Britain Bringing Out 'Sonic Gun' For Olympics Security 193
skipkent writes with news that Britain is planning to use high-tech, non-lethal sonic weapons to provide security at the Olympics this summer. The Ministry of Defense says they intend to use the devices primarily as giant loudspeakers. But if they find themselves in need of a way to disperse crowds, the weapons can project sound up to 150 decibels, causing physical pain within a few hundred meters. "It has been successfully used aboard ships to repel Somali pirates." The maximum range for alarms and warnings is 3km. "Police and military planners say they are preparing for a range of security threats at the Olympics including protesters trying to disrupt events and attacks using hijacked airliners."
Wow! (Score:5, Informative)
The terrorists must really be loving this. They don't even have to do anything anymore to get the public terrorized - the 'security forces' are taking care of that for them! They don't even have to make half-credible bomb threats anymore - the {Ministry|Department} of Defense will just make threats up for them!
The terrorists aren't winning. They already won.
Re:the Olympics seems to be losing its purpose (Score:4, Informative)
The Olympics was supposed to be an event promoting amateur sports competition to solidify friendship and peace between nations.
In all honesty, the concept of amateur sports was originally introduced to keep out the working class. Amateur sports were to be performed by gentlemen of leisure, i.e. people with no training, thus without an advantage. Being a working joe was considered being a professional, because they got paid to train, sometimes paid to play (to compensate for having to skip work) and had an unfair advantage of being in shape. I don't know how that idea solidifies friendship and peace between nations, or within nations, come to think of it.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
Read the OP. It's clear that we're using the word "terrorist" to refer to Muslim extremists. Stop watering down the meaning of terms. If you're going to change "terrorist" to mean "anyone who makes me scared", you might as well scrap the word all together. We have plenty of good terms to describe authoritarian governments already.
I was using the dictionary definition which has nothing to do with Muslims at all. It refers to anyone or any group who causes terror or frightens others. The UK government is clearly doing this by arming and militarizing the police. Using the term 'terrorist' to refer to Muslim extermists and ignoring every other cause of terror or loss of freedom is missing the big picture. Muslims didn't turn the UK into a police state, the UK police did and the UK government let them. When the IRA were blowing up buildings every few months or so the UK never resorted to police state tactics and it never militarized the police.
From dictionary.com:
terrorist
[ter-er-ist] Show IPA
noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ism
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Informative)
"sham amateurs with trust funds to compete in a complete travesty of the original Olympics"
Oh really?
*DISCLOSURE* Olympian, and going to London as a medal chance...
Sorry to tell you, but not every government is funding every athlete to non amateur levels. Most get just enough to pay for costs and live at the poverty line, or slightly above if you work a job. I am 30 and still living with my parents because my partner is studying, and without her earning an income to support me, my part time work and training subsidies are not enough to move out!!! I work 3-6 months a year, spending nothing so my meager savings can last through the rest of the year.
Much of the funds are used for coaches, equipment, facilities, etc. it doesnt always go to the athlete.
Also by the sound of it, you are an Englishman(woman) ... you paid for this you say? well your athletes are primarily funded by lottery funds (not a mandatory cost to you). And the flow on effect of tourism etc that the games bring over the past and next several years will inject funds into your economy to compensate you.
I could also argue about other sports paying for themselves, but I think you should do some research yourself.