Air Force chief proposes testing "pain guns" on unruly Americans

It's a good thing that military personnel are not elected officials, because if Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne were up for re-election, we doubt that his proposal to test non-lethal weapons on American citizens before deploying them abroad would win him many votes. Specifically, Wynne told The Associated Press: "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, (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." That would certainly be a shame, Mr. Secretary, as it would really tarnish the US's hard-earned reputation as a nation beyond reproach in the eyes of the international community. So, next time you're looting or rioting or otherwise participating in organized chaos and you happen to inexplicably drop to your knees in horrific pain, you can thank Secretary Wynne for ensuring that America's enemies will be receiving just the right dose of incapacitating waves, beams, or pulses when the time comes.

Update: Upon reading all of the comments so far (some insightful, some not) and re-reading the CNN article, it's clear that the AP reporter may have taken Secretary Wynne's statement out of context, and that the Secretary may actually be advocating against any use of these types of weapons at all -- a notion that's further supported by claims that the Air Force is withholding funding for this research pending additional medical inquiries. Therefore, please disregard any barbs herein made at the expense of Secretary Wynne, as they may turn out to be completely unwarranted.

[bluetraned @ Sep 13th 2006 12:45PM]

wow... unreal...

[What! @ Sep 13th 2006 12:46PM]

If Secretary Michael Wynne had any guts he'd volunteer to be the test subject for these non-lethal weapons

[BeRoes3d @ Sep 13th 2006 12:50PM]

as a family of a police officer, i believe this is a great approach.

completely "sane citizens" are known to brutally attack officers of the law when they feel like it...

[Evan G @ Sep 13th 2006 12:53PM]

fantastic. Political laced commentary even on engadget.
While no doubt Wynne does not have a finely tuned schmooze generator like politicians do, Im also fairly confident that the AP took this out of context for more impact.

If you are going to criticize, offer an alternative. I mean really, are you going to test it on puppies and rabbits?
Or should we just go back to putting bullets in people. Ive got no problems with that.

[Karl Rove @ Sep 13th 2006 12:56PM]

^_^ I work for people who are constantly being harrassed by doped-up terrorist sympathizers - this would BE GREAT!!!

:)) LETS SEE YOU BEAT THOSE FREEDOM ZONES NOW!!! :x

[Rick @ Sep 13th 2006 12:57PM]

What an A-Hole. Instead of being accountable to everyone everywhere, maybe this guy should be accountable to the people he is supposed to be serving.

[NNTPgrip @ Sep 13th 2006 12:59PM]

I am Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies...

Seriously though, shouldn't it be tested on the people that will be using the weapon. How else are to exactly know how much pain you will be dishing out?

Of course, I think that when a cop tazers you, for every half second you get tazered, he should get a millisecond - to his nuts...

[Ian W. @ Sep 13th 2006 1:02PM]

I would like to point out that, by Mr. Wynne's logic, we have already proven that 'less-lethal' weapons fail to serve their intended purpose effectively. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Snelgrove

[BeRoes3d @ Sep 13th 2006 1:03PM]

wow, people seem to have no respect for officers of the law...

maybe you just prefer to be shot at and lose an arm or a leg!

[DaveA @ Sep 13th 2006 1:11PM]

I applaud Mr Wynne for being aware of the importance of the US's behaviour. However, a more certain way of avoiding vilification in the world's press, on it's streets and by it's water coolers would be through embarking on fewer attempts to remake the world the way you want it through force.

[trev @ Sep 13th 2006 1:16PM]

I think what he is getting at is:

If the "non lethal" weapon is too dangerous/harmful that its use wouldnt be tolerated in his own country then its a big contradiction to use it in another country as such.

[Fulch @ Sep 13th 2006 1:30PM]

Wynne is lucky his postition is not subject to the voters whims. He seems to believe that if a non-lethal weapon is not suitable for use at home it shouldn't be used abroad on other human beings who have the misfortune of not being american. I guess the notion that all people are created equal doesnt seem to fly with some of the american electorate on engadget.

[Antonio @ Sep 13th 2006 1:36PM]

"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, (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."

Not ONCE does he propose to use it on Americans here in the US. He is actually promoting the use of non-lethal weapons and saying that if we're not willing to use it on ourselves, it shouldn't be used.

[Rayonic @ Sep 13th 2006 1:39PM]

Jeez, can we tone down the political crap for a second? Two points:

1) If people were rioting in your city, would you rather the police use lethal or non-lethal methods to stop it? This new pain ray is on par with tear gas. Probably safer and less prone to hitting unintended people.

2) They've already done extensive testing on volunteers. But it still makes sense to use it locally first, because you know there will be people who say "THE PAIN RAY MADE ME GO BALD!" or some such nonsense.

[Matt M @ Sep 13th 2006 1:42PM]

This reminds me of the Death Ray (Project X) in Atlas Shrugged. I'm all for such a device being developed to use against our enemies (the kind who want to fly planes into tall buildings) but something about this in the hands of law enforcement seems rather sinister. Or I've just read/seen too much science fiction.

[Davin @ Sep 13th 2006 1:45PM]

I was a Marine security guard at an American embassy overseas. They let us carry pepper-spray while on duty. To help us understand the weapon that we carried, we were individually sprayed with pepper-spray to thee face with our eyes open. If we closed our eyes during the spray then we got another dose. This was a most unpleasant experience for me because I closed my eyes the first time. We also had to breathe CS (tear) gas because we carried that too. I found a new respect for these non-lethal weapons that I might have to use on some poor chump. I never had to use the stuff on anyone, but I think it was important experience for me. I think everyone that carries a non-lethal weapon should have it used on themselves first so they understand exactly what they will be doing to another person.

[Timerider @ Sep 13th 2006 1:52PM]

This is a great alternative to guns.

I heard of a guy who got shot 9 times before he even hit the ground by a cop who thought he was reaching for a gun.
He was actually reaching for his wallet.

[Steve @ Sep 13th 2006 1:53PM]

Thank you, Trev and Antonio for actually reading what he actually said, instead of just reacting to the tone or the article surrounding it. At first glance, the statement is shocking, but it's actually a very reasonable (almost progressive) perspective - you shouldn't treat the outside "enemy" any worse than you would allow your own citizens to be treated.

[Ice T @ Sep 13th 2006 2:00PM]

Nope: I have no respect for officers of the law. None whatsoever.

Next question?

[Alex @ Sep 13th 2006 2:09PM]

I think trev hit it on the head and I see no problem with what Mr. Wynne is proposing. These aren't weapons for fighting wars, they're crowd control devices for dealing with non-combatants. It's kind of hard to win the hearts and minds of the people in an occupied country if its blatantly obvious we're treating their lives and health as less valuable than our own.

[len @ Sep 13th 2006 2:11PM]

The great thing about lethal weapons is that an officer's conscience (and lawsuits) usually provide some measure of restraint on their use.

But in a world where cops shoot rubber bullets to mock peaceful protesters [http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2296783&page=1], does anyone think they're not gonna have some fun with a "pain ray"? And what will that do for people's respect of policemen, or respect for the law?

[zorg @ Sep 13th 2006 2:37PM]

Should we have the Easter Bunny be in charge of the Air Force? This guy actually made me think. The proposal sounds good on its own.

I'm appalled by the current climate of "let's stifle dissent because anyone who notices I'm a nincompoop must love terrorists," so I'm automatically suspicious that this will be used on peaceful protestors. But if there is a riot that justifies intervention, this guy has the right idea.

[Russell Carr @ Sep 13th 2006 3:02PM]

"It's a good thing that military personnel are not elected officials, because if Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne were up for re-election..."

The Secretary of the Air Force is a civilian political position, not a member of the military. Thus Mr. Wynne may stand for election some day. FDR was an Assistant Secretary of the Navy before becoming president.

[loikll @ Sep 13th 2006 3:10PM]

He did not say that. Your Engadget headline is false.

If you actually read the article, rather than just hysterically react to it, you'll see that there is no quotation from him saying we should use those weapons on Americans. If you read what he actually said -- and not what some AP dimwit interpreted him to say.

He is simply explaining why we should NOT use them in foreign countries: we'd be criticized if we used crowd control measures somewhere else that American cops don't use in the US. And since US cops don't use those weapons, US armed forces should not use them for crowd control either. (You disagree with that statement?)

He goes on to say the USAF will NOT fund those weapons further unless medical researchers resolve problems of injuries they have caused in the past. (Does that sounds like he's eager to use them?)

Looks to me that he is not at all *proposing* that those weapones be used in the US -- that's nothing but wild, unwarranted misinterpretation from the AP reporter. That is not what he said.

With that in mind, read his ACTUAL quote:
"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,"

Do you disagree with what he said? Does that statement make him an A-hole?

[Bob @ Sep 13th 2006 3:38PM]

As an Air Force Officer, I think the Secretary should RESIGN, NOW.

I am ashamed to be associated (however distantly) with these comments.

[Finished.Law.School @ Sep 13th 2006 3:42PM]

Use it against UAW members and striking teachers!

[Sussed @ Sep 13th 2006 3:56PM]

Bahaha! I guess Engadget feels that we'd start things off dealing with that unruly 'Mods' problem that everybody seem to have?

...We are the Mods! We are the Mods! We are, we are, we are the Mods!

[Judous @ Sep 13th 2006 4:30PM]

it's so terrible that we use non lethal weapons when people are destroying things, killing officers, and stealing whatever they want. God knows that they are doing the right thing by sticking it to the man!

if your participating in this kind of action I think you deserve a nice bean bag shot to the face to put your lights out. Or you could the crap beat out of you with a nightstick... that works to.

[M. Rod Von Hugenstein @ Sep 13th 2006 4:31PM]

First off, police officers that carry "non-lethal" tasers are required to get tased before they are authorized to carry them.

Second, if you have respect, and understand the consequences of using the weapon you are carrying, you are are less likely to use it against someone, unless it is absolutely required.

That is it, case closed, and if you actually read the article you would understand that.

[Brent @ Sep 13th 2006 4:34PM]

I feel bad for the engadget staff, half you guys just don't get their sense of humor. How many times have they told you this isn't CNN? It's a dark humor twist on a news story not really worth a bit of attention, except that any discussion of something like a 'pain gun' is worthwhile in that we should be constantly asking the question is this what we want to be?

In this psychotic 'this or that' society yes, non lethal is better than lethal. No long term effect is better than serious injury.

Let me fit your crazy logic: should we be seeking to do less harm, or no harm?

The scary part of all of this is not the typical humanitarian side of what amount of pain is acceptable to inflict. The humanitarian issue that should come up is one of technology, which makes this a perfect story to have here on engadget. At what point do we start accepting government sanctioned mind control? At what point does our humanity, our very thoughts, become subject to government control? If a 'pain gun' is acceptable than certainly 'pacify guns' are.

It's about the evolution of technology, and how some seem determined to put it down a path that is at least shaky moral and ethical progress and possibly irreversible de-evolution.

Until then, it's worth a dark humor laugh. Thanks Engadget, JOB WELL DONE AGAIN!

[Dave @ Sep 13th 2006 8:09PM]

Here's a better idea: Maybe we should get out of other countries.

[Seth Finkelstein @ Sep 14th 2006 12:46AM]

I called the Air Force, and asked about the nonlethal weapons story, and what was actually said. I received a transcript, which I've posted. It looks like the reporter did indeed quote out of context.

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001067.html

[Eddie @ Sep 14th 2006 5:07AM]

As an aside, I'm pretty sure those are unruly Brits in that picture, not unruly Americans. It's a reduced version of this picture http://www.innercity.freeserve.co.uk/Friendly%20riot.jpg from a British Scooter club.
And, no, you can't test your "pain guns" on us either.

[Jim Dawson @ Sep 14th 2006 5:20AM]

From the transcript:

"Basically my point to them was (that) we need to start using that here in the United States on Americans."

Wynne needs to be removed from office pronto. The 'taken out of context' spin is just that, spin and damage control.

The Soviets and the Nazis would test weapons on civilians. It's no surprise that Neocons would do the same.

[loikll @ Sep 14th 2006 12:18PM]

Fair enough, he made that literal statement in the transcript. Nevertheless the context of what he's saying is quite clear and is nothing to get hysterical about. When asked why not use lethal weapons instead of bombs, again, he is just explaining that we'd be criticised for using measures that U.S. cops do not use here. For us to use non-lethal weapons overseas WITHOUT BEING CRITICIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, we'd need to first be using them in the U.S, which we currently are not. He simply points out that very true fact.

He is clearly not proposing we go out and start doing Nazi ezperiments on civilians in order to test weapons. He is merely pointing out the political issues of using what might seem to be the very humane solution -- non-lethal wapons.

(Again, if you criticize what he is saying, then I guess you insist we just be content to kill people and never bother employing non-lethal measures).

He's only guilty of forgetting for a moment that there are plenty of idiots just looking for a reason to scream about stuff like this.

[Mike @ Sep 14th 2006 2:42PM]

I think that's a fantastic idea. We shouldn't stop there, though. We should also consider testing weapons that fall into the LETHAL category as well. After all, I don't think we should be using anything in combat that hasn't been fully tested on our own people here at home first.

What a dick.

[Gary Combs @ Sep 15th 2006 12:49PM]

This isn't really to Endgadets "article," just the user comments on people who have a problem with what he said. Especially the ones who want him removed from office.

Are you people unable to comprehend what he said? And are you reality-challenged? Sorry to be rude about it, but the media has a habit of changing many people's comments to gain attention. Sometimes you need to read the actual transcript to learn what really was said before you go out and make wild assumptions.

[DonGeronimo @ Sep 15th 2006 12:58PM]

THAT IS ONE FUNNY PHOTO - How can I get a clearer copy of it for my desktop?

[Gregory Fitzgerald @ Dec 27th 2006 11:09AM]

The weapon is less prone to hit unintended targets??? It can be fired from up to one and one-quarter miles away. So anyone in the way gets it, including kids and babies.

Here's a really radical idea. How about making society more inclusive, so the poor are less likely to riot? Instead of zapping them with the pain weapon.

[arthurbarnhouse @ Feb 6th 2008 5:03PM]

"This reminds me of the Death Ray (Project X) in Atlas Shrugged."

how, precisely? Didn't project x, you know, destroy EVERYTHING?

Incidentally, Ayn Rand logic is no standard to judge the world by.

[dboots @ Mar 30th 2008 6:35PM]

My common sense says Senator Wynne said what he
meant. MANY OF US ARE AWARE THESE WEAPONS THEY WORKED OUT THE KINKS USING US CITIZENS AS GUINEA PIGS.

Please note update info above which added
Secretary may actually be advocating against any use of these types of weapons at all.

What Secretary Wynne might be actually doing is
just providing sometype of lip service of a
show of professing to be an advocate against these
type of weapons. Notice the Update DOES NOT
ACTUALLY STATE WHETHER OR NOT HE MAY BE AN
ACTUAL ADVOCATE, JUST THE WORD "MAY".
---------
As their are other OFFICIALS right at this moment
calling on our government to open an investigation, and who are actively ADVOCATING AGAINST THE USE OF EXPERIMENTING N TESTING THESE TYPE OF DIRECTED ENERGY, EM,
ULF, ELF, PYSCHOTRONIC WEAPONARY (EVEN CHEMTRAILS) OF THEIR EXOTIC WEAONARY
DEVICES AND USING US CITIZENS AS UNKNOWN GUINEA PIGS, Secretary Wynne IS NOT currently ONE OF THEM
who is adding his voice advocating his support into
opening any type of investigation.

Representative Jim Guest of Missouri is calling
on all of our elected officials to stop the unlawful experimenting n testing of these DEW
Exotic Weaponary on US Citizens. Only a few have
stepped forward, like Senator Ted Kennedy, to be
ACTUAL ADVOCATES FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE US.
Secretary Wynne has been emailed on numerous
occasions ASKING/URGING HIS help to open an investigation
into this matter by a number of our other elected
officials.
A TRUE ADVOCATE WOULD OF STEPPED UP AND ADDED
HIS VOICE DEMANDING AN INVESTIGATION BE OPENED
ON THIS MATTER.