China Buying US Directed Sound 'Weapon'

holy_calamity writes "The directed sound weapon made by US company ATC is being exported to the Chinese police, despite the public law banning sales of weapons to China. Turns out that such 'non-lethal' technologies are not covered by this law — an omission that may become more widely known if they are used to quell high-profile protests during the Olympics."

Comments

Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great way to oppress folks and not leave bloody bodies around for cameras!

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

The problem is, it takes a lot more justification to fire a bullet than it does to use one of these.

One of these and 2 or 3 people can effectively fight a crowd of thousands. In fact there is no reason for any government NOT to use these to quell their population and keep them goose stepping in line... except for morals.

Furthermore, if a group or government is willing to use a cheap bullet in a situation they would be highly unlikely to purchase, train crews, and deploy these expensive non-lethal weapons.

While these weapons definitely have their uses, they can also easily be abused. Perhaps even more easily than lethal weapons, since there is supposedly no lasting damage done. (Unlike rubber or plastic bullets which cause moderate too severe damage, can be deadly and are inaccurate.) I expect China to get a lot of use out of their purchase from now on.

And on a final note, a lot of these weapons CAN be adjust to cause permanent damage. A lot of the R&D for these weapons was to design a targeting system to keep them from doing that. Change some settings and depending on the weapon large portions of a targeted crowd may never hear again or may never see again.

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

Actually, since they fall under the heading of incapacitating weapons, we're talking stun damage

There have been a several confirmed deaths from the use of Rubber and Plastic rounds, as well as serious injuries.

So while the likely result of a properly trained solder using a rubber/plastic round is knocking someone down and making them have no wish to get back up. There significant chance of a more serious injury and a slight chance of fatality.

"stun damage" it makes it sound like "Oh, gee I can't move" when the reality is that the weapon causes so much pain that you can barely move. It is more pain then most people have ever experienced.

Paul, I currently trying to guess witch roleplaying game rule book you quoted for your post. ;P

And yes, if you got that, you're also going to hell, chummer.

I am going to hell. T.T

Mixed feelings on this

[joggle]

I don't know if it's such a bad thing to provide China with safe crowd control devices. If China wants some form of crowd control they will use whatever they have, including deadly force (such as back in Tienanmen Square).

Giving them something safe to use is probably a good idea and could save peoples' lives.

I think the counterargument would be something to the effect that the US shouldn't help a government such as China's to maintain control over its people. It's a difficult moral dilemma to be sure. However, China is not Burma and by and large the population is content with their government.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[JordanL]

Alot of Germans were content with the Third Riech... a bit of perspective perhaps.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Red Flayer]

However, China is not Burma and by and large the population is content with their government.

Without getting into a big discussion about the philosophy of government, I just want to point out that China has a long cultural history of obedience to authority. My understanding is that the common perception is that there is nothing to be done about government, so the best thing to do is to either bend it to your needs (via bribe, etc) or just accept it as an immoveable constraint.

The reason I bring this up is that lack of protest is not necessarily a sign of contentment with government. And without access to specific kinds of foreign media, there is no way for the Chinese public to become aware that government is, in fact, a mutable thing.

IOW, most Chinese are content with their government because they know nothing different or because they have been indoctrinated with propaganda about their government. By the way, this applies to a lot of people all over the world, including Americans [1].

And here come the kneejerk flamebait mods. Sorry if I've offended some of the super-patriots haunting the halls of Slashdot, but we are all products of what is around us -- and being taught from age 5 that your country is the best is hard to overcome.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[JordanL]

The Chinese sure seem to be doing a good job of pissing off the Japanese, Koreans (South), Taiwanese, Tibetans, and anyone who cares about them lately.

This isn't supposed to be a direct comparison. My point is that perspective is the only thing that seperates these situations.

Re:Yes let's...

[willyhill]

most of which have been peaceful

Once they finished slaughtering the objectors it sure got quiet over there for a while, didn't it?

and completely ignore the US occupation of Iraq

You're right, I wonder what became of that whole thing? I haven't seen that come up in the media lately... oh wait.

Might as well make a buck...

[couchslug]

Economic relations between the US and the ChiComs are arguably more important than supporting those opposed to the Chinese government.

We don't need more adversaries than we have already, and the cultural war with Islam is a greater concern than how the Middle Kingdom deals with its subjects. We have no duty to sacrifice for others, and our own prosperity should be our first consideration. I say sell Beijing whatever it wants, and quit caring about how Asians handle internal affairs.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[UncleTogie]

I say sell Beijing whatever it wants, and quit caring about how Asians handle internal affairs.

Sure, because their work with laser technologies now have given the world weapons to use against us.

Considering their arms exporting practices, I'd rather not give them more money, thanks.

We have no duty to sacrifice for others, and our own prosperity should be our first consideration.

If humans are to survive as a species, we'd better start thinking of others...

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some economic ambitions for your ipod. Since you won't give it to me (or sell it to me at my price) I'm going to beat your ass for it. It's really your fault I have to do this.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[TheDugong]

"If you are "not justifying any of the actions ..." then how come you say Japan was "forced" to attack Pearl Harbour?"

Because... they did not want to "Give up on their imperial and economic ambitions.", therefore they were forced to "Take it [oil] from someone".

I am not justifying their actions, particularly as in the short to medium term they proved to have disastrous consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

"The intent of the strike was to protect Imperial Japan's advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies -- for their natural resources such as oil and rubber - by neutralizing the U.S. Pacific Fleet."

"In 1940, under the Export Control Act, the U.S. halted shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline, which Japan saw as an unfriendly act.[6] Nevertheless, the U.S. continued to export oil to Japan, in part because it was understood in Washington cutting off oil exports would be an extreme step, given Japanese dependence on U.S. oil exports, likely to be taken as a provocation by Japan. In the summer of 1941, after Japanese expansion into French Indochina, the U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption."

Do you think the USA would be "forced" to do something if the oil producers they relied on refused to sell them oil?

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[Anonymous Coward]

The pacific theatre of WWII was the fault of everybody but the Japanese. The Japanese were totally innocent and were forced into their invasion of half of Asia and their barbaric and inhuman treatment of the people they encountered by those evil Empire building Europeans. Do you work for the Japanese ministry for propaganda or something?

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[Overzeetop]

I'd say if it has the ability to disable a person (even temporarily) or cause significant/severe discomfort at the press of a button, it could be a weapon. Tasers, rubber bullets, and tear gas don't kill (many) people either.

That's not to say it can't be used for legitimate purposes; there are just many people who just don't trust China. Honestly, there are a lot of countries who might not be trusted with such equipment. The US is not necessarily excluded from that list, but it's mostly determined by whether you approve or disapprove of the policies of the people behind the trigger.

But of coarse.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what they were designed for here in the US.

New from Ronco!

[Jane Q. Public]

If it's not a weapon, so that these laws do not apply... then I want one!

But really, this Chinese thing looks like a mess waiting to happen. More reason to hate / distrust the United States government... for both Americans and Chinese.

Re:New from Ronco!

[Jane Q. Public]

Not at all. You have missed part of the point. Distrust the government for selling something that they claim is "not a weapon", but which was designed for civilian crowd control and which they will not allow their own citizens to own.

Are you going to tell me that you do NOT see the hypocrisy in that??

Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[soren100]

I don't know if it's such a bad thing to provide China with safe crowd control devices It depends on what you all "safe". These weapons sound like the dream of a totalitarian state. For example, all they have to do for a truly vicious weapon is to turn up the volume on the sound weapon, instantly rendering the victims totally and permanently deaf. Then you have no gory pictures to upset anyone with, and you render the victims pretty much incapable of organizing and protesting for quite a while.

The "pain ray" the US has developed is pretty well suited for a totalitarian government as well. It leaves no marks, so you could also just round up anyone at a protest and subject them to microwave beams that activate the pain nerves in the skin just enough to be able to cause agonizing pain without leaving any marks . You have the double bonus of driving your victims insane from the pain without any ugly wounds to photograph and get people upset.

However, China is not Burma and by and large the population is content with their government. China has a very effective ability to stifle dissent -- Tiananmen square is an excellent example. How are you going to know if anyone is unhappy if everyone is too scared to say anything? When you surf the internet in China they love to have little animated policemen popping up on your screen to remind you that you are being watched. People are scared enough there already of doing the wrong thing -- imagine what would happen if deaf people started showing up as not-so-subtle reminders of what happens to people who complain?

Imagine the scenario of one man in a truck with a sound weapon shutting down a whole protest without any ugly pictures to shock anyone into action, with no effective recourse by the protesters. This kind of thing is the way that your typical 'nightmare dystopian science fiction movie' would become reality. Once the people are unable to complain or protest, how nice would the government have to be?

Omission?

[sethstorm]

Then by all means close that loophole up for national security.

police = military

[globaljustin]

The worst part of this is, the fact that this sales was allowed to go through is troubling. There is very little difference between the military and the police these days here in the USA. In other countries it is much worse, and in China the two are usually indistinguishable.

An easy example of this is how law enforcement and military tradeshows are now one in the same.

I don't have all the answers (wait, this is /. I DO have all the answers!) but the merging of military and police functions is bad for communities.

Re:police = military

[ahabswhale]

wtf are you talking about?? There's a huge difference between the military and the police in the US. For starters, I never even see the fucking military except on TV. Secondly, the military is not allowed to engage civilians unless they are the National Guard and they are ordered by the Governor of the state to do so which is extremely rare. The military also don't give a flying fuck whether you're speeding down the highway, ripping off the grocery store, or having sex with animals.

Finally, the reason the sale is allowed is because it's a non-lethal weapon as explained in the OP. It's probably an oversight but not anywhere near as shocking as you make it out to be.

Re:police = military

[ahabswhale]

Disagreeing with the war (and the inappropriate invasion of Iraq) and being pissed about police who get carried away have nothing whatsoever to do with their respective roles or how they operate. Please learn the difference. Your political leanings apparently leave you unable to apply reason to simple dynamics. I believe that makes YOU the troll.

Re:Non-lethal?

[mad_robot]

So if I fired an M1 Garand rifle, which produces 168 db at a distance of 1 metre, then it would kill me instantly?

Maybe that's why the US didn't do so well in the Vietnam war.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I fired an M1 Garand rifle [wikipedia.org], which produces 168 db at a distance of 1 metre [wikipedia.org], then it would kill me instantly? That depends, are you standing in front of the muzzle where the compressed gasses and bullet that produces the 168dB sound wave are coming out, or are you assuming the rifle explodes in every direction simultaneously when it was fired?

If it's the latter, then yeah, it's no wonder we weren't so hot. If it's the former, you've got a bigger problem than the sound wave, namely, your new ventilation shaft.

Re:Yes let's...

[jzhos]

actually, the grandparent says some facts. believe or not, here is a huge and growing middle class in China, especially in large cities. In large cities like Beijing and Shanghai, the average income is about $300/month, if not higher (but with common goods much cheaper than here). And stores like starbucks is very popular there, who sells coffee at the same price as in US, if not higher. I am not saying that there is absolutely no people earn $10/month in factories, but the inflation in China and devalue of dollar here the same time, it will be very hard to find a wage at that level. China is not in Africa, after all.

Re:Non-lethal?

[RiotingPacifist]

Your incredulous attitude is troubling.

The sound weapon being sold may be non-lethal, but who is to say they won't RE the device and make lethal sound weapons. Sound can kill. If you stand next to a speaker when 160db of sound comes out of it, you'll be dead. NASA uses sound to test the tiles on the shuttle, anyone caught inside that tester would be killed instantly when the sound came on. 1) because they have guns

2) because the device is fairly simple, they dont need to buy one to RE it.