Slashdot Mirror


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."

9 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Mixed feelings on this by joggle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Mixed feelings on this by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  2. Re:Yes let's... by willyhill · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
  3. Re:Is it really a weapon? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  4. Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line. by SmokeyTheBalrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better by soren100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  6. Re:Non-lethal? by mad_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    U1NCaVpYUWdlVzkxSUhkcGMyZ2dlVzkx SUdoaFpHNG5kQ0JpYjNSb1pYSmxaQT09
  7. Re:police = military by ahabswhale · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  8. Re:Non-lethal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.