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.

[iNaya]

If I were to be oppressed, I would much rather be oppressed by one of these things than a bullet. I don't see the problem. Next up: China buys rubber bullets, news at 9.

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[youthoftoday]

I wasn't trivialising the weapons themselves. I think we've learned not to trivialise anything about China. I'm saying that if an arms dealer wants to sell any kind of weapon from any country to any country, they can do it very easily indeed. And many do.

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.

[PlatyPaul]

Unlike rubber or plastic bullets which cause moderate too [sic] severe damage, can be deadly and are inaccurate.

Actually, since they fall under the heading of incapacitating weapons, we're talking stun damage - guaranteed nonlethal (even if you overflow your remaining blocks).

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

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

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[cjb658]

On the bright side, your family won't have to pay for the bullet that kills you.

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[h4rm0ny]

That game gets less far-fetched every time I read the news. :(

But null sweat, corpman, I'm sticking to the Shadows from now on. ;)

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[smaddox]

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

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[andi75]

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. And we haven't even mentioned Tasers yet

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[Jesus_666]

Stun damage guaranteed nonlethal? Give someone two or three doses of gamma and tell me that again.

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[Tim C]

Plastic (or "baton") rounds were used quite extensively in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and there were a number of high-profile cases of people being killed by them. They are *usually* non-lethal, but most emphatically not *definitely* non-lethal.

For example, see this BBC news report from 2001 about plastic bullet use, which reports that at that time 17 people had been killed by them.

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[Jaysyn]

Do earplugs / ear protectors not work vs. these things? If they do then it will basically work for the 1st protest & then never again.

I have absolutley no problem selling the chinese snake-oil.

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[sm62704]

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

The same goes for tasers. I commented further up that I was skeptical that these things could kill, but thinking about Klutzo the Klown's alleged death by taser (It was later found that Klutzo died after being sat on by a fat jail guard; yes, it's in the newspaper, but I live in a cartoon city) I figured out how.

There are men (and likely women as well) in US prisons today, serving life sentences for shoving someone. If you are in an altercation with someone, and they push you, and you push them back, and they trip and fall and hit their head, they can die. You will go to prison for murder if they do.

If you shoot someone with a taser (or one of these sound weapons; are they called "phasers" by chance?) they will fall down. If they hit their head on the concrete, they may die. The difference is that the taser (and phaser) user will be a police officer and his only punishment will be three weeks behind a desk while the "matter is investigated".

Another way sound can kill is to piss your dad off playing Usher at full blast, and he has a heart attack while screaming at you to "turn that god damned shit down".

Uh oh, that means..

[somersault]

the Chinese have stolen Country and Western!

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[mrbluze]

the Chinese have stolen Country and Western! Well it WAS used as a torture weapon against prisoners in Iraq, so it would be perfect for China.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be American. If you were Canadian like me, you'd be wondering how they got their hands on Celine Dion.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[somersault]

I'm actually Scottish, and was having a hard time of thinking of any US bands I know that suck badly enough to be considered weaponisable. If it was a british weapon, I was going to go with the Spice Girls.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[somersault]

I hope your snorted vegetables continue to make you happy for some time to come

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[jimmux]

But... that's both kinds of music! Oh no!

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[TapeCutter]

"I'm actually Scottish ... I was going to go with the Spice Girls."

Yes, stick with the Spice Girls. The Bay City Rollers would probably be considered a war crime nowadays.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[ceoyoyo]

I think in the past the US has used mostly rap. What was it that finally convinced Noriega to throw in the towel anyway?

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[n dot l]

You must be American. If you were Canadian like me, you'd be wondering how they got their hands on Celine Dion. Meh. She probably got accidentally shipped by the same moron that sent the nuke fuses to Taiwan. I always said we needed to label her more clearly...

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[hondo77]

Hey, I like "Saturday Night", you insensitive clod!

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[hcdejong]

I'm actually Scottish You, sir, have a lot to answer for. The Scots invented sonic weaponry, after all.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[YttriumOxide]

I always said we needed to label her more clearly...

But... but... she's already labelled pretty clearly!

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[Jesus_666]

As a German, I still wonder why we were given permission to export Tokio Hotel. Then again that means that someone else has to suffer through them, so I'm fine with it.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[TapeCutter]

Sorry for the national insensitivity, I don't want to sporin your weekend.

BTW: You do realise the Irish introduced the bagpipes into Scotland a few centuries ago...AS A JOKE!!! :)

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[TheRaven64]

The bagpipe is often thought of as a sonic weapon, but was more often employed as a means of avoiding desertions. After all, if there's an English army in front of you, and a piper behind you, which way would you run?

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[sm62704]

That's a bagpipe calling a banjo "offensive".

I knew a hippie who bought a bagpipe once. He was really stoned when he bought it. He thought "wow, great idea!" The he ruined it by tryuing to smoke it.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[sm62704]

"Achey Blakey halt"
"Foursome plizin brews"
"Prayin' chicken with a tlain"

Chinese C&W could be quite entertaining!

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[skeeto]

Or maybe China just plans to Rickroll its adversaries. Another strike against human rights for China!

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[somersault]

I have a banjo too :D Crazy hillbilly bluegrass is way better than country *cough* :) And I like the bagpipes

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[Em Adespoton]

They just perfected it; it was invented in Egypt.

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[sm62704]

Crazy hillbilly bluegrass is way better than country *cough* :)

I have to agree, but then again "country" music is another flavor of pop. Apparently Mojo Nixon agrees, too.

Let's go burn ole Nashiville down
Set it all aflame
Barbecue the greedheads
Made country weak and tame. Burn burn Nash Vegas, Char it's rancid soul
Burn burn Branson too, Make a big black hole

Country music is killing itself
Tryin' to be what it ain't
Garth Brooks sells as many as Manilow
Lee Greenwood is a saint
Burn burn Jimmy Bowen, Damn your puny soul
Burn burn Jimmy Bowen, Country can't be sold

Any fool can wear a hat
And not move when they play
But the lonesome howl of the white trash wolf
Can't be heard today
Burn burn the fake cowboys
The Vegas showbiz shit
Burn burn Branson too
Sold your soul for a hit

Let's go burn ole Nashville down
Burn it to the ground
Let's go burn ole Nashville down
Save the country sound
Burn burn soulless swine
Crossover igit pukes
Burn burn lyin' cheaters
Country don't have flutes

Re:Uh oh, that means..

[somersault]

Hehehehe.. can't help but being reminded of Kim Jong Il - he should look into this sonic weapon thing too, he'll have to do a bit better than "I'm So Ronery" though, that's a beautiful song :p

Free Tibet!!

[QuantumG]

While stocks last.

Re:Free Tibet!!

[rk]

When you buy Nepal at regular price.

Not leathal?

[Hojima]

This may be something to test on myth busters, but can't you die from your eardrums bleeding into your head?

Re:Not leathal?

[megaditto]

Any damage need not be limited to eardrums.

One could literally kill with sound if it's loud enough (such as a shock wave from an explosion). In fact, part of the reason thermobaric weapons are so effective is that they convert most of their energy into "sound".

Also, have a look at this picture showing the sound made by a nuclear detonation (visible as a faint halo caused by refraction gradient around the bireball).

Re:Not leathal?

[sm62704]

Most explosions don't kill because of the shock wave, but by shrapnel.

It would take a hell of a huge shockwave to kill a man. I doubt your run of the mill transducer would do the trick. Actually I doubt that current technology is advanced enough to create a transducer that would do the trick.

People have blown their hands of fishing with dynamite, and still lived to write books about it. I doubt you're going to electronically produce a shock wave greater than that produced by a stick of dynamite at less than a meter's distance.

In January 1976 I was driving an AMC Gremlin at 50mph and collided head on with a three quarter ton pickup truck doing 70 (details here). I was not wearing a seat belt. The dash was solid steel. My shoulder bent the dash, my face broke the windshield, but I not only survived the impact, but was examined and released from the hospital. You're going to have a very hard time producing a SOUND that can hit that hard.

Re:Not leathal?

[megaditto]

Well, I was a bit sloppy since something over 195 bB is no longer a sound, but there is no technical reason at all why one coudln't make a pressure wave strong enough to kill a human.

Caseless bombs aren't that dangerous because because of the inverse square law, so their power drops off rapidly with distance. While inverse square dropoff would still apply to sound-based weapons, remember that you can direct and focus the waves quite a long distance away. And there's no limit on the length of exposure: a single 190 dB pulse will bruise you up pretty bad, several hundred repeats, however...

We're exporting

[geekoid]

Rosanne Barr? Cool.

Is it really a weapon?

[JSBiff]

I don't really know much about this device, but let's, for the moment, assume it can't actually hurt anyone, just make them uncomfortable / stun them. Is it really a weapon then?

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[lymond01]

I think anything used with intent to harm (and stunning would be "harm") is defined as a weapon under most U.S. laws. See Ms. Green in the library with the candlestick for more details.

Not to start a slashwar, but our government has redefined many standard terms in the past 8 years, so a weapon may be classified as anything more destructive than the Death Star. Everything else is called "French Toast" and is clearly non-threatening in the greater scheme of things.

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.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[Borathian]

Non lethal weapons are still weapons.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[Bloodoflethe]

Freedom toast, mister!

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[maxume]

Get in the box.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[nbert]

The use of loudspeakers was very common at the end of WWII ("Stop fighting, you will just prolong the suffering of your people", "we won't hurt you if you put down your weapons", and sometimes just very annoying sounds for hours). I guess nobody considered this a weapon back then. What's new about this device is that it can target people selectively. As long as it does not physically stun people for minutes it's not a weapon, but part of the propaganda machinery.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[adisakp]

I don't really know much about this device, but let's, for the moment, assume it can't actually hurt anyone, just make them uncomfortable / stun them. Is it really a weapon then?

Let's say someone created a device that could cause an infinite amount of pain for as long as they wanted but didn't cause any actual physical harm (in most cases). Would that be considered a weapon?

Heck you don't even need a theoretical device to state your case. Take waterboarding which is merely a method to simulate the feeling of drowning without actually causing physical damage to the subject. Do you consider it torture if the subject isn't "physically" harmed in the long run?

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[rubycodez]

an instrument of torture is a weapon, marks or not. Waterboarding *is* drowning, not a simulation at all, and can cause the same physical damage that being held under water can do, including death.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[nbert]

It can temporarily - or permanently - deafen them, depending on the setting. It's a weapon, plain and simple.

If that's the case it's a weapon - plain and simple. But I think its impact is rather minor compared to other american technologies already in place. For some reason nobody thinks it's bad that companies like Cisco provide hardware for the so called "Great Firewall". Instead we focus on a dubious sound weapon and the fact that google is abiding local law (like there's any choice you have if you do business in a foreign country). Mind-boggling...

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[popeye44]

It uses Hyper Sonic sound if memory serves. There was a big hoopla a few years back about it being the next big thing. Our Navy uses it for close ship to ship communication because it can't be hacked or seen like lights.

If you are in front of it you hear it.. if you aren't you don't. So aiming it at someone in a torpedo like device and making them puke is fairly easy by sending sound waves they literally can't stomach.
I'm still waiting for the tech to hit home.. but there are some videos of it in action "the sound devices not the sick stick"

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[dwater]

French toast in the US is aweful. I much prefer the UK version. (Ironic enough for you?)

I wonder what it's like in France, or if they even have it.

As an Englishman, I was curious about what the US people call 'English muffins'. I'd never had one before I went to the US.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[theheadlessrabbit]

sorry, i accidently modded you off topic, in stead of interesting. im posting this to undo my mistake.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[dwater]

The weird asian "sheep mode" mindset might stop a lot of them from taking action, but not all of them. I don't see the 'mode' in asia as any different to the 'mode' in many places, most notably, of course, the US.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[KostasPlenty]

Waterboarding won't kill you either. It is a practice that is used as a weapon. That practice, along with non-lethal weapons or practices used, are a specialisation of torture and are against the universal declaration of human rights as much as lethal weapons and practices.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[Kingrames]

You could make that argument for most weapons that have killed people.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[ScreamingCactus]

I don't think it's considered a weapon, because they have outfitted some vessels working for the oil companies near Africa, where pirates are a common threat. No weapons are allowed on these vessels. At least, that's what the article I read stated. And I know weapons aren't allowed in ships working for the oil companies in the Gulf, so I doubt they'd be allowed there either.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[earthbound kid]

The candlestick thing works against your point. Anything can be used as a weapon under the right circumstances. If it's heavy, you can pile it on someone until they're crushed. If it's light, you can grind it up and use it to suffocate. So, anything could be used as a weapon. Thus, that's not the question the law should ask if it wants to figure out what to ban or else we would need to suspend all trade period.

The issue for the law should be whether the primary intent (or even a strong secondary intent) for the device is its use as a weapon. So, candlesticks have interesting other purposes, but a directed sound device is basically only good for hurting people.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[tibman]

I skimmed the article looking for the name of the system, couldn't find it.

I have used the LRAD in the past though, i'd guess all these things are pretty similar. My experiences with it are mixed. It's great for dispersing crowds before things escalate. The ones i used had a few functions. Mic for transmitting voice and a siren for normal use. There was a volume nob and key that unlocked the device from "normal" to "dangerous" modes. I never had to unlock it, haha. It doesn't work like you think normal sound does.. it literally is a beam and goes pretty far too. It's strange when you're on the receiving end (ie in the Riot trying to put it down) and your buddies are panning it around.

The only big downside to these things is they only work when the crowd is in a defined space. If they get between the device and like a command vehicle or another group on your side, you can't use it or risk cutting all communication to/from that group.

so, to summarize. Great for dispersing a non-violent crowd. Works over long ranges, light weight, easy to use. Rubbish used solo trying to put down a real riot. Though useful in tandem with other non-lethal systems.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[Chris Pimlott]

French toast in the US is aweful. I much prefer the UK version. (Ironic enough for you?) Really? What's the difference?

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[dwater]

Well, this is just my experience, but the french toast I know is entirely savoury, for a start. I guess wikipedia has an article...

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[ralewi1]

Weapons are used in fighting and in intimidation (eg. "give me money or I shoot you"). Torture (I count waterboarding as such) is used to create discomfort, fear, disorientation, exhaustion and humiliation. To clarify the use of the LRAD, it is used to communicate long distances acoustically (e.g. "stay 500 yards away from my ship"), it can inflict aural pain and cause hearing damage on intruders that venture within a couple hundred yards when it's set to play a built-in tone at max power and, yes, there's an 1/8" jack to allow playing of pre-recorded sounds/messages/music, etc. It's a big stretch to call the LRAD a weapon and even bigger stretch to equate it with a torture technique. Abused, it is a weapon, but using that logic, so is a Buick.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[n dot l]

Everything else is called "French Toast" and is clearly non-threatening in the greater scheme of things. Congress wanted to define everything else as a pretzel, but fear of the veto pen made them change it.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[Fred_A]

French toast in the US is aweful. I much prefer the UK version. (Ironic enough for you?)

I wonder what it's like in France, or if they even have it. As a rule of thumb, any food called French anything doesn't exist in France (or at least certainly not in that form). Usually works for anything called "RandomNationality Food" just as well.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[GDI Lord]

Oh, so you've heard about the Freedom Toaster then?

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[andi75]

So it's ok to carry one in your carry-on luggage?

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[dotancohen]

Really? What's the difference? Apparently it's made from real Frenchmen.

Re:Is it really a weapon?

[NickDB]

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

A weapon is a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction.[1][2]. There are a huge variety of weapons, which all have different means of coercion. Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

weapon
Noun
1. an object used in fighting, such as a knife or gun
2. anything used to get the better of an opponent: having a sense of humour is a weapon of self-defence [Old English wpen]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

So if a Buick is used with the intent of killing someone, then it's a weapon, if my fist is used to punch someone, then my hand is a weapon. Hence the intention of it's use is a deciding factor in what makes it a weapon or not.

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

[iNaya]

That wasn't the problem, the Nazi's really stabilised Germany before they went on their conquering spree. The problems lay in the fact that they sure pissed of the English and a lot of people in the countries they occupied, not to mention the Gypsies, Jews, disabled persons, and homosexuals.

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:Mixed feelings on this

[Gideon Fubar]

I applaud you for actually making reasonable sense of the situation. Far too much energy is spent around here on people reinforcing their own beliefs by pointing out the flaws in others'.

If i had the points, I would totally mod you up for your insight.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[maxume]

So in China, the government extols the virtues of urinating in your soup while they urinate in your soup, but in the US, the government extols the virtues of urine free soup while urinating in your soup?

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[augnober]

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. That is true. You can sense this in other ways in China too - not just in relation to governance. For example, if someone butts in front of everyone in line, you generally see very little (usually none at all) reaction or discontent from the people behind. If you call out the injustice of the person butting ahead, people look at you like you're crazy and your friend, confused and embarrassed, tries to calm you down. Once you've lived there for a while, these relatively minor transgressions slip your mind because there's no benefit to doing anything about them. No one will look at you like a hero for making a fuss, and people prefer it that you don't. Once you get used to it (if you have a normal disposition that is -- some people are just wired up to be uptight), it doesn't bother you either. You get by just fine. Calling out injustice is primarily about the ethics of helping other people rather than saving yourself. This is something that is difficult to understand until you have lived in circumstances where it is pulled out from under you.

This is from my experience living in China before. After living there for over a year, I could walk around all day amongst throngs of people and have nothing affect my nerves even the slightest tinge. I think it is a related phenomenon. Not to sound too selfish -- but if nothing is bothering you, and nothing is bothering your friends and family, then nothing is wrong.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[dwater]

Are you trying to say perspective isn't important?

I would say the opposite - it is *all* important, and we should try to consider every situation from all possible perspectives and not just the one we've been conditioned with.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[icegreentea]

Not only this, China IS undergoing an incredible economical boom. The country, and nearly everyone in it is getting richer. There are opportunities for almost anyone to try to get in on the money. The Chinese government regardless of its social liberty has become significantly more economically more 'free' than in the past. It's kind of hard to argue against a government that A) you have been taught is the best government in the world and B) Is making your richer.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[MrSteveSD]

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.

The same can be said far more strongly against US weapons sales to the Saudi government. It's one of the most oppressive regimes in the world (even Iran looks good by comparison). If there's ever some kind of democratic uprising there, the government will no doubt use these US supplied weapons against it's own people.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[dwater]

By the way, this applies to a lot of people all over the world, including Americans [1]. This is a curious statement.

It pretty much makes anyone's opinion irrelevant since everyone's position would be baised in favour of their own government.

Most westerners are anti-Chinese purely because of the anti-Communist upbringing they've had, and this is reinforced by the media. It is very difficult to overcome this conditioning.

On the other hand, it's been interesting watching the change in the BBC's stance - it has become much more neutral over the last few weeks. Previously, I had read extremely blatantly biased reports, but now they are much more balanced, tending to report pure facts rather than opinions.

BTW, what's the [1] for?

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[joggle]

I just want to point out that China has a long cultural history of obedience to authority I understand this. However, how does this conflict with my previous post? The Chinese government apparently want a non-lethal crowd control device. The alternative is that they use whatever they have. Either way, they will break up riots and groups of people either safely or not. It seems to me giving them the option to use a safe device for this purpose is a good idea.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[sam.haskins]

...Aaaaaand Godwin's Law! That didn't take long.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Red Flayer]

It doesn't directly contradict it, why is why I wanted to bring up the point... yes, the Chinese want non-lethal crowd control... but your reasoning in saying that there is no problem with us providing it is based upon the statement that the Chinese seem to be content with their government. What I inferred is that because the Chinese people are OK with their government, then it can't be that bad -- and there is then no moral issue with supplying that government with tools to suppress dissent.

I believe this to be potentially false, because contentment with the current government may be predicated on ignorance of better (or different) government. Only if the Chinese public is content when they are

(1) Able to change their government
(2) Aware that they can change their government, and
(3) Aware of alternative government styles

should we allow their contentment to affect our approval/disapproval of the Chinese government.

Sure, it's pretty idealistic, but without ideals tp strive for there can be no progress.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[wwwgregcom]

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].

Propaganda or not, most Americans are certainly not content with their government. Both the president and congress have been polling under 50 percent approval for a long time now. RealClearPolitics has congressional disapproval at 71 percent.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Red Flayer]

I don't think it makes people's opinions irrelevant -- but I do think that opinions need to be considered in the context of who is expressing them, and what their background is. And I think that in order to have true understanding of a topic (for me, on a personal level) it's important to try to consider the source of my knowledge & feelings on the topic.

It's the phrase 'know thyself' applied to understanding of external concepts.

Oh, and the [1] was because the last paragraph was going to be a footnote, but I ended up getting rid if the content inbetween & forgot to get rid of the [1]... I realized that I was starting to get into a lengthy post about the philosophy of government, which is what I expressly wanted to avoid :)

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[dwater]

Ah, a balanced opinion. I like that.

Consider me your friend.

I find myself responding radically to radical statements; and I can't find any rational reason for it...I wish I could remain balanced when confronted with bias, but I seem to adopt the opposite bias. It's annoying.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Scrameustache]

So in China, the government extols the virtues of urinating in your soup while they urinate in your soup, but in the US, the government extols the virtues of urine free soup while urinating in your soup? Actually, they get the Chinese guy to pee in your soup.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[jollyreaper]

So in China, the government extols the virtues of urinating in your soup while they urinate in your soup, but in the US, the government extols the virtues of urine free soup while urinating in your soup? I'll have the salad.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Lorean]

I have to disagree with that. Prime example is that all Chinese are taught about Mao, who led a civil war that overthrew the pre-existing government.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Shihar]

One point you miss in trying to stenotype the Chinese people as merrily accepting authority is that... well, they don't. Even by the Chinese government own statistics, they have ten of thousands of cases of civil disorder each year. The image of China as an orderly state that is unmovable is really not entirely true. China has serious and deep internal forces that constantly try and tear the nation apart. One reason why China is so leery of democracy is because given a chance, they are (rightfully) terrified that the nation would come apart at the seams.

The more important thing to point out about Chinese civil disorder (which is extremely common) and resistance to authority is that it is not pro-democracy. Even Tienanmen Square wasn't entirely about democracy. If you really want to make a generalization about what the Chinese people want, you could sum it up by saying that they want rule of law and order. I think many Chinese people would be happy with an authoritarian government that offered that not because they are accepting of authoritarianism, but because they want order and rule of law. It shouldn't come as much of a shock that the places where the Chinese people have these two things they are the most content... i.e. large prosperous cities where civil disorder is rare.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[utnapistim]

...by and large the population [of China] is content with their government.

I have lived under a comunist regime for a while, and the official news (especially those exitting the country) were about how most people were content with their government

In china, the situation is not about people being content, it's about them being too affraid to say they aren't.

You have two kinds of people:

On one side, you have the ones that live a relatively decent life (compared to the ones around them). These, you will find in the large cities, in restaurants, universities and so on.

On the other hand, you have the people the chinese government won't let you interview (as a foreign reporter). Wonder why that is ...

By the way, I don't think the ones in the first category are that many (being china, they may be, but proportionally, they should still be a minority).

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[Echnin]

I like your post but would like to point out a fallacy.

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. I cannot imagine a people who would me more aware of the mutability of government than the Chinese. Just think of the innumerable dynasties which have ruled it over the millenia; just last century there have arguably been three dynasties following each other: the Qing, the Nationalist republic, and the People's republic. Although I am uncertain how well it relates to modern Chinese thought, see the Wikipedia article on Mandate of Heaven. Compare the American republic, which has been an interrupted state since the Revolution, looking away from the civil war which threatened to break it.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[maxume]

They at least boil the soup.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[shutdown -p now]

That is true. You can sense this in other ways in China too - not just in relation to governance. For example, if someone butts in front of everyone in line, you generally see very little (usually none at all) reaction or discontent from the people behind. If you call out the injustice of the person butting ahead, people look at you like you're crazy and your friend, confused and embarrassed, tries to calm you down. Once you've lived there for a while, these relatively minor transgressions slip your mind because there's no benefit to doing anything about them. No one will look at you like a hero for making a fuss, and people prefer it that you don't. Once you get used to it (if you have a normal disposition that is -- some people are just wired up to be uptight), it doesn't bother you either. You get by just fine. Calling out injustice is primarily about the ethics of helping other people rather than saving yourself. This is something that is difficult to understand until you have lived in circumstances where it is pulled out from under you.

You know, what scares me is that everything you've described above is 100% applicable to daily life in Russia. The behavior in queues here is precisely the same, with perhaps the only difference that people might occasionally mutter bitterly (but quietly) if they see someone pushing through the line. But I've yet to see anyone trying to actually do anything.

Re:Mixed feelings on this

[augnober]

You know, what scares me is that everything you've described above is 100% applicable to daily life in Russia. The behavior in queues here is precisely the same, with perhaps the only difference that people might occasionally mutter bitterly (but quietly) if they see someone pushing through the line. But I've yet to see anyone trying to actually do anything. In China's case, I think there's a lot of good in letting it go. I'm sure the Chinese themselves could simultaneously criticize the problems in efficiency that it causes and its connection to corruption, and also defend it as having served them well enough for a couple thousand years and being a deeply ingrained part of the Chinese psyche that shouldn't be naively meddled with. In Russia, I honestly have no idea. I had a couple Russian friends before going to China who used to confuse the hell out of me by seeming to have contradictory political opinions and snapping at times that I couldn't predict, but having since seen some of the ways in which China is misunderstood and misrepresented, I would now perhaps be more openminded.

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.

Why bother?

[urcreepyneighbor]

Unless the PRC plans on using this sometime in the immediate future, why wouldn't they simply develop this technology locally?

AFAIK, the principles behind the technology aren't all that complicated.

Re:Why bother?

[l2718]

Why bother? Because it's cheaper to buy an existing product than to reinvent the wheel. Later they may decide to reverse-engineer, but even then it's cheaper to buy the blueprints.

Re:Why bother?

[urcreepyneighbor]

Because it's cheaper to buy an existing product than to reinvent the wheel. Obviously. However, as I said, there appears to be a time factor here that isn't being publicly stated. I'm sure the Chinese government could easily produce their very own "sound weapon" if they so desired.

Later they may decide to reverse-engineer, Later? Ha! I'm sure they're ordering enough to deploy and RE.

I would be absolutely shocked if the PRC doesn't already have existing teams whose sole function is to RE stuff.

but even then it's cheaper to buy the blueprints. Why buy when you can steal? ;)

Re:Why bother?

[kpainter]

why wouldn't they simply develop this technology locally? Yeah, the homies in my neighborhood play gangsta rap and Hispanic polka music in their cars with million watt sub-woofers. In addition to rattling loose fillings, this music induces vomiting, especially when played at such insane levels. What is even more amazing is the lowering effect on property values everywhere within an audible radius!
This effective technology is already mostly produced in China so they really wouldn't have to import anything.

Re:Why bother?

[iNaya]

Wouldn't you rather they spent money developing cool things that haven't already been developed? Why invent the wheel twice, when you can copy it off someone else and invent the carriage?

Re:Why bother?

[urcreepyneighbor]

Yeah, the homies in my neighborhood play gangsta rap and Hispanic polka music in their cars with million watt sub-woofers. That version? Yeah, it comes with hoochies.

Hoochies cost extra!

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say sell Beijing whatever it wants, and quit caring about how Asians handle internal affairs. Of course, selling weapons to oppressive regimes has never come back to bite the US, oh wait...

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...

[zenmaster666]

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. Thats a great attitude towards humanity and what happened last time people thought that way.. I will give you a minute to think..
We had two world wars!!!
And no one is asking for your to sacrifice but at least don't sell weapons to people whom you know are committing crimes against humanity.
And believe me I am a strong advocate of capitalist economy; that doesn't mean its OK to sell weapons and empower countries like china to suppress their people.
When they are done with their country, GUESS WHO'S NEXT

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[geekoid]

That attitude, on the global scale, always comes back to bite you in the ass. Always.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[liquidf]

i think i am going to disagree with only your last statement. militarily speaking, i believe china (the gov't) is only interested in china, and what they believe is theirs, or at least has been at one point in history. look at fujian. they regularly hold military excercises in their port cities and have increased their missile depots quite a bit in the past few years, and it just so happens that it is the closest province to taiwan. convenient, huh? now tibet. rumor has it that the chinese believe a part of NE india was once theirs. gaining control over tibet makes that passage all the much easier. i don't think they will direct an attack against us, but they will have no problem with fighting us if we get in between them and what they believe is rightfully theirs.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[Phybersyk0]

Fuck you for fear mongering. You fucking fearmongering fuckers.

There is no way in hell the Chinese would authorize the use of this sort device when the entire world has come to China's doorstep for the games.

While I'll be the first to admit, China needs fucking improvement, you've got to look beyond OUR OWN propaganda that we get here in the West.

From China's perspective, Seperatist Tibetans cannot be allowed to succeed. China is in fact, made up of many nations and peoples. There are numerous ethnic groups within it's borders.

Would we in America be happy if the indigenous peoples of Alaska, Hawaii -- the states we got in the Mexican Cession -- or matter of fact, the ENTIRE United States back to the Native Americans whos land we took buy unfair trade or worse yet -- murder? Fuck that. You lost, we won, you got what losers get. We got what winners get.

Communist China's early history is a bloody one. Yes, during the Cultural Revolution, people were, well -- exterminated. However, The Chinese are attempting to make amends with the ethnic (non-Han) Chinese and become truly powerful in it's multiculturalism. So much so, that there's a rising sort-of descrimination not unlike our own Affirmative Action.

Ultimately, Modern China is trying to sell the idea that the Government IS the people. It's hard for Americans especially to reconcile, because we like to have shit both ways. You have less to answer for when that condition exists. "Dubya ain't MY president". It's a claim made by pussies too chickenshit to do anything to REALLY CHANGE.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[TheDugong]

"We had two world wars!!!"

NOTE: I do not support the selling of weapons to anyone and I am making no moral judgments with the below.

World War 1 - The upper-class of Europe gets a bit excitable and millions of people die, although in the long run (after WW2) it effectively removed the European upper-class from power which is a good thing. It had nothing to do with economics whatsoever.

World War 2 - Effectively two wars:

1) Europe - an extension of WW1. Basically, caused by different power bases/ideals vying for the power vacuum left by the removal of the upper-class in Germany, Russia, Austria and a weakening of it elsewhere.

2) The Pacific - Japan, the only non-white skinned empire and great power had limited resources, i.e. steel and oil. The other (white skinned) powers (British Empire, US, Dutch & French) refused to supply the Japanese. This left them two options:

i) Give up on their imperial and economic ambitions.

or

ii) Take it from someone

Their hands were forced into the second option and the entire reason for Pearl Harbor was to knock out the US long enough so they could grab the oil in the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) and, hopefully, become strong enough before the US had a chance to re-arm. If the US had not had a colony^M^M^M^M^M^Mterritory called The Philippines, Pearl Harbor would not have been necessary at all.

The entire Pacific war was forced by the other powers refusing to sell the means to make an economy work (and make war), oil & steel, to the Japanese.

I am not justifying any of the actions of any of the governments at the time, just stating happened.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[baggins2001]

I don't understand your moderation. I have been noticing a number of moderations that are off and getting stuck with Flamebait, troll...
I guess the Microsoft and Republican crowd are here.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[dwater]

..and Americans know that more than anyone, and yet they keep selling them.

China is the least of the problems - their problems are all internal. They've never attacked other countries (those they don't have a legitimate claim over), unlike a lot of the other countries the US supports militarily.

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]

That is not what I said. WWI did not start for economic, i.e. "You have something I want and I am going to take it", reasons. It was a chain of alliances/treaties triggered off.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[LeafOnTheWind]

World War 1 - The upper-class of Europe gets a bit excitable and millions of people die, although in the long run (after WW2) it effectively removed the European upper-class from power which is a good thing. It had nothing to do with economics whatsoever. This is wildly inaccurate - I do not know where you gathered your knowledge of history, but it is sorely lacking. WWI was a product of a slew of different things, specifically, an escalating arms race between Britain and Germany, a shadowed and complicated alliance system, the overactive nationalism in Europe, and (of course) ethnic tensions. In fact, the backing of Austria-Hungary could be blamed largely on the international relations before the war. Germany was a new country, just united from its individual states, with no empire and practically no supporters in Europe. It's biggest supporter, economically and politically, was Austria-Hungary. When war came between Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente, Germany had little choice but to give a blank check - its only significant partner in Europe was in dire straits. I won't extrapolate as I'd rather not write a 10 page paper on Slashdot, but there's an economic precursor for you.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[Saffaya]

Legitimate claim ???
Invading a country to use it as a nuclear missile platform is a legitimate claim ?
China invading Taiwan would be a legitimate claim too ?

I clearly disagree with that opinion.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[blind biker]

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

My opinion is that nobody forced them to do jack - it was their decision. Other countries that don't have enough steel and oil decided otherwise and did fine.

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:Might as well make a buck...

[sydneyfong]

Have they invaded Taiwan yet?

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Do you work for the Japanese ministry for propaganda or something?
Follow up question, are you perhaps in charge of Gundam? At the grand parent poster, do you believe that the Japanese are timelords and decided to invade Manchuria in 1931 b/c they knew the US would stop selling them steel and rubber by 1940?

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[couchslug]

"We had two world wars!!!"

The causes of those wars were quite complex, and have nothing to do with refusal of the US to sacrifice for others. Our choice to wait and seize the OPPORTUNITY they offered was quite useful. We had three years (1914-1917, 1939-1941) of each NOT "sacrificing for others" to prepare while the contestants bled out.

"And no one is asking for your to sacrifice but at least don't sell weapons to people whom you know are committing crimes against humanity."

Why work with the weak instead of the strong? China will be mighty for a long time. As relative US power inevitably shrinks, we must rely on useful relationships. As for the "crimes against humanity", I measure
those against the tremendous progress China has made since 1948. When dealing with vast masses of simple peasants, one must have imposed discipline for those masses to build a nation. China does, and that is also what enabled it to manage the transition to Capitalism better than did Russia.

"When they are done with their country, GUESS WHO'S NEXT"

Not the US. The Domino Theory is long discredited, and China does not have a recent history of wanting Empire outside its natural sphere of influence. The US OTOH has, along with Europe, quite the history of screwing over China!

It is natural for China to want to consume adjacent countries as a buffer. It is natural for China to fear Japanese Imperialism, (the Rape of Nanking and many similar events are still within living memory) and reasonable for Chinese to want regional hegemony.

Directed at US

[hansamurai]

Did anyone else read the headline as China is buying Sound Weapons directed at the US? I felt bad for people living in California for a moment.

Re:Directed at US

[Sta7ic]

Why? California wouldn't notice anything over the rock concerts and the bar bands.

Re:Directed at US

[redcaboodle]

Even worse: I read China was buying Direct Sound weapons.

I know DirectX is a pita, but to use it as a wepon is probably over the top.

Re:Directed at US

[Deanalator]

Don't worry, China isn't buying it for themselves, they're buying it for US.

But of coarse.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

My achey breaky heart

[Bored MPA]

Might blow up and kill this man...woooooooo

!!Are we sure Garth Brooks isn't a lethal weapon or in violation of the geneva conventions? I mean I heard about them playing Eminem loud at guantanamo to increase stress levels, but Garth Brooks...that would obscene. And from a strategic perspective, should we really give away our best interrogation techniques to the chinese?

Water boarding with achey breaky heart in the background? The horror.

Re:My achey breaky heart

[phoenixwade]

Might blow up and kill this man...woooooooo

!!Are we sure Garth Brooks isn't a lethal weapon or in violation of the geneva conventions? I mean I heard about them playing Eminem loud at guantanamo to increase stress levels, but Garth Brooks...that would obscene. And from a strategic perspective, should we really give away our best interrogation techniques to the chinese?

Water boarding with achey breaky heart in the background? The horror. I shouldn't say this, because C&W isn't a preferred genre of mine, but Garth Brooks didn't do that song - It was Billy Ray Cyrus

Re:My achey breaky heart

[Bored MPA]

LOL, +5 culturally insightful

funny, i always thought it was garth brooks...apparently i REALLY didnt learn anything growing up in North Carolina

Re:My achey breaky heart

[maxume]

Does anybody learn anything growing up in North Carolina?

(Yeah, this is the obvious, obnoxious joke to make, but it is also the joke that you have to make when someone walks into it at full speed.)

Re:My achey breaky heart

[Bored MPA]

Not in the 80s they didn't. Hell, I didn't really understand the meaning of f(x) until I took CS classes--my math instruction was that craptacular.

Not to mention that I went to a country high school where rednecks in trucks drove past with confederate flags flying and there were 10 black folks (and no latino, jews, asians, etc). My senior year, someone asked me if I was albino...now, I'm a white guy with curly brown hair so I just assumed he didn't know what it meant. At least not until 10 years later when I was hanging out with some friends in a hiphop bar in San Fran and related the story to my friend Freddie Mac. Freddie laughed pretty damn hard and said, "He thought you was a black man."

I suppose it's funny that the KKK crowd in NC was so clueless that instead of thinking i was a curly haired jewish boy they assumed I was a black man with hair dye and contact lenses.

Re:My achey breaky heart

[cayenne8]

Nah...couldn't have been country music.

Most likely RAP. I've heard them testing the lethal doses of it going down the street....usually in an older car, vibrating, and with large, fugly chrome wheels (sometimes with spinner inserts). I guess that helps with the sound wave targeting or something.

Anyway, I've seen them drive by, stunning virtually everyone in their wake....and also killing the odd cat that strays by....

Re:My achey breaky heart

[phoenixwade]

apparently i REALLY didnt learn anything growing up in North Carolina That's for damn sure... you people can't even make barbeque - ask any Texan. Well, that's okay, Texans mistakenly think they know what Chili is too (beans are required, People! How else are you going to encourage the inlaws to go home?!)

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!

[maxume]

Yes, if only the people could get the government off their back, America would be a paradise.

Re:New from Ronco!

[bluefoxlucid]

Distrust the US government for letting a business do something there's no law against. Right.

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??

Re:New from Ronco!

[Solandri]

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??

That's a bit premature, don't you think? By the 10th Amendment, U.S. citizens and companies are allowed to do anything that isn't prohibited by law. Since this is a new weapon, the lack of a law restricting its export doesn't necessarily indicate the government supports its sale to China. If the law had prohibited export but the government decided to make an exception for this device, then you'd have a point. But this is probably just a case of lack of foresight rather than hypocrisy.

Re:New from Ronco!

[AK Marc]

Distrust the US government for letting a business do something there's no law against. Right.

But there is a law against it. They are not allowed to sell "weapons" to China. Period. That's illegal. It isn't that they changed the law, it is that the US government changed the definition of "weapon" to allow weapons to be sold. What's the point in having laws if they are ignored and undermined by our own government?

Re:New from Ronco!

[bluefoxlucid]

Distrust the government for selling something that they claim is "not a weapon", The government did not sell it, a private business did. Private business is neither owned nor operated by the government. Get your head out of your ass.

Re:New from Ronco!

[Jane Q. Public]

Think so? Go try to buy one and see how far you get. I will wait to hear the results.

Kate Bush knew about this years ago

[LWATCDR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DVvrcFi4M0

We were working secretly for the military
Our experiment in sound was nearly ready to begin
We only know in theory what we are doing
Music made for pleasure
Music made to thrill
It was music we were making here until
But they told us all they wanted was a sound
That could kill someone
From a distance
So we go ahead
And the meters are over in the red
It's a mistake in the making
From the painful cries of mothers to the terrifying scream
We recorded it and I put it into our machine
But they told us all they wanted was a sound
That could kill someone
It could feel like falling in love
It could feel so bad
But it could feel so good
It could sing you to sleep
But that dream is your enemy
We won't be there to be blamed
We won't be there to snitch
I just pray that someone there can hit the switch
But they told us all they wanted was a sound
That could kill someone
From a distance
And we go ahead
And the meters are over in the red
It's a mistake we have made
And the public are warned to stay off
And the public are warned to stay off

Re:Yes let's...

[willyhill]

I very much doubt "the vast majority" are. I'm sure the ones that live in the large cities and have well-paying jobs are, but the actual vast majority of Chinese still live at or below subsistence levels. I'm also pretty sure that the members of Falun Gong and all those people that got nailed during the Tiannamen square protests would not agree with you. And let's not forget the millions who are victims of widespread corruption, the families of criminals that are executed for petty crimes, the ones that are sick because of rampant environmental problems caused by unchecked industrial growth, etc.

The images of pretty affluent Chinese living in modern-looking cities we've come to enjoy in the Western media are not exactly indicative of what actually goes on over there. It's a big country with a billion people.

In any case, it's illegal to express negative feelings about the glorious Communist Party or its leaders, so I'm not sure who you've been talking to over there. Just about every Chinese I've ever met here in the US love their country, but they've rarely had anything but negative things to say about their government, regardless of the era they happened to leave.

Non-lethal != Harmless

[flaming error]

I say sell Beijing whatever it wants Indeed. We're just amoral suppliers meeting a demand.

likey it will be seen being used at the Olympics..

[Joe The Dragon]

likey it will be seen being used at the Olympics on free Tibet protesters.

Re:Yes let's...

[WindowlessView]

the vast majority of Chinese are very happy with their government at the moment

On the other hand, it was recently reported that there were over 85,000 protests in China last year, some of them violent. That is a staggering number. I suspect these sound machines will see a lot of action.

Been doin' this already

[Ihmhi]

We've been selling them directed sound weapons ever since we've been exporting Britney Spears CDs...

Re:Protesting the Olympics in China

[Mr. Mikey]

What "makes no sense" is your post.

People protest to effect change. One way of effecting change is to draw attention to a problem.

In this case, people are protesting China's actions by protesting at the Olympics.

I'd say those protesters have pubes a' plenty... assuming you mean "guts" when you say "pubes."

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?

Re:Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[joggle]

What leads you to believe that the Chinese need a way to torture people without leaving any marks? If they want to do that I'm sure there's numerous ways they can achieve that (although I don't think they would care since they have such a tight control on the media).

All this device would allow them to do is to do crowd control (mainly breaking up crowds and riots). Compared to using bullets I do not see the downside and I'd like to hear your alternative. All forms of non-lethal crowd control involves some sort of pain since that's about the only thing that works to break up a riot other than pure force. Would it be better for the US to not sell them non-lethal devices that have surely been well tested and leave China with no choice but to use whatever devices they have (which most likely are more dangerous and perhaps even more painful).

Re:Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[dwater]

China has a very effective ability to stifle dissent -- Tiananmen square is an excellent example. How, exactly, is that an excellent example?

Re:Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[rcw-home]

How are you going to know if anyone is unhappy if everyone is too scared to say anything?

If you abuse your power long enough and recklessly enough, then the game changes. It's no longer about the destroyed lives that you've heard about - it's about your own life having been destroyed. It's no longer about who you know has been through the same, it's about who you guess hasn't. It's no longer about what you have to gain, it's about having nothing to lose.

At that point, the ante has been upped - if the government has already put you away somewhere, you're screwed. If they haven't, the government is screwed.

Re:Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[icegreentea]

Because very little people inside China knows what actually happened. China doesn't really care what the rest of the world knows, as long as it can keep it away from it's own people.

Re:Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[dwater]

On the contrary, very few people outside China know what happened. Very few people know *why* it happened, inside China or outside, if any.

People inside China know more than you seem to think.

Re:Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[wheaty73]

Sorry but that is crap. There were *thousands* of students at that event and in the weeks preceding it, and what do you think happened to them when they went home? Do you think they kept quiet about it, or rather they told their parents, friends, their parents friends? What do you think they did? And so on?

More people know what hapened then, and why, than popular media in the west admit to. Every year on May 4th (Childrens day) there are silent protests to remember the victims and why it happened. Just because you can't search for it on the internet without having your connection dropped doesn't mean the Chinese are ignorant of the date and the event. *They know* that next year is the 20th anniversairy, and so does the government.

I am sick of every time China is mentioned in a /. post, people start harping on about "human rights" and "t*b@t" as if the people who live there don't have a say in how the country is run, or that a country is entitled to make mistakes as it matures. We did it -the 19th century is littered with cock-ups from the current Western powers getting it very, very wrong. We learned, and moved on. China is less than a century old (post Qing) and frankly most of it was in a medieval state until very recently (precious T*b@t, for one, was a theocracy which had a history of being nasty to its own people). China is learning - and needs to be advised, not told what is right and wrong. You try telling anyone what to do and see what happens, usually they do the opposite.

That said, I think these devices, along with all "non lethal" weaponry are a mistake in any country. The number of taserings has shot up in the UK, Canada and the US recently, and for no sensible reason. The world appears to be getting less safe, more surveilled and there is more acceptance of what a few years ago we would have called "wrong" in the name of our freedom. Give a man a gun, he has to deal with the consequences of killing if he fires; give him a pain inducing sonic blaster, he will probably not think twice about pulling that trigger.

Sorry, for my first post I ranted a little.

Re:Perspective

[LaskoVortex]

if you don't get that, you're dumb

I get it and I resemble that remark.

Re:But of coarse. FUCK that design intent...

[davidsyes]

So, to work around it, all protesters need to have sonic-activated bleed-makers. Insert in the ear, or as a collar around the neck, tuned specifically to government frequencies. When the government uses said offensive device, the "sound proof" will be earmarked or collared around the victims/protesters/dissidents.

ANY time some damned government (regardless of the country, EVEN if it's the u.s.a) dares to make zero-evidence weapons, a defiant nullification of anonymity should be created in the event the weapon's use is domestic vs true battlefield. Damned weaponeers and deviant policy makers...

Sounds to ME like THEY need a "ring around the collar"...

Insert...

[dos4who]

... obligatory "Brown Note" reference here.... or is they only selling them the "Yellow Note" model?

Non-lethal?

[celtic_hackr]

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.

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?

[icebike]

The US held its own in WW2 and Korea which were the last major conflicts in which the US used the M1 Garand rifle in any significant numbers.

Re:Non-lethal?

[ozmanjusri]

BANG------------>Whoosh!

Re:Non-lethal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound can kill. I see you've been folowing the American Presidential primaries...

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:Non-lethal?

[Fishead]

The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) that I assume they are talking about is far from lethal. Loud? Yes. Annoying? Oh yeah. Kickass speaker for AC/DC Thunderstruck? Yeaaahhhh!!!

I had the pleasure of playing with one of these in a previous job, and the pain of having it turned up too high while I was in front of it. The LRAD is good for causing extreme discomfort, and disorienting a large crowd of people, and though it may cause permanent hearing damage if abused, I can't see it killing anyone.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Txiasaeia]

Ah, that's because they didn't turn it up to 11.

Re:Non-lethal?

[KaizerttheBjorn]

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. Yes, but a lethal weapon that uses sound would have to consume an extremely large amount of power to be lethal, and since the intensity of the sound decreases as the square of the distance, it would really only be useful as a close combat weapon. There are much more efficient ways to kill, even if you want to kill "cleanly".

Re:Non-lethal?

[WrongMonkey]

Sound can kill. Muad'Dib!

Re:Non-lethal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't seen some of the IASCA guys, eh?

Deaf, maybe. Dead? Definitely not. Not until way past 160dB. The current IASCA world record is 180.4 dBa.

Per a forum post discovery.com[1], you achieve *ONE* pound per square inch of pressure at 170dBa.

The same list[1] puts 'death from shock wave alone' at over 200dBa. I don't know what these machines are capable of, but 160dBa just gives you a headache and maybe a torn eardrum.

[1]http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/9511927169

Re:Non-lethal?

[joggle]

Rock bands have speakers loud enough to kill people if you stand right in front of them. What's your point? Do you think the Chinese need our help to make lethal speakers? I don't. A device that doesn't kill but is also effective in dispersing crowds is more difficult to make and which is why they are buying the device from a US company.

Re:Non-lethal?

[LynnwoodRooster]

How this got modded "informative" is anyone's guess...

160 dB CANNOT kill. It can rupture your eardrums, but not kill. See, sound is measured in dB SPL - deciBels of Sound Pressure Level. The reference is 0 dB = 20 uPa (micropascals) of pressure.

Do some math, and you'll find out that 194 dB SPL is one atmosphere of pressure. Meaning that 160 dB SPL is about 1/1000th of an atmosphere. You experience more pressure by swimming 0.5 meters under the surface of the water.

160 dB CANNOT kill. Pressures - sounds - of 194 dB cannot kill (that's the pressure level of the NASA sonic test weapons). That's 10 meters under water, one extra atmosphere, and harmlessly encountered on a daily basis by millions of divers.

And for the record, yes I am an acoustician, and yes I have worked on sonic weapons.

Re:Non-lethal?

[carnivorouscow]

Sound is a crappy way to transmit energy. Sound intensity is governed by the inverse square of the distance (exponential decay at range). Kinetic weapons are far more efficient, only losing energy to drag which is dependent on velocity and air density.

If you were to put the same amount of energy that's in the 160db emitters into steel fragments you'll have a much larger kill radius in a smaller package.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Fred_A]

Yes, but a lethal weapon that uses sound would have to consume an extremely large amount of power to be lethal, [ ... ] Not necessarily, you could simply drop one of the larger models on your opponent.

Re:Non-lethal?

[alecwood]

The effects of sound on the human body are dependant on frequency as well as overall volume

Re:Non-lethal?

[andi75]

I will not comment on the lethal vs. non-lethal issue, but I can definitely comment on the total wrongness of your comparision with diving.

While it's true that you experience high levels of pressure while diving (up to 5.5bar at ~45m meters, which is somewhat approaching the limit of safe casual diving (it's all about Oxygen/Nitrogen saturation and nothing about pressure though)), the *change* of pressure is negligable.

With sound, the pressure change is several (depending on the pitch of the sound) tens/hundreds/thousands of times *per second*. I'm quite sure that makes a bit of a difference.

Re:Non-lethal?

[dotancohen]

Do some math, and you'll find out that 194 dB SPL is one atmosphere of pressure. Meaning that 160 dB SPL is about 1/1000th of an atmosphere. You experience more pressure by swimming 0.5 meters under the surface of the water. And if you stay at 0.5 meters under the surface of the water long enough, you die. Point?

Re:Non-lethal?

[rainhill]

Thou it helps but, one surely don't need a bunch of those to RE the thing..

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.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Jesus_666]

Unless of course you turn it to the untested highest setting, which releases a bouncing sonic blast that destroys one building and causes another to partially collapse on top of a marine whose legs are smashed, causing her to team up with another marine who likes to wear a goofy selfmade iron suit and wave around a big hammer. The two of them will then operate out of a junkyard to foil your sceme of selling the sonic weapon to some Nazis nd Ché Guevara.

That's really what happens. I recently saw a documentary about this on TV.

Re:Non-lethal?

[fireboy1919]

160 dB CANNOT kill. It can rupture your eardrums, but not kill.

You would think so, but you're missing a vital point. You see, some thoughts have a certain sound, that being the equivalent to a form. Through sound and motion, you will be able to paralyze nerves, shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs.

Re:Non-lethal?

[gevantry]

Frankly, it doesn't sound like much of a weapon at all, and it seems like something any sound engineer could build on the kitchen table.

Re:Non-lethal?

[BananaPeel]

You miss the point. this article is mearly a chance for the uninformed to take a jab at their current pet hate. Slashdot seems to have got into the habit of pushing articles with an anti chinese bias lately. The fact that many commentators know nothing about the subject of their hate other than what everyone else is chanting is totally irrelavant.

Re:Non-lethal?

[sm62704]

Sound can kill.
I see you've been folowing the American Presidential primaries...

That's not sound, that's just hot air. Nothing sound ever comes out of DC.

"American Idol", now,,,

Re:Non-lethal?

[sm62704]

With sound, the pressure change is several (depending on the pitch of the sound) tens/hundreds/thousands of times *per second*. I'm quite sure that makes a bit of a difference

What is it about sound that is allegedly lethal? Nobody claiming that sound can kill has given any rational explanation about this.

Until you explain the method to me I'm going to have to call bullshit.

Re:Non-lethal?

[sydneyfong]

Sound can kill. If you stand next to a speaker when 160db of sound comes out of it, you'll be dead. A fork can kill too. If you stand next to me when I thrust a fork with full force into your eye, and through your eye into your brain, you'll be dead.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Falstius]

Normal sound doesn't fall off at 1/r^2 (it drops off faster). The 1/r^2 fall off for sound and light come from the initial energy being spread out over a larger surface area (an expanding sphere). Loss is an exponential fall off however. Light doesn't experience significant loss from absorption in the atmosphere, but sound does.

This device is a directed sound wave however, much like a laser, and so the 1/r^2 rule, which never really applied, really doesn't apply. There is some drop due to spreading and probably more from loss (due to 'friction' in the air molecules).

So yes, kinetic weapons are much better at transmitting kinetic energy if you want to kill someone, but they're a crappy means of making a non-lethal weapon.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Jaysyn]

160 db most certainly will not kill you. I've been to SPL competitions where if that was the case, I'd be dead.

Re:Non-lethal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with andi75. Diving at .5 meters doesn't rupture your eardrums - a blast of 160dB does. So clearly air pressure isn't the only factor. Time, acceleration, etc. are clearly also playing a part.

Furthermore, rupturing your eardrums is not trivial. That's like saying shooting someone with a .22 Short can't kill them. Maybe not in most cases, but the right wound with the right complications can be lethal. Same goes with an eardrum rupture - the inside of your head is exposed to the environment. And even presuming survival, the impact on quality of life is not without consideration.

As someone who suffers from hearing loss and tinnitus, I can tell you it is hellish. Your hearing systems in your body make up probably the most sophisticated, complex sensory system you have. We can fix eyes relatively easily; touch is a little tricky; taste and smell are tough but loss of those is truly rare. Sensorineural hearing loss, on the other hand, is far too common, untreatable, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.

Yet, here's people like you, making "harmless" sonic weapons, and this morally deficient company, selling them to a government whose M/O is repression of all dissent. You're designing/manufacturing weapons that deliver a payload that would be considered torture or cruel and unusual punishment in many circumstances. How do you figure that's justified?

I just personally don't get it. Lethal weapons I understand. Sometimes people need to be killed; I'm no pacifist. But if you're going to take violent action against someone, either make it truly recoverable or make it lethal. Don't make it something that will rob them of hearing or sight or movement or feeling for the rest of their lives. That's the worst thing you can do to a person. Ask someone who's been intentionally wounded with a gun - why couldn't a fist or a bat have done that job? Instead, the victim is given a lifetime of suffering from the wound. If you dare to pull a gun - or any weapon - on someone, as they always say, you should be shooting to kill.

Sorry for the flaming/trolling, /., I really am. But I just don't buy that this is a "non-lethal weapon." It is a torture weapon, and it should banned from manufacture here, not just sale. Fat chance of that, though, so I guess I'm just sayin' my piece. Thanks for giving us a place to exercise free speech.

Re:Non-lethal?

[LifesABeach]

If you think about it, using this weapon on a crowd would be very beneficial; to both aggressors, and victims. In the past, one had to kill a few people just so the rest of the crowd could understand Who is in charge, (pun intended). Now, by using this sound weapon on the people, there are no grizzly reminders of "non-agree-ers" littering the streets, only to be televised by CNN. And the rice crop still gets harvested! Because agree, or not, you still have to eat. But there is bright side to being a victim of this weapon. You would no longer not feel compelled to listen to the government's rhetoric any more.

I wonder, does Cat Steven's, "Moonshadow" translate well into Mandarin?

Re:Non-lethal?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Actually, no. The changes in frequency have LESS impact on most of the body other than the ears. Once you're above ~12 Hz you're beyond any of the resonances within the body (a typical human body, that is).

Additionally, the "impulse" function of a diver off a diving board would be infinitely worse than a constant 160 dB SPL, according to your reasoning! That transition from normal 101 kPa to 20% higher than that, in the course of a few milliseconds should crush them. But that doesn't happen...

Yes, I have worked in the acoustics field for a few decades, and I have worked on sonic weapons. I have designed speaker systems that can generate over 175 dB SPL and are used for car audio competitions. And to date no one's died from sound. No one.

Well, other than a 48 hour exposure to Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On that some poor soul got exposed to back in the late 1990s...

Re:Non-lethal?

[AmigaMMC]

Actually I have fired that many times, didn't kill me at all... what? Speak louder, I can't hear you!

Re:Non-lethal?

[fifedrum]

riiight, love the Chinease government, who will undoubtedly deploy these on those fierce budhist monks and mothers trying to feed their children, or those nasty demonstrators who want democracy and a little freedom from the outrageously corrupt central government, who can blame them for wanting to use less than lethal force, like that tank that drove over the demonstrator in Tienamen Square all those years ago. Lethal force removes the organ donor from the roles, and eliminates valuable slave labor from the camps! So on with the non lethal stuff, and pile another corpse on the pyre later, when they're worked out and harvested.

Re:Non-lethal?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yet, here's people like you, making "harmless" sonic weapons, and this morally deficient company, selling them to a government whose M/O is repression of all dissent. You're designing/manufacturing weapons that deliver a payload that would be considered torture or cruel and unusual punishment in many circumstances. How do you figure that's justified?

Because sometimes blasting people with rock-concert levels (which is what the targets experience at ranges beyond 10 meters) is a lot safer for everyone involved than blasting them with bullets.

But that's just me... I'm kind of fond of living.

Re:Non-lethal?

[ma1wrbu5tr]

What movie was that?

Re:Non-lethal?

[Jesus_666]

This one. It's critically acclaimed. Well... At least critics claimed a lot of things about this movie.

Re:Protesting the Olympics in China

[hyades1]

Your vocabulary is mean and impoverished, but more than adequate to express your thoughts.

Re:likey it will be seen being used at the Olympic

[3waygeek]

or on top-tier foreign athletes who might beat the Chinese competitors.

ya think?

[ma1wrbu5tr]

an omission that may become more widely known if they are used to quell high-profile protests during the Olympics

There's bound to be news media from all over there. You really think Beijing has the intestinal fortitude to use them on anyone besides the Tibetans?

Omission?

[sethstorm]

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

Re:It still undermines freedom of speech

[dwater]

If you speak bad against the government in china you are either jailed or just dissapear. OK, so how did all those people in Tian'anmen Square get there if speaking bad against the government wasn't tolerated?

My own name is a killing word

[Repton]

Will they call them Weirding Modules?

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

[globaljustin]

you can troll all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that what the military is doing in Iraq and what law enforcement are trending towards here in the states are the same thing: making people *feel* safe so politicians can get re-elected.

The local cop who keeps the peace with judicious use of authority is an endangered species.

The military and law enforcement are both quickly becoming just another arm of a political machine who's purpose is to act as a PR agency for how "tough on crime" or "committed to stopping terror" politicians are. Reality has left the building.

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:police = military

[jandersen]

... in China the two are usually indistinguishable. That is something you know, is it? Tell me, how long have you lived in the country, give or take a few months? Or was this just yet another "We all know that they are dead evil, so they obviously do everything in an evil way" sort of statement?

Re:police = military

[Hognoxious]

Finally, the reason the sale is allowed is because it's a non-lethal weapon as explained in the OP.

Non-lethal, eh? Reminds me of the medieval myth that priests weren't allowed to shed blood, so they'd go into battle with a mace instead of a sword. It only knocked the enemy out, you see, so that was OK.

Re:police = military

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Oh? and pray-tell was it the military or the police that set up the perimeter in DC to stop protesters from crashing GW's inauguration speech after the 2004 election?

Times are changing

Re:police = military

[ahabswhale]

Ok, I'll play Devil's Advocate...would you rather the Chinese deal with protesters with tanks or with directed sound?

Re:police = military

[globaljustin]

You missed my greater point. Beyond issues of the war and police brutality, we have a problem that I feel is deeper and more systemic.

The problem is: the government, at all levels, has in many aspects adopted a philosophy of "perception is reality" In other words, many in government believe that if people *think* that they are being protected then that means that they are, and those people in government are directing their policies to alter PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than actually doing anything substantial to solve problems. For example, on the Daily Show recently, Doug Fife was promoting his new book. When asked about what the administration did wrong with Iraq, he basically said it was a problem of bad "branding". That's it in a nutshell...

It's like this, if I serve you a steaming pile of shit for dinner, it doesn't matter how much parsely and parmegian cheese I put on it. It doesn't matter if I put a well designed placard next to it that says "authentico spagetti itialiano"...IT'S STILL A PILE OF SHIT

PUBLIC PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY

Re:Perspective

[The Evil Couch]

What the hell is Slashdot coming to when a post including "jk", ";)", "rofl", and "P.S. ... you're dumb" gets modded up? Grammar Nazis, you guys are slacking off!

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooooosh

Re:Protesting the Olympics in China

[dwater]

Well, from the Tibet point of view, it certainly seems to have backfired. Everyone here knows about the issue due to the riots and the torch protest, but they are even more determined that Tibet is part of China.

All it's done is widen the divide between China and the west (mostly the US, of course). Perhaps that's the intent - or do you *really* think these protests are spontaneous and not orchestrated in some way?

A documentary was shown recently on Chinese TV, in English, outlining the history of Tibet. It was very interesting. It went right back to when Britain invaded, and included the meddling by the US to try to encourage them to become independent (presumably to try to counter "evil communism"). It also covered the atrocities perpetrated by the Tibetan leadership using their 'caste system' and used that as justification for removal of their leadership - seemed reasonable.
I wish they'd publish it more widely because I'd love to hear 'the other side', so to speak. I'd also like to see it again...

Hooray!

[doyoulikeworms]

Another quality product from your friends at Blue Sun(TM).

Re:You are right it would not work.

[arthurpaliden]

The software would probably not work. Being as it was writen by Westerners all the Chineese would look the same to the software.

Re:But of coarse. FUCK that design intent...

[coresnake]

We can't handle sound waves of that magnitude!

Re:Perspective

[the_bard17]

Give them enough time for the apoplectic fit to wear off...

MOD PARENT UP (funny)

[shentino]

I wonder what the RIAA will say...

Made in China?

[flyingfsck]

I would not be surprised if these gizmos were made in China in the first place.

I know my doomsday scenarios, buddy boy

[Scrameustache]

Did anyone else read the headline as China is buying Sound Weapons directed at the US? I felt bad for people living in California for a moment. A weaponized transcontinental sonic wave would best be propagated through the earths' core than through the atmosphere, actually.
It'd feel like a weird earthquake.

strange dune thought

[jollyreaper]

I thought the Lynch movie sucked but the thing about the weirding modules, if saying Paul's name was bad enough, what if you let one rip right into the mouthpiece? And what if it was a wet one, too? "My ass has a killing turd." If John Waters directed Dune.

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.

Ear plugs?

[KidShaft]

I just filed a patent for "direct sound earplugs"! Should be rich by the end of the year.

Re:Protesting the Olympics in China

[joocemann]

So a better example would be for me to protest your daughter playing with barbies because I don't agree with what you the parent do? Drawing attention is a valuable tool, but protesting the olympics is not going to make anything better, especially when the olympics is pretty much the longest standing global gathering where representatives from around the world join IN PEACE to compete. But.. then again.. Babies will cry. Why not protest China instead? Isn't that the point? Why not protest chinese products. Anything that is a bit more 'relative' to the purpose would make more sense.

Rick Role

[EEPROMS]

They will wheel this thing out during the Olympic opening ceremonyin Beijing and do a massive rick role

Ha take that you western dogs, I get you back good.

Re:Perspective

[ohtani]

He probably didn't hear the woosh cause it was a directed sonund.

Re:Perspective

[ceoyoyo]

What's that? He used "you're" instead of "your?" Mod him up!

Re:Firesale.

[KDR_11k]

I wonder what it'd be like to load Rick Astley on one...

Or what the RIAA will do...

Couldn't agree with you more

[goldcd]

Last bit of Chinese crowd control I saw used a tank - they want to switch to non-lethal sound weapons, I think this is a good thing.

Not Surprising...

[blank89]

It's not like we haven't violated every other weapons treaty thrown at us, or sold terrible weapons to terrible people in the past.

Yes, but China already has lethal weapons

[patio11]

I hear accelerating tiny bits of metal towards people works perfectly well for killing them, and as China has both the capability to do so and few compunctions about doing it, I don't see them making Killer Scream Mk1000s.

Outsourcing

[jandersen]

This is outsourcing, simply. The weapons industry need to run large scale tests, and they don't want to have too many high-profile cases too close to home. By making this kind of 'loophole' in the law they get to test their controversial weapons without too much public outcry, and if things get too noisy, the government can say "By God, you are right! Fancy how we could have overlooked that ", and of course it takes a lot of time to change a law.

Re:Protesting the Olympics in China

[makomk]

It doesn't just happen to be in China. China wanted it for entirely political reasons (which is fairly common) - basically, to demonstrate that the rest of the world agrees what a wonderful and politically stable place they are now. In particular, the torch relay that people were protesting at was intended to show world unity with China and demonstrate that Tibet was still a part of China.

Also, China is apparently doing some pretty nasty things internally in order to clean up before the games...

Re:you are all sheep, stupid fucking sheep!

[Arimus]

"During fiscal 2007, we expanded our international marketing activities and shipped LRAD orders to Australia, Singapore, Korea and China".

Well they've shipped some of these devices so they do have a product.... and its shipping.

Re:Is it really a weapon? Hayull-loohhh

[Borathian]

Every weapon can be dangerous if misused.

Nepal half off!

[wiredog]

We're so crazy!

Re:you are all sheep, stupid fucking sheep!

[hardwarefreak]

Did you read both? And after doing so do you not realize that the author of this "news" blurb co-mingled two completely different types of technology from two different articles in an effort to portray a device with the characteristics of both? A device which doesn't exist? Yes, both pieces of tech come from the same company, ATC, but they are completely different, and have completely different applications. He crafted this shit to make it appear something exists in the real world that doesn't. When you read the article at http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/13597/ that is double linked through his hyperlink "directed sound weapon", did you read the word "weapon" anywhere in said article? No, you didn't, because it's not there. The ultrasound device can't reach anywhere close to the sound pressure levels of that "LRAD" device, which is nothing more than a high power high efficiency compression driver and horn. This LRAD is little different than the civil defense (tornado warning) sirens installed in cities and towns all over the US, technology that is decades old, and has never been considered a weapon. Again, this is totally fabricated, sensationalized, BULLSHIT. Plain and simple. Put your common sense cap on. Please.

A "People's Republic", now with Project X!

[Metasquares]

This reminds me of "Project X", a fictional sound weapon in Atlas Shrugged, both in nature and in likely use.

Re:It still undermines freedom of speech

[sydneyfong]

If I'm not mistaken the tolerance decreased sharply after the event. On a more macro scale I feel more sorry about this than for the individuals who were arrested or maybe killed in the incident.

Re:Perspective

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Yeah. I'm sure the State Science Institute had nastier things than Project Xylophone.

Re:you are all sheep, stupid fucking sheep!

[torchdragon]

I would like to know what to classify you as. First, you immediately begin ranting that the article is entirely false and claim that no one has read the article. Second, you're making claims that words don't exist in an article that do actually exist. Go read the article you just linked and use your browser's search function on the word 'weapon'. I count 7 not including tags and comments. So, what are you? A shill? A troll? Angry at something? Politically motivated? I can't really understand what I'm replying to but I felt it must be done.

Why don't you go to ATC's website and check out the specs? 100+ dB @ 300 meters, which by common standards will cause lasting hearing damage after only 15 minutes. If you go to one of the reSELLers of ATC's products you'll see that there are at least 2 LRAD products that specifically list that they can be used for "behavior modification" in addition to their communications benefits. Both the 500 and the 1000 series product list a sustained power output of 146dB, which equates to hearing damage in seconds.

So I'm really not sure where the confusion about this "device" is coming about. This was designed for "behavior modification" directly. It has offensive capabilities. Its a weapon and an American company is selling it to China. How much Koolaid have you been drinking? This is a Bad Thing(tm).

Re:police != military

[querist]

"...and in China the two are usually indistinguishable."

No.

I just returned from my second trip to China and it is VERY easy to tell the difference. The uniforms are completely different and different colours. Also, there are at least two different types of police forces in China, just like in the USA.

There are the "local" police who wear the blue uniforms like in the little pop-up animations that are only shown in Internet Cafes. I never saw one of those pop-ups. (I wanted to see it, actually.) I've seen local police alone or in pairs, and I've seen male and female officers.

And there is what can be considered the "People's Liberation Army Police". Their uniforms are a light green, different from both the local police and the PLA uniforms. I saw these folks, always in pairs, at various national historical sites. I always saw them in pairs, and it was funny that the two guys (I never saw a female PLA Police officer while I was there) in the pair were always nearly the exact same height. Strange.

Also, the PLA Police are easier to spot because of the bright white holster/harness thing that they wear for their sidearms. It consists of a white belt with a white strap that on a right-handed officer would go over the left shoulder down to the right side to connect to the belt and onto the bright white holster holding what appeared to be a some form of 9mm semi-auto pistol.

The real "Army" uniforms are a different color. The different branches have different color uniforms, dark blue, light blue, and a dark green (sort of like the Marines in the US wear), but none of them have the light green color of the PLA Police.

Re:Firesale.

[sm62704]

Or what the RIAA will do...

Since copyright isn't a right (Article 2 section 8 "Congress may") the government can use any work they like, copyrighted or not, with impunity and the only thing the RIAA can do about it is bribe Congress with more "campaign contributions."

Re:likey it will be seen being used at the Olympic

[martinQblank]

I think we're more likely to *hear* it used at the Olympics...

Re:Yes let's...

[tony1343]

Of course people from China have negative things to say about their government. They aren't brainwashed like so many on Slashdot think. They just don't criticize their government in front of STRANGERS. They do in front of family and friends. I'm not a China expert, but I guess some of this may have to do with with Communism and fear, but probably a bigger reason is cultural and Confucianism.

Things need to be put in perspective. I criticize the U.S. all the time, but I find myself defending the U.S. against foreigners when I go abroad. My brother who is a bleeding heart liberal told me the same thing happens to him.

Also, China has much to criticize, but I think this is just taking everyone's focus off the problems in the U.S. (or whatever country you are from). We aren't the great country that we are taught in school (well, I think it is a great country but we have done many terrible things that we should admit to, move on and never repeat - such as the genocide of the Native-Americans, enslavement of a race of people and then discrimination against them, assassinations and coups perpetrated against democratically elected leaders, but ones who we didn't like, all the shit going on now that Slashdot talks about with our freedoms and privacy, and the list goes on).

Anyway, criticism is important. I just don't want everyone focusing only on China, as our government also needs criticism (so it will hopefully improve).

THIS IS NOT DIRECTED SOUND - just a speaker!

[HEbGb]

The link to the earlier slashdot article describing directional sound via ultrasound has nothing at all to do with this (LRAD) product.

LRAD is just a big loudspeaker (actually a bunch of regular tweeters). There's nothing "directional" about it, other than that fact that *all* speakers are directional at high frequencies.

This is 100% hype nonsense. Read the wiki:

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

There is no "weapon" any more than any other speaker or bullhorn. Enough with the sloppy reporting, slashdot.

Re:Perspective

[spun]

Oh sm62704, be nice, ILuvRamen is all of 14, by my guess. The larval stage of dorkdom can be so awkward.

Next export

[chord.wav]

will be M4A1s with rubber bullets. They aren't lethal so the ban doesn't apply either ;)

Have you seen the movie Lord of War? Great movie.

Re:Yes let's...

[bonedriven]

85000?where?when?for what?

Sound weapons

[crosenkreutz]

The USA has been exporting sound weapons (like the LRAD )for many years to 'friendly' countries like Georgia and Israel and so-on; more on sound weapons here: http://crab.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/a-short-history-of-audio-weapons/

Re:Perspective

[AmigaMMC]

I know... shouldn't we invent sonic showers first? :)

11

[amusingmuses]

Does it go up to 11?

Re:you are all sheep, stupid fucking sheep!

[hardwarefreak]

My god. Even spoon feeding you doesn't do the trick. You've missed the point entirely. Ok, lets try breast feeding. Back up 500 feet, clear your mind, and re-read this news story again, from the start. Open it in a new window or tab if that helps. You are familiar with browser windows and tabs, no? http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/14/2221228 Now, do you see two hyperlinks in that news blurb, the very one we're discussing? The first one is "directed sound weapon". Click that, and tell me where in the resulting blurb yawningyellowyak posts the word weapon. He doesn't. Now, there is a link within yawningyellowyak's news blurb. Click that. In *that* article on Technology Review, in any of the 3 pages, do you find the word weapon? NO! What the fuck is the 3rd word in the original hyperlinked text that you clicked on that took you down this path? "WEAPON"! How the hell do you not get this? It's the same as pulling into an Amoco station and once there the attendant says they don't sell gas in their pumps but milk, even though the sign out front clearly says "regular unleaded". You got it yet? Knock knock? Anyone home? Beep beep! Ding Ding! Hello? If you still don't get this, then I can only assume you're a U.S. kid, less than 30 years old, a result of a failed public school system that taught you zero critical thinking and analysis skills. If so, you're a lamb waiting to be slaughtered, and worse, you don't even realize it and likely never will. Sad. More sheep for the slaughter.

Re:Yes let's...

[WindowlessView]

It's the Chinese government's own figures. They have been widely reported. Here are a couple of links and I am sure Google can provide many more. (That tresriogrande troll might want to check a few before shooting his mouth off next time.)

For instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/international/asia/20china.html

A paragraph from http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2006/DA_spring_06/china/china_06.html

"Mass incidents" is the term the Chinese government uses to describe demonstrations, riots, and group petitioning. In January 2006, the Ministry of Public Security announced that there were 87,000 such incidents in 2005, a 6.6 percent increase over the previous year. Protests over corruption, taxes, and environmental degradation caused by China's breakneck economic development contributed to the rise. But some of the most highly charged disputes have occurred over government seizure of farmland for construction of the factories, power plants, shopping malls, roads, and apartment complexes that are fueling China's boom.

Re:you are all sheep, stupid fucking sheep!

[torchdragon]

I apologize for not explicitly defining every single absolute. Obviously I, and the submitter of the article, were not perfectly clear in such statements. I will attempt to fix this issue immediately.

The article, the first link in the submission, which ultimately leads down to http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/13597 is a tech piece from May 2004 describing a hardware device for deploying sound along a narrow beam and being able to control and direct it. This first article describes the technology behind the device that is listed in the second link of the submission which leads to http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/05/loudhailer-or-weapon.html, a product review as of May 2008.

Here is where the disconnection has occurred and again I apologize. Both articles are speaking of the same thing. The first article relates to the technology in a general scope that the product in the second article is based off of. While the May 2004 article doesn't explicitly discuss that the technology can be used to modify behavior, it is indeed the same technology being used for the LRAD product being sold currently.

For future correspondence, instead of using so many words for personal attacks, assumptions, and generally unintelligent conversation you should concentrate on looking at the sources displayed. I understand that today's Slashdot may be suffering from some quality control issues but that is a far cry from being able to pen every reader into the same field. I hope I've been able to clear up this inconsistency for you.

Re:Yes let's...

[phantomfive]

The vast majority of Chinese ARE happy with their government. It is NECESSARY: China is not like Russia, they do not control the populace with a secret service and giant army, they HAVE to keep the people happy.

If you would like an example of one way they do this, check out the article on slashdot a few days ago saying 60-70% of people actually favor censorship of the internet. This is a result of a government propaganda campaign against pornography. In China there is a TV station that broadcasts nothing but patriotic songs. I thought they were horrible (the music is very bad and repetitive), but when I mentioned it to a girl there, she told me she really liked that channel. The music is motivational I guess.

The main way the government keeps their people happy is by growing the economy. It is true a lot of people in the country are still very poor, but they are still better off than 10 or 20 years ago. Think about it....throughout most of the history of China, famine has been a periodic way of life. Compare that to now, when there is not likely to be a famine within the foreseeable future. This is a good thing.

Finally, I'm not sure about the Chinese you've talked to, but in general I've found if you talk to the young ones, you will find they absolutely love their government. If you talk to the ones that were college age around the time of the Tian-An-Men square massacre, you will find they are unhappy with the government, but their unhappiness is mostly that the government is not changing fast enough, they don't want to destroy the government. Finally, if you talk to some older people, you might find that they are unhappy because they miss the times of Mao Ze Dong.

Not saying is great thing but think about it.

[carlback]

For all the people complaining about this, what would you rather have them use bullets instead?

Re:Yes let's...

[Em Adespoton]

How many protests were there in the US last year? Then compare population/population density.

The fact that there were over 85,000 protests shows that a LOT of people are not afraid to protest in China. They feel that it is worth it to protest their causes. If interviewed, I bet you would find that a lot of the protestors aren't all that upset with the government, just with specific policies. Protests are being used as a way to let the government know that change is requested for those policies, not necessarily as an attack on the government itself.

That said, if any of these protests involve incitement to violence or rebellion, I am sure these machines will be used. I believe that the bullhorn will still be used to combat most of them however, and it will probably be very effective.

Re:Perspective

[ILuvRamen]

welcome to the internet, now STOP COMPLAINING. Holy shit you people are annoying. What is your problem with acronyms and other shorthand formats? You can read them, you know what they say, SO STFU!

Re:Yes let's...

[WindowlessView]

How many protests were there in the US last year? Then compare population/population density.

The US is about 1/4th the population of China. If there were 20,000+ "mass demonstrations" last year then the main stream media is doing a much better job of suppressing the news than even I give them credit for. I suspect if it was even a tenth of that Cheney would have declared martial law a long time ago.

I am not sure why this post has generated such contention. The Chinese released the figures. The Chinese bought the sound equipment. It isn't that much of stretch to think they are going to use it when they feel they need to do so. And like so many of these technologies (e.g. taser guns), the justifications for their use tend to expand rapidly.

Re:Perspective

[Spatial]

Never. Now GTFO.

Re:Perspective

[sm62704]

The only cure for ignorance is knowledge. Now he knows why he was downmodded, and doesn't have to sulk in the corner like some emo kid. Instead he can petulantly post goatse pics and twofo trojans like the other fourteen year olds here.

Re:Assault

[earthbound kid]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean if I get pulled over by the cops for speeding, and they see a candlestick in the back seat that I'll be arrested for arms dealing.

Re:you are all sheep, stupid fucking sheep!

[lusiphur69]

Wow, after your vitriol filled comment you look quite the regular ass, don't you?

Because it has been documented

[celtic_hackr]

There is historical proof that sound kills. During WWI there were numerous cases of persons being killed near the proximity of explosions with no external injuries (ie no shrapnel or entry exit wounds). These persons had various internal injuries, but not from being hit by anything. It was later determined that the sound of the explosions caused internal organ ruptures. I'm not sure why 160dB is considered lethal, 200 dB is generally considered enough to cause: the lungs to rupture, and/or air embolisms which causes death. So if you can survive ruptured lungs and embolisms, then no sound isn't lethal to you and congratulations on making the medical books.

By the way every 10 dB = a 10 fold increase in power and intensity.

atmospheric pressure is about 101,000Pa

Let Z = sound pressure of 160 dB
160dB = 20 log (Z Pa/0.00002) = 2000 Pa ~ .05 atm
not .001 atm
and 194dB ~ 100,237 Pa ~ 1 atm
and 220 dB ~ 19 atm
and 250 dB ~ 620 atm which is more than six times the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. So if you can survive 600 atmospheres of pressure, then no sound can't kill you and you're also not human, or any form of life that originated on this planet. And that's no BS. It's simple logarithmic math. Or maybe not so simple.
So I guess someone needs to do a little better math.

But just because the sound isn't some high number of atmospheres, it doesn't necessarily follow that it can't kill you.

There is truth that the frequency counts. But not strictly in the way that is being put forward here. It is more about whether the sound is periodic or non-periodic (the sound weapon is non-periodic, as is a bomb blast). Of course not all ears are created equal, and my statements of course oversimplified things, sound is a complex topic. But all the medical and scientific experts agree that sound of sufficient power will kill you. Because it is already known to have killed in the past.So unless you can explain away the historical evidence then there really is no argument. I have no doubt these weapons could be modified to kill.