your town, consider the consequences, you unruly crowds, you.
Has this country not learned some lessons from these unwarranted experiments? Where is the outrage? We deserve better, but I guess we haven't really learned anything at all, have we?