SciTech

If Your Noise Is Loud Enough To Make Me Deaf, Is It A Weapon Or A Warning?

MayorBob.

Posted to SciTech on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:14:41 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Although the US and China are major trading partners, there is one sort of commerce officially forbidden. Anything appearing on the State Department's US Munitions List is considered a no-no, and has been ever since the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989. But, virtually anything else made in this country can be exported to China. But, what happens when something not technically considered a weapon which is okayed for sale to China might be put to questionable uses? Does the US government say, "nope it's still not a weapon, so go ahead and sell more of them." Or does the US reclassify the item and shut off a potentially lucrative market for American companies? Such is the case of the case of the Sonic Blaster.

San Diego-based American Technology Corporation (ACT) manufactures the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). Developed in the wake of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, the LRAD is considered a "warning device." It's stated purpose is "to hail, notify, and warn approaching vessels at extended ranges with clear voice or prerecorded messages in almost any language." It does this by generating a 150 decibel (anything above 140 decibels can result in permanent damage) sound signal at designated targets. ACT had the LRAD on display at a trade exposition in Beijing last month. The company is not offering any information on the numbers (if any) sold to the Chinese but, in a filing with the Security and Exchange Commission, ACT said that, going back to Fiscal Year 2007 "we expanded our international marketing activities and shipped LRAD orders to Australia, Singapore, Korea and China."

Now, with the Olympics just a few months away, the US Commerce Department is conducting a review of the LRAD and a few other non-lethal security devices. The biggest concern is that the Chinese government might turn an LRAD on a peaceful group of protestors while the world watches to see the painful effect of good old, made-in-the-USA technology. It would be too late to do anything about the LRADs already in Chinese government hands, but a quick modification to the Munitions List and voila the Chinese market has just dried up for ACT. You might ask would an LRAD be used in such a fashion to cause pain and injury. You'll likely not get an answer from Chinese State Police. But the device was used by Georgian police to disperse a crowd in Tblisi last year. And it was used to repel pirates from a cruise ship off the coast of Somalia in 2005.

Thus, we have evidence of the good use (anti-piracy) and the questionable use (crowd dispersal) of the device. Because the LRAD emits a warning blast of sound, a spokesperson for ACT prefers to describe it as a "communications system" designed to "influence behavior and determine intent." German physicist Dr. Jόrgen Altmann says it's "a gray area" in that when it's used for crowd control, it easily qualifies as a weapon. Theresa Harris of the World Organization for Human Rights USA believes the gray area is just dark enough to ban sales of items like LRADs to China:

"The US Government is obligated under international law and federal statutes to prevent US companies from exporting the tools of torture to police and security agencies that have a documented record of human rights violations."

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, non-lethal weapons, crowd control, warning devices, international trade, China, Beijing Olympics (all tags)

This story: 5 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: If Your Noise Is Loud Enough To Make Me Deaf,

skeeter1.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:58:13 PM EST

none

Haven't we all been doing that for years?

http://www.falconsafety.com/signalHorns/Default.aspx/

I always carried one on my boat when I had it.  I have no idea how many DBs there were, but it had to be a lot.  This is nothing new.

there's only one way to find out...

2

^ 1

Re: If Your Noise Is Loud Enough To Make Me Deaf,

WMK.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST

5.00 (astute, brilliant, brilliant)

Are you saying that you think the horn & can of compressed air you keep on your boat is comparable to the LRAD?

OK....valid part of the comparison = they both make loud noise - if one went off close to your head it would be painful to your ears.

Invalid part of the comparison = Air Horn and LRAD deliver comparable amounts of sound energy into a target area (peoples heads/eardrums) over a comparable range - they differ in degree and power to the extent that the comparison of 'they both make loud noise' is facile enough to suggest making such a comparison is at best naive and lazy and at worst a disingenuous attempt to dismiss LRAD as being 'no big deal'.

The problem with adopting an attitude of 'no big deal' towards non-lethal weaponry is that these things often wind up being used as tools for oppression in the hands of governments - or worse they become a means for poorly trained and sadistic police forces to use excessive 'non-lethal' force that winds up permanently injuring/killing their victims (see the explosion of taser use and taser related injury) .  If LRAD were merely a loudspeaker then why are police, navy, and military units adopting it around the world?  Loudspeakers have existed for a very long time and that technology has served its purpose well - to 'address' people at a distance.  I can see the utility of a longer range loudspeaker for naval applications since communicating at ranges of several hundred meters has safety advantages for ships.  Mounting an LRAD on a Humvee and rolling it up to a crowd of people at ranges less than 100 meters then turning on the 151 DB pulsed 'warning'  signal has what effect on people in the area & range of maximal effect?  I seriously dread imagining the live animal testing that must have been part of the development of this not-a-weapons-system just as I dread the idea that this alternative to the water cannon & tear gas & rubber bullets & all the other so called 'non-lethal' tools used to crush people who disagree with power will be made deaf by this device - and the official PR line of the authorities will be to praise the officers who used it on crowds as being 'humane'.

Do you want your local police department to have these systems, classified as loud speakers and not 'non-lethal weapons' - with similar regulations/guidelines for their use against 'the public' and similar consequences (usually none) for those policemen who use these systems against the public?

I don't think it is humane, or not-a-weapon, and the US manufacturer should have their PR people locked and loaded with all the lies and spin they plan to use when domestic or foreign police forces use these things against 'protesters' causing mass permanent injury.  The executives had also better stash as much cash as they can in Swiss bank accounts, buy a house in Dubai, and be ready to skedaddle out of the USA once the first wave of lawsuits starts crashing against their house of business.  How do you think a jury will view a roomful of deafened schoolteachers, shop clerks, students, bystanders and other 'ordinary' people whose only crime was to assemble to voice their disagreement with authority?

Maybe the people injured will find no relief in court. Maybe the power of authority will extend a rigid middle finger to anyone victimized by state brutality. Maybe the cops, their sympathizers, and those who protect the rights of the privileged to ignore the discontent of the oppressed will be so thankful for a truly effective crowd control technology that they will hungrily envision a future where protests and marches are a thing of the past = problem solved, right?    

When the state can crush all public resistance, any expression of discontent, what comes next?  Is it utopia? - somehow I don't think so.  Rather than provide leadership in addressing and effective solutions/mitigation of the causes for public discontent we see governments add newer and more effective methods for coercion against 'the people' - this only seems to move the 'line' in society that divides revolution (game over) versus being able to hold on to power in favor of the elite.

I beg to differ Skeeter1, this is something new.

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

3

^ 2

Humvee hell!

Lou.

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST

none

Mounting an LRAD on a Humvee

While looking up stuff about the LRAD, I came across an Alex Jones video discussing just such a thing.  Now, I admit, that some think that Jones is kind of head-casey but I was taken aback when part of the video showed an LRAD on not only a humvee police vehicle, but also on one of those Cushman-type utility vehicles that police use for traffic enforcement.  If we have reached the point where the good men and women who pass out parking tickets have access to this kind of crowd control then truly the battle for liberty is lost.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

4

^ 3

Re: Humvee hell!

thefadd.

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:50:01 AM EST

none

When protesting makes you deaf, only the deaf will protest.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

5

^ 3

Re: Humvee hell!

HidingFromGoro.

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:28:36 PM EST

none

If we have reached the point where the good men and women who pass out parking tickets have access to this kind of crowd control then truly the battle for liberty is lost.

It was lost when the use of chemical sprays and ECD's (i.e. Tasers and stun shields) became almost totally unregulated; and their use completely outside their originally intended purpose became widespread, nearly unnoticed, and with approval from the courts.  I think that- even more than the acceptance by the public and the courts of no-knock warrants and the use of SWAT in non-hostage calls (and now, about 95% non-violent calls, mostly warrant service)- was when it was lost.

On second thought I'll save the rest for the upcoming Taser story.

This story: 5 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment