Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United Kingdom News

Britain Bringing Out 'Sonic Gun' For Olympics Security 193

Posted by Soulskill
from the weapons-of-mass-annoyance dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Britain Bringing Out 'Sonic Gun' For Olympics Security

Comments Filter:
  • by bobstreo (1320787) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:32PM (#39979457)

    with my sonic screwdriver
    Welcome to the future

    • "Hey hijackers! Word of advice: if you're attacking an event with a sonic screwdriver ... don't let it near the sonic cannons..."

      • Plug the sonic screwdriver into the sonic cannon and do real damage.

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      How well would a good set of earplugs or even construction style earmuffs protect against the sound of this. Would be interesting to walk right up.to the cop holding this and see his reaction.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by davester666 (731373)

        You'll be shot with the 50 cal. mounted next to the sonic gun.

      • Re:I'll counter (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@@@hotmail...com> on Saturday May 12, 2012 @10:24PM (#39982831) Journal

        How well would a good set of earplugs or even construction style earmuffs protect against the sound of this.

        A few years ago, a neighbor who wanted to buy the duplex half I was living in tried to chase me out. The first I knew about it was coming from deep sleep to full alertness in the early hours of every morning, with my heart pounding as though I'd just been shocked awake. It was devastating to my sleep patterns.

        The first few times it happened, I had no idea what was happening. I thought I had some medical or psychiatric condition developing, but then one night I stayed awake but quiet until about 2am, when the wake-up trick happened. While I was awake, the jolt felt weird, but not unbearable, a little like standing near loudspeakers at a rock concert, but silent.

        I was lucky, and had a full studio of sound and electronic gear, so over the next couple of nights I identified that the pulse was ultrasonic. A bit of research led me to these things [amazing1.com], so I bought one of the quad transducer kits to see if it was the culprit, which it was. I did some experimenting, and found that while earmuffs do attenuate the sensation a little, the "body-throb" is still disturbing. If you don't control your mind, it really does produce a sense of alarm.

        Once my neighbor realized she'd been twigged, she switched from the single wake-up pulse to random attacks with the sweep and nausea modes. It was bearable, but wasn't pleasant, so I called the police and tried to explain it to them. They were polite, and spoke to the neighbor, but decided the only laws which might have been contravened were noise limits. I asked the council noise inspectors to check, but their meters aren't capable of detecting ultrasonic.

        In the end, the authorities didn't know how to deal with it, but the neighbor stopped using the device anyway, probably because of all the fuss.

        TLDR: They'll use ultrasonics which cause a sensation of fear and alarm. It's manageable by individuals, but a mob will almost certainly run.

        • by EdIII (1114411)

          It's manageable by individuals, but a mob will almost certainly run

          What a wonderful idea. Take a large group of people that are already agitated and experiencing "mob mentality" and cause them to stampede like frightened animals in pain.

          Oh yes. That will end well with no injuries or casualties. Completely certain.

          Stuff like this makes me want to just say fuck the Olympics and not spend a single damn dime supporting it. If it means I have to deal with the TSA and walking down streets protected by .50 cals and sonic cannons it is no longer interesting or fun.

          That is prec

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      The weapon must be highly directional because otherwise the operator would be incapacitated as well. Loud sounds and bright lights can both be reflected back at the attacker.

  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:32PM (#39979467)

    The product is called "The Who".

  • That's a party! We pay to have that done to us over here. Just load that thing up with Muse and point it over here! Ohhhhh yeahhhh!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:34PM (#39979489)

    someone to go deaf or partially deaf? Will the UK compensate someone for that life-long disability? I thought the government was suppose to protect the people, not harm them in the name of corporate interests. The more reason to boycott The Olympics this year. Thankfully I'm not in/from the UK.

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:38PM (#39979525)
    Basically, clear all the poor people out of East London and then charge so much for the tickets that only the rich can get in. Sonic guns are only needed to clear ordinary people off the roads when the Zil convoys go by (which is more or less what is going to happen).

    Bitter? Twisted? Very glad that I live over 100km West of London? Yes.

    • ordinary people can see the games in FTA HD on like 24 channels so they can sit at home and not pay for tickets.

      • Being a spectator at the Olympics isn't about seeing the sport. It's about being seen to be important/rich/lucky enough to be at the Olympics.

      • by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @01:32PM (#39979951)

        ordinary people can see the games in FTA HD on like 24 channels so they can sit at home and not pay for tickets.

        Everyone from the UK has paid for the games and they were very expensive too.

        The ticket that are for sale are way out of the price range of normal honest working people yet the ticket prices don't even nearly cover the cost of the thing, taxpayers got soaked for the rest. The whole thing is an insane waste of money and turning London into North Korea for some misguided idea of 'security' is doubly insane.

        • Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @03:54PM (#39980969)
          I am having to pay through my taxes to keep HMS Ocean in the Thames and half the Army on standby to protect the people who caused the financial crisis, when in a sane world we would be locking them up (along, in my doubtless undesirable opinion, with Tessa Jowell and Lord Coe who thought they would benefit from demanding this colossal waste of money). People who like football pay for football; people who like cricket pay for cricket: everybody has to pay for sham amateurs with trust funds to compete in a complete travesty of the original Olympics, a purely commercial operation in which, to make it even better, only junk food can be eaten at the performances!

          If Heironymus Bosch was still around he'd be able to paint it, but sadly Britart is on the Ship of Fools, not observing it.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            "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 trainin

        • by buglista (1967502)
          aye; cheaper than the Iraq war though I think, and of slightly more utility.
    • by _Shad0w_ (127912)

      I wish I didn't work in London. When the games are on we'll have moved office to North London and I'll need to go to Stratford to change trains. It is going to suck.

  • by mspohr (589790) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:43PM (#39979573)

    The more I read about preparations, the less I want to attend.
    Sounds like it will be a lot more pleasant to watch at home.

    • I agree, sporting events to me are much more fun to watch on TV.
    • by 1s44c (552956)

      The more I read about preparations, the less I want to attend.
      Sounds like it will be a lot more pleasant to watch at home.

      The more I hear about the insane security measures and the use of the military for policing the more I want to go sit on a beach in Asia until it all goes away.

      I mean the choice is cheap seafood, sunlight, friendly people or mind blowingly expensive food, bad weather, hostile people, heavily armed army types performing crowd control. The army is trained and equipped to work in war zones and effectively kill people, they are not trained to perform police work.

  • by Crash24 (808326) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:45PM (#39979579) Homepage Journal
    ...while conducting detainee operations (prison guard) in Iraq. It's basically a five-hundred watt directional speaker shaped like a big flat disc that can play back a shrieking wave (sounds like a modulated sawtooth from what I can remember) that's so loud that you'll feel your bones rattle if it's pointed at you - even from a hundred meters away. While we usually used it as a big megaphone, the disruptive tone was really only effective in surprise or as a threat. In compounds where certain idiots used the LRAD repeatedly, the detainees eventually learned to ignore it.
    • And of course if people are planning to protest in the street, they'll take ear-plugs, which will take most of the pain and disorientation away. This will only be really effective against non-protestors.

      • by Hentes (2461350)

        They will just switch the tune to the brown noise.

      • by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @01:47PM (#39980089)

        And of course if people are planning to protest in the street, they'll take ear-plugs, which will take most of the pain and disorientation away. This will only be really effective against non-protestors.

        The take home message is that peaceful protesters anywhere in London will be subjected to experimental torture devices. Also anyone who happens to be near protesters.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Crash24 (808326)
          The LRAD is hardly experimental, and I'd rather listen to it up-close-and-personal again than get pepper sprayed again. If the law enforcement types over there have any sense they won't subject peaceful protesters to this (knowing most cops, they probably will). Of course, if I were a protester I'd have a camera (or CCTV, it is London after all) on hand and be ready to capitalize on any perceived police brutality to further my cause.
          • by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @02:38PM (#39980491)

            The lesson from the introduction of Tasers and pepper spray is that given more choices of offensive weapons, police don't reduce the force they apply. They use weapons in more situations than they would before.

            So you won't get LRADed instead of being pepper sprayed. You'll still get pepper sprayed in situations where you would before. But in lesser situations, where previously they wouldn't have done anything, now they'll LRAD you.

            Earplugs AND a video camera are both essential equipment now.

          • by Cederic (9623)

            Don't rely on the CCTV. It has an amazingly high error rate every time the police do something they don't want to be called on.

            Take your own cameras and live stream to the 'net.

    • by Alex Belits (437) *

      You used that IN PRISON??? It's supposed to disperse crowds, for fuck sake! In confined space such as prison yard (I hope, no one was stupid enough to place it indoors) it only pisses people off because they can't run away.

      • by Crash24 (808326)
        It was at Camp Bucca, where the vast majority of the compounds were open-air and larger than a football field. The LRAD's effective footprint was only a small part of an entire compound, and I do believe a hundred rioting detainees qualifies as a crowd-sized target.
        • by Alex Belits (437) *

          Oh, wonderful. Did it come to anyone's mind, that housing prisoners in permanent structures instead of a bum city would improve security, hinder communications and give fewer causes for the riots?

          • by Crash24 (808326) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @02:35PM (#39980469) Homepage Journal
            I did a AMA on Reddit [reddit.com] about this last year.

            It most certainly did, though I was just a guy on the ground. Bucca was a "temporary" solution that became too permanent for its own good - it was oringinally a UK POW camp set up for the invasion that was slated to be closed until the Abu Ghraib fiasco. For most of these facilities, the prisoners weren't legally prisoners but detainees that were being held until they could be sent to the Iraqi civilian courts for trial or simply released based on intelligence. By '07 most detainees' families were actually receiving stipends from the US government for lost income. A shitty situation to be in, nonetheless.

            Most of the "bum city" pictures you see were from when the camp was re-opened around '05. By the time I arrived in '07 there were permanent structures in my compound - big caravans (sheds) with industrial-sized air conditioning. During Ramadan a few of our detainees were upset that we moved known insurgents to another compound...so they burned down their caravans (rubber bullets, tear gas and LRAD definitely did not stop them from pulling that off). They loved doing this when we would re-build the caravans after a big riot...but that time around, we decided that maybe they wanted tents after all.

    • by bky1701 (979071)
      "In compounds where certain idiots used the LRAD repeatedly, the detainees eventually learned to ignore it."

      Did you try Justin Bieber? Or would that be considered a war crime?
      • by Crash24 (808326)
        I can neither confirm nor deny that Justin Bieber was only in prototype form during the 2007 surge, and its use was a grey area in terms of the Geneva Conventions.
    • In compounds where certain idiots used the LRAD repeatedly, the detainees eventually learned to ignore it.

      Either that, or the detainees became deaf.

    • > In compounds where certain idiots used the LRAD repeatedly, the detainees eventually learned to ignore it.

      Luckily, the guards didn't have any justin bieber CD lying around, or mass suicide would have ensued.

    • by sa1lnr (669048)

      "that's so loud that you'll feel your bones rattle if it's pointed at you - even from a hundred meters away."

      Reminds me of a Motorhead gig I was working at.

  • Four Year Games (Score:5, Interesting)

    by future assassin (639396) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:47PM (#39979591) Homepage

    Athletes are considered corporate cattle with reduced rights.
    Viewers are considered potential terrorists with weapons aimed at them.

    People still watch/attend the Four Year Games because?

    • by bobstreo (1320787)

      No plans to watch any of it.

      And people watch them because the Hunger Games are not televised.

    • Athletes are considered corporate cattle with reduced rights.
      Viewers are considered potential terrorists with weapons aimed at them.

      People still watch/attend the Four Year Games because?

      Mandatory Happy Fun Time, citizen.

      Now get back in line before they start the collective punishment, and you get shivved in the showers.

  • I'm guessing (since I'm a /. user who thinks they're always right) that a £/$1 pair of ear plugs would thwart these 'guns'

    • Mostly yes. In fact I'm quite tempted to go and be a street ear-plug vendor. I get to make a point and a profit too!

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      Most $1 earplugs I could find were at most NRR 33 - they reduce sound by 33 decibels, which in this case would still be 120dB - on the threshold of immediate hearing damage.

      It would be smart to also grab some $15 earmuffs (also NRR 30), bringing the noise down to 90dB or so - comparable to highway traffic.

      • My personal experience with combining earplugs and things vaguely similar to earmuffs is that the effect didn't seem to stack. I put the earplugs in first, then the earmuffs, and there was no difference between having the earmuffs on and off as far as mitigating the noise of people talking. I do have to wonder if >33dB is considered a normal talking volume for an indoor environment, or if perhaps the rest is just conducting through my skull.
        • I was wondering about the hearing through skull/jaw as well... but I wonder if the method of hearing damage is different for sounds not through the ear canal... I mean if you have -30db ear plugs, will the remaining 120db still cause the same damage?

  • The Olympics was supposed to be an event promoting amateur sports competition to solidify friendship and peace between nations.

    Now we have:

    1. Increasingly, highly paid professional athletes, not amateurs; and even the "amateurs" are often exceptionally well-funded and de-facto full-time athletes.

    2. National pride of the host nation, where the Olympics is supposed to show off their greatness at least as much as promote any sort of friendship between nations (admittedly, this is an old trend, at least dating back to the 1936 Berlin Olympics).

    3. Extensive commercialization of the entire event, with whole shady networks of construction/sponsorship/etc. deals, even extending to weird brand-exclusivity rules that would make it illegal for you to wear a shirt with the wrong logo.

    4. Extensive security procedures and apparatus, which makes the event as a promotion of international friendship and peace fall a bit flat... peace under the watch of heavily militarized police is a pretty empty kind of peace.

    • Absolutely. The sole argument for hosting it is that it is supposed to boost the economy of the host nation in some hard to define way.

      As things are in the world right now, I'm pretty sure it's going to cost Britain a hell of a lot more than any boost in the economy.

      I remember when Ireland won the Eurovision song contest about 3 times. They were hoping to lose by the end of it because the cost of hosting it was crippling them.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @01:40PM (#39980023) Journal

      The Olympics are a vile joke, they always have been and always will be. Didn't the nazi's hosting it? It simply going on after Munich because not a single jock wanted to give up their chance at a bit of fame? The boycots by the USSR and the USA in turn show this clearly already?

      It is only held so the rich can show off on tax-payers money they don't pay any of themselves while bankrupting a nation. Not a single event has actually helped the economy. Goes for all such events. For god sakes, the South African Soccer laugh off had the hookers hoping for extra profits. THINK about it, the average WHITE soccer fan, is he looking for a BLACK hooker? Not all soccer fans as racist hooligans you say? Indeed, so you are saying that there are nice respectable soccer fans... going to hookers?

      Brits will be paying the price for this rich men show off for decades, just as all the other nations before and new nations are lining up to pay for work shy rich boy athletes to show how they fail in modern society. Nobody without free money can afford to take part and the sports are all the sports nobody cares about. Really, stick throwing? How wonderful.

      The simplest proof how unwanted the olympics are is to ban all subsidy. Let the origanisers build their own buildings, pay rent to the nation it is hosted in, pay for their own security etc etc. They couldn't even hold it for one hour on a commercial basis. So instead it is a tax payers event for the rich while the poor have to evicted from their houses and put up with months of congestion, construction and invasion of privacy and reduction of liberty.

      Nice.

    • by Freultwah (739055) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @01:46PM (#39980081) Homepage

      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.

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        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.

        Because it was a gathering place for the upper crust of all nations to rub elbows with each other back when travel was difficult and communications slow. They actually got to see each other and start off conversations with a known mutual topic (the sport they entered).

  • Wow! (Score:5, Informative)

    by gman003 (1693318) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:51PM (#39979627)

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sometimes the security people are the terrorists, spreading threats they make up to justify their own existing.
      • I'm more afraid of my government than I am of Al Quaeda.

        I know the government can fuck with me, because for the last two years of a five-year term, they have been fucking with me and everyone else. And they show no signs of slowing. The true destroyers of Britain are the Tories and their LibDem enablers, not some remote dark-skinned jihadists who, statistically, pose less danger than a traffic accident.

        • by Cederic (9623)

          As opposed to the previous decade of being fucked with?

          Don't blame the conservatives or the lib dems any more than labour. After all, who put through RIPA, who introduced trials with no juries, who supported extraordinary rendition, who made it fucking illegal to own a map.

          (yeah, you can be arrested and jailed for owning a map these days. you just have to be asian, muslim, vocal and/or stood in the wrong place)

          • Nope, not 'as opposed to' the previous government. In addition to.

            I only mentioned the current one because they're the ones with power at the time of writing. If Labour get in after that, there will be more fucking with people, their rights and freedoms and well being.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xstonedogx (814876)

      How in the world does that count as a "win" for terrorists? The terrorists aren't winning anything. We haven't left their countries alone or changed our "evil ways" and adopted Sharia Law. Only Western authoritarians are winning.

      A crowd dispersal weapon has absolutely nothing to do with stopping a terrorist. Why would you even think that?

      • by 1s44c (552956)

        How in the world does that count as a "win" for terrorists? The terrorists aren't winning anything. We haven't left their countries alone or changed our "evil ways" and adopted Sharia Law. Only Western authoritarians are winning.

        A crowd dispersal weapon has absolutely nothing to do with stopping a terrorist. Why would you even think that?

        If you define terrorists to mean people who cause terror and define terror as the emotion of strong fear then yes, the terrorists have won and they are the western governments. I think you are using terrorist to mean muslems, people from the middle east, or something like that.

        A crown dispersal weapon doesn't stop terrorists, it prevents crowd of people openly opposing terrorists.

        • by artor3 (1344997)

          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.

          • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)

            by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @03:52PM (#39980955)

            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

            • He's not referring to terrorists. He's referring to a specific group of terrorists (e.g. "the terrorists"). He also differentiated that group from "security forces" (i.e. the forces of Western governments).

              If you know of another group besides Muslim extremists who have been used by "security forces" as a scapegoat for authoritarian leanings, that's fine. It can't be the IRA though, because, as you noted, the government didn't respond to them in this manner. I'll leave it to the OP to clarify to which terror

            • I agree with your sentiment generally, but this part is completely wrong:

              "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."

              Resorting to police state tactics and militarizing the police is exactly what they did in Northern Ireland I'm the 70s and 80s. I know because I grew up there. What is happening in England now is merely the chickens coming home to roost.

    • by artor3 (1344997)

      The terrorists aren't winning. They're dieing every day in the mountains of the middle east, suffering from severe PTSD thanks to the terror of drones patrolling the skies, and have accomplished nothing like their actual goals. Oh, wait, you don't actually think "they hate our freedom", do you? The terrorist leaders just want power, and they've gotten none of that. The terrorist lackeys want a glorious stuggle, and they've gotten none of that. Of course, their loss doesn't count as our win.

      Nobody's win

      • by rubycodez (864176)
        You've been duped by the media. The people that are dying in afghanistan are NOT the "taliban" who hosted Al Qaeda, they left long ago. we're killing innocents and other "taliban" groups who did not attack us, and also labelling as "taliban" any disgruntled afghan sick of foreign invaders who fights back. also, we're negotiating with various "taliban" right now because we won't "win". And we invaded Iraq, where Al Qaeda wasn't, and turned it into a recruiting ground for them and other terrorist groups
  • Fort London: The Olympics.

    I wonder if the sonic weaponry and SAMs get stood down after the Olympics. My guess is, they don't...
  • I guess they're trying to prevent the outbreak of that ridiculous Olympic Games series featuring a certain blue hedgehog.

    Jokes aside, this is a good bit paranoid. At a certain point comes "too cautious" and this has probably reached that point. The balance of enjoyment vs safety is not safe in a world, nay, a country that has more countermeasures for a worldwide event than you can shake a stick at. Oh wait, they took my stick too. Darn it!

  • Don't know if it's the same exact device but we had these sonic emitters on a Maersk ship I sailed on. Had them mounted up on the bridge wings like spotlights. Awesome with some AC/DC playing through them.
  • by mark-t (151149) <[markt] [at] [lynx.bc.ca]> on Saturday May 12, 2012 @01:32PM (#39979957) Journal

    Is torture being declared legal now in the UK? Because that's what this is.

    Sustained noise levels this loud will cause completely irreversible hearing damage, and the damage will only worsen with each passing second that the noise level is sustained. Even the loudest that rock concerts get is generally at about 120db or so (which even that can also problematic for sustained periods). I respect that they are trying to keep the peace here, but at what cost?

    • Not trying to defend the use of these weapons...

      Just pointing out that the 150dB figure is at one meter rather than the recipient's position (and obviously the sound falls off according to inverse square law).

      The 120dB quoted rock concert figure would be the amplitude at the listener's position.
  • Somali pirates probably grew up in a relatively quiet environment with no amplified music louder than a boom box; the chattering of an AK-47 their loudest percussion. European and American troublemakers grew up with rock and rap concerts with massive amplifiers all turned up to 11, parties with the loudest amps technology can offer, personal music devices with headphones set so loud they could deafen the person next to them.

    A loud noise like this will not stop them. Unless, perhaps, they can figure a way

    • An AK (in your hands) is louder then any rock concert. If you play your music that loud you are deaf already.

  • . . . mine can disperse the crowd dispersers, because it goes up to 11.

  • ... what they are doing now when Olympics involve aircraft carriers, SAMs on rooftops and sonic guns. Me, I stopped giving sh..t about these natinal dick contests by IOC long time ago.

  • Welcome to the Olympics... May the odds be ever in your favor!

  • Pointing automatic weapons at the public, black clad, imperial stormtroopers (jack booted thugs), black helicopters, gunboats, hovercraft! Fighter jets, rooftop phalanx anti-missile/anti-aircraft guns potentially firing tens of thousands of depleted uranium rounds into London, Bradly fighting vehicles (or equiv).

    All this TERROR just in case some roaring nutjob wants to try some bad shit!

    I don't know which is worse, well maybe I do!

  • Eh... nothing I haven't heard at a Chemical Brothers concert.
  • Some other country invented them first, they called it "Vuvuzela"

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...