The latest oxymoron from Washington

I was reading the news when I saw this http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-03-02-nonlethal.htm

Why is it that "non-lethal" and "weapon" don't compute when "Pentagon" is factored in? If you read this, see the comments made at the end of the story by William Arkin. I find them rather perceptive.

Originally posted by Chewbaccus
I was reading the news when I saw this http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-03-02-nonlethal.htm

Why is it that "non-lethal" and "weapon" don't compute when "Pentagon" is factored in? If you read this, see the comments made at the end of the story by William Arkin. I find them rather perceptive.

The eye thing was certainly my first thought. Also, causing people pain is likely to make them angry, and they may not react as you expect when enraged. And weapons labeled "nonlethal" are more apt to be used indiscriminately.

Actually, I question the military's need for such a non-lethal weapon in the first place; seems to me that their job is more of the kill people and blow things up variety.

Strikes me that they either:

A) Use this as a form of "spring training" or

B) Use the Pain Ray to incite the crowd to riot, thus letting them say "We tried to not kill them." all the while chomping at the bit for someone to make one wrong move.