posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by cmongo4
Actually, in Military Jargon Non Lethal means just that.
Or else the M-16 A4 would be said to be used in a Non-Lethal capacity. It has a Saftey switch. With that on it is merely a club, comparable to a
Night Stick and only at close range. We don't say that. It's a freaking lethal weapon.
What is being said is that the weapon, as is, only has the capacity to Harm, not Kill. Sadly, death by radiation in the FUTURE is not considered
deadly... only harmful. At this time they do not have the weapon equipped with a function to reach a lethal capacity.
This does not mean that they can't add to the weapon to make it lethal... however if it were shown to be lethal then it would actually get the
funding it deserves instead of 1.3 Mil out of the Billions for defense. They DON'T WANT IT TO BE LETHAL, that's the point. We already have ways of
killing people. We now want ways to simply incapacitate. Except by 'we' I mean those of us out here on the ground that have to face the wrath of
both our Superiors and the Citizens here if we kill an Iraqi protestor who turns out not to be a terrorist. We get court martialed, and the guys left
behind start getting hit by now sympathetic Iraqi who don't just see us as occupiers but murderers now that we've killed an innocent protester.
Trust me, MOST of us here dealing with the stuff would LOVE to have a safe way to disperse an angry mob without resorting to killing. Mainly because
we'd like not to get blown up the next day, and some of us like to treat people with respect to go along with our own personel safety.
Sadly, the Higher Ups feel if it don't kill it doesn't pay. They aren't giving this the funding it deserves, which is the true shame of it all.