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."

Uh oh, that means..

[somersault (912633)]

the Chinese have stolen Country and Western!

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

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..

[hcdejong (561314)]

I'm actually Scottish

You, sir, have a lot to answer for. The Scots invented sonic weaponry, after all.

Free Tibet!!

[QuantumG (50515)]

While stocks last.

We're exporting

[geekoid (135745)]

Rosanne Barr? Cool.

Is it really a weapon?

[JSBiff (87824)]

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 (314120)]

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 (214511)]

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:

[theheadlessrabbit (1022587)]

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

Mixed feelings on this

[joggle (594025)]

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

[Red Flayer (890720)]

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:

[Gideon Fubar (833343)]

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:

[maxume (22995)]

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?

Easier for totalitarian govts, but not better

[soren100 (63191)]

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?

Why bother?

[urcreepyneighbor (1171755)]

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:

[urcreepyneighbor (1171755)]

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? ;)

Directed at US

[hansamurai (907719)]

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

[redcaboodle (622288)]

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.

New from Ronco!

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

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

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

Re:New from Ronco!

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

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??

Been doin' this already

[Ihmhi (1206036)]

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

Omission?

[sethstorm (512897)]

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

Re:Yes let's...

[willyhill (965620)]

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.

Re:Yes let's...

[willyhill (965620)]

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.

Re:Yes let's...

[WindowlessView (703773)]

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.

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[UncleTogie (1004853)]

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

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

Considering their arms exporting practices, [stoparmstosudan.org] 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:

[TheDugong (701481)]

"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

Re:Might as well make a buck...

[LeafOnTheWind (1066228)]

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:

[TheDugong (701481)]

"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 [wikipedia.org]

"The intent of the strike was to protect Imperial Japan's advan

Re:Gotta keep them upiddy Tibetans in line.

[SmokeyTheBalrog (996551)]

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 (690601)]

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.

Non-lethal?

[celtic_hackr (579828)]

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 (960268)]

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?

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

Re:Non-lethal?

[by 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?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Sound can kill.

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

Re:Non-lethal?

[Fishead (658061)]

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 (581598)]

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

Re:Non-lethal?

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

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:

[joggle (594025)]

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 (966895)]

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:

[andi75 (84413)]

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/hun

Re:Non-lethal?

[dotancohen (1015143)]

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?

[Fred_A (10934)]

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.

police = military

[globaljustin (574257)]

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 comm

Re:police = military

[ahabswhale (1189519)]

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:

[LaskoVortex (1153471)]

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

I get it and I resemble that remark.

Re:Perspective

[The Evil Couch (621105)]

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

[the_bard17 (626642)]

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

Re:

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

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

Re:

[KDR_11k (778916)]

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

Or what the RIAA will do...