Non-Lethal Pain Weapons Under Research

OK, this article has its laughable moments. You've got people shrinking back in horror at the thought that we would develop a weapon that...[gasp]...causes pain.

As opposed to all the tried-and-true painfree conventional weapons used the world over, like napalm, high explosives, frag grenades, automatic weapons, bayonets, pointy sticks, etc.

Even funnier is the thought that the weapon was being developed to be used for torture. OK, why do we need new technology for torture? We can inflict all the pain we want. Any nation can. You can go out and buy a can of pepper spray if you want to be able to inflict pain. Your grandpa's trusty 12-gauge will cause severe pain when discharged into the pain-recipient's crotch area. We don't need high-tech pain for torture, you are missing the point!

The point of the weapon system is to save lives! Save the lives of angry rioters and the lives of soldiers. What makes this system distinct is not that it inflicts pain. What makes it different is that it is both remote and nonlethal. You can keep murderous mobs at a distance without unloading a 30 caliber Browning at them.

People are just scared of anything new. Teargas was once new, and I'm sure the Nervous Nellies of that day were probably screaming, that's unethical! Take us back to the days of bayonetted rifles and billy clubs!

The immense irony is that we are probably alone in the fact that we spend a great deal of money researching how to avoid killing if it is not entirely necessary. Most countries in the world would handle a riot with armed soldiers. But still, people who claim to advocate "ethics" are upset that we are researching riot control devices that are both more effective and safer?

Remember when those subhuman scum bombed that car with 4 construction workers in Fallujah? And a mob gathered, and the desecrated their charred remains and strung them up with glee? That is when a UH-60 Blackhawk equipped with a microwave or laser non-lethal weapon would have been wonderful. If one of those men was your husband, or son, or brother, or father, and you were watching hate-crazed men stamp with a evil pleasure on the smoldering body of your loved one via CNN (what was wrong with that journalist? I have to wonder, since most of them carry a sidearm, wouldn't you feel a little tiny bit obliged to defend the murdered bodies of your countrymen? but I digress), I don't think you'd be too concerned about the ethics of a pain-inducing weapon.

I'm trying to remember, didn't I call for a nuclear strike on Fallujah? Yes, even we conservatives can be emotional!

In other news...oh wait, there is no other news.

My "jury" is still out on Wacko Jacko. I am in the unusual circumstance of not having a firm belief on an issue. Which at least is refreshing to observe because it implies I am not a knee-jerk kind of person all the time (hehe) but I'm genuinely not leaning one way or another with his case. I was leaning towards the prosecution, when the Smoking Gun busted the allegations out, but after recent revelations, especially about the family history, I think MJ may be a freak, and who knows, maybe a child molester, but he could still just be set up.

Or worse...there could have been genuine molestation, but the family tried to milk it and lied about/exaggerated it. That would piss me off...one little lie would spoil the whole testimony.

We'll probably never know, just like with OJ. Yeah, right.