General Discussion

think

(11,641 posts)

4. What purpose does this kind of weaponry serve the military?

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 05:17 PM

Mar 2012

I can only see it used in situations where there are unarmed civilians. It would seem to be a huge waste of resources for any combat purposes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"You're Gonna Feel It:" U.S. Military Unveils New Crowd Control "Heat Ray" Weapon [View all] Better Believe It Mar 2012 OP

Cool, I support it. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #1

What purpose does this kind of weaponry serve the military? think Mar 2012 #4

To deal with high risk situations without having to kill. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #6

Thank you for your response. Although I'm totally against this because I fear it will be used think Mar 2012 #8

I'm not worried about it. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #11

And why are you certain the military brass won't use this weapon in the Northern Command against us? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #16

The fact that Hoover wasn't tried for treason says we're screwed the next time that happens. Zalatix Mar 2012 #47

Surely you concede the necessity of drawing up strict standards for the use of this weapon customerserviceguy Mar 2012 #9

I think those are fair concerns. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #12

I would have agreed with you customerserviceguy Mar 2012 #15

Do you think the military and cops should use this weapon to bust political demonstrations/strikes? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #13

That depends. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #14

How about the military using the weapon to break up OWS demonstration if some right-wing judge .... Better Believe It Mar 2012 #17

Do you have any recent examples USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #18

The military has provided a video on how the weapon will be used on protestors. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #19

You're reaching. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #20

Thanks for the objective viewpoint. It is appreciated. randome Mar 2012 #22

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #68

Legalized mass-torture. That's really fucking special. n/t backscatter712 Mar 2012 #43

I remember Mike Malloy talking about this. Among his concerns - truedelphi Mar 2012 #62

Like the rest of our "non-lethal" tortures, it kills the weak before stopping the strong saras Mar 2012 #2

Surely you wouldn't just make that up. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #7

You substantiate your denial just1voice Mar 2012 #41

You're the one that made the accusation. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #45

"They've tested the device on 11,000 volunteers" When? Where? Were any of them civilians? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #46

I'll provide the link. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #50

Thanks for confirming that your statement was wrong. It was 700 "volunteers", not 11,000. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #55

I'm stuck on the mobile version. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #56

Great. Occupiers, take care! Taverner Mar 2012 #3

and maybe every future protest or march too, should take care stuntcat Mar 2012 #24

Guns can be used to prevent protests, too. randome Mar 2012 #25

+10000 Taverner Mar 2012 #37

Occupy frying pan! nt obliviously Mar 2012 #40

Negotiating with people is hard work. Ron Green Mar 2012 #5

Prediction: Local cops will be given Homeland Security grants to buy this thing. Bozita Mar 2012 #10

So why aren't they given grants to use other weapons now? randome Mar 2012 #23

They are. Millions in federal funds are being used to arm local cops with advanced weaponry. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #27

You have links to prove this? randome Mar 2012 #28

Homeland Security has given 34 billion for weapons in the last decade. former9thward Mar 2012 #31

Guns. That's what they've bought. randome Mar 2012 #32

Nonsense. First, it's not just one town in Texas. woo me with science Mar 2012 #35

You're right. The cops will never be used against the people. Never have, never will. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #42

This will certainly help avoid another Kent State murder ...because military... L0oniX Mar 2012 #21

Umm this is a non lethal device that doesnt look like its as likely cstanleytech Mar 2012 #49

Did I say "gun"? DUH! L0oniX Mar 2012 #53

Active Denial System: who comes up with these names? dogknob Mar 2012 #26

Yes, it's what we need Ricochet21 Mar 2012 #29

"Active Denial System" girl gone mad Mar 2012 #58

Got to be a weakness in these things. Find a way to ........... socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #30

Who is Common Dreams staff? blue neen Mar 2012 #33

The defense of such weaponry is they will be used appropriately felix_numinous Mar 2012 #34

"They will be used appropriately"... backscatter712 Mar 2012 #44

Odd, here I thought it was a better option than bullets to control crowds that cstanleytech Mar 2012 #48

It's the DU contingent that wants to believe government is evil. randome Mar 2012 #51

Is it? Was the DU 'contingent' wrong about the Bush administration? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #67

When Colonel Taffola says "you" at the public unveiling, over and over again gratuitous Mar 2012 #36

What sort of shielding will work on this thing? Mopar151 Mar 2012 #38

Sounds like a perfect weapon for terrorists to get their hands on, and dictatorships ShadowLiberal Mar 2012 #39

What if people shield themselves... Bigmack Mar 2012 #52

DU rec. nt woo me with science Mar 2012 #54

If memory serves from the last time this was brought up here, Heywood J Mar 2012 #57

Imagine getting your hands on this titaniumsalute Mar 2012 #59

The device won't pop popcorn. nt USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #74

Isn't it funny that it's basically the anti-OWS contingent around here that is fine with this? Marr Mar 2012 #60

Not "funny" but yes it is revealing. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #61

I propose an experiment. woo me with science Mar 2012 #64

I think so as well. nt TBF Mar 2012 #69

Debt forgiveness, single-payer healthcare, improving our education system? white_wolf Mar 2012 #63

Libraries, schools, the arts... woo me with science Mar 2012 #75

Argh. Commondreams again. gulliver Mar 2012 #65

Do you wish to refute the article or do you prefer a "drive-by" attack on the website? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #66

Really? I suppose you prefer FAUX news. nt TBF Mar 2012 #70

As for me... randome Mar 2012 #71

Which has nothing to do with news sources - TBF Mar 2012 #72

I prefer to call it 'objective'. randome Mar 2012 #73