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."

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:

[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.

[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:

[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

Re:

[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 [bbc.co.uk] from 2001 about plastic bullet use, which reports that at that time 17 people had been killed by them.

Re:

[cjb658]

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

Uh oh, that means..

[somersault]

the Chinese have stolen Country and Western!

Re:

[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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[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..

[hcdejong]

I'm actually Scottish

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

Re:

[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:

[somersault]

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

Free Tibet!!

[QuantumG]

While stocks last.

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:

[Bloodoflethe]

Freedom toast, mister!

Re:

[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?

[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:

[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:

[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

Re:

[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:

[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 [wikipedia.org] which is merely a method to simulate the fe

Re:

[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:

[theheadlessrabbit]

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

Re:

[Kingrames]

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

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:

[JordanL]

Alot of Germans were content with the Third Riech... a bit of perspective perhaps.

Re:

[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:

[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

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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 mi

Re:

[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:

[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 bla

Re:

[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 footno

Re:

[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:

[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 thi

Re:

[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.

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:

[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 s

Re:

[dwater]

China has a very effective ability to stifle dissent -- Tiananmen square is an excellent example.

How, exactly, is that an excellent example?

Re:

[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 gov

Re:

[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:

[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?

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:

[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:

[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:

[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!

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

[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.

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:

[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??

Kate Bush knew about this years ago

[LWATCDR]

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

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 machin

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:

[3waygeek]

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

Been doin' this already

[Ihmhi]

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

Omission?

[sethstorm]

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

My own name is a killing word

[Repton]

Will they call them Weirding Modules?

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.

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.

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.

Re:

[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 [nytimes.com]

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

"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:

[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 [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:

[geekoid]

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

Re:

[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.

Non-lethal != Harmless

[flaming error]

I say sell Beijing whatever it wants

Indeed. We're just amoral suppliers meeting a demand [wordpress.com].

Re:

[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

Re:

[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

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:

[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 [wikipedia.org]

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

Re:

[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."

Re:

[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

Re:

[hyades1]

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

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 [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?

[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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound can kill.

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

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?

[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:

[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:

[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/hun

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:

[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?

[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.

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 comm

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:

[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

Re:

[LaskoVortex]

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

I get it and I resemble that remark.

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

[the_bard17]

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

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

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

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:

[KDR_11k]

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

Or what the RIAA will do...