strap on the tinfoil hat...to protect yourself from the "sound gun"!

[uncle ray]

http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=209594&in_page_id=2

a little something i came across just now, don't know about the source myself...but its the first i've seen saying that we GOT this stuff and are using it.

Marines' weapon loaded with 'scream'
by WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US troops are to be armed with a stun gun that uses a baby's high-pitched scream to bring the enemy to its knees. The gun, which will be issued to marines in Iraq this month, fires "sonic bullets" that can be targeted like a torch beam. Anyone hit with a full blast would suffer excruciating pain, permanent deafness and some form of cellular damage. A prolonged blast could kill. The "Secret Scream" gun as it is called, could revolutionise the way US troops deal with snipers, suicide bombers and riots in the turmoil of post-war Iraq. The actual sound used is a recording of a baby's scream played backwards. "For most people, even if they plug their ears, it will produce the equivalent of an instant migraine," said Woody Norris, chairman of American Technology Corporation, the Californian company that has produced the weapon. "It will knock some people to their knees."

Near human pain threshold


While the sound gun will normally be fired at just 110 decibels - a level that causes the human skull to vibrate - it can travel as far as 300 yards at 145 decibels. The human threshold of pain is usually between 120 and 130 decibels. Pentagon sources said it would be used in Iraq as an alternative to bullets to break up riots or protests, to stop suspects approaching check points and force snipers from buildings or caves. The manufacturer tested the gun on volunteers last month. No one could stand a 110 decibel blast for more than a few seconds. Previous attempts to use acoustic weapons have failed because the sound travelled in every direction, affecting the operator as well as the enemy.

Individuals can be targeted


But the Secret Scream's ultrasound wave allows the operator to target one or two key individuals in a crowd. "Tear gas lingers long after you've fired the canisters. This, you switch it off and it's gone," Mr Norris said. The weapon consists of two parts, a megaphone the size of a commercial satellite dish mounted on an armoured vehicle, and a computerised operating system that aims and controls the sound waves. There is a smaller version that can be held in the hand, similar to the soundwave gun used by Tom Cruise in the movie Minority Report. The Secret Scream sends out two ultrasonic waves at different frequencies. Each set of waves is too high to hear, but they generate audible sound when they overlap. The effect is called "acoustical heterodyning".

Secret Pentagon research

A secret division in the Pentagon has been financing research on futuristic weapons for more than 15 years. This is the first to go into operation. Retired US marine Colonel Peter Dotto, a weapons consultant, said the gun would be "terrific for repelling suicide bombers and for rousting terrorists from their hideouts". "Because the sound ricochets in tight, enclosed areas, it would make it very uncomfortable for Al Qaeda terrorists to stay in caves," he said. "They would have to come out, and they probably would come out with their hands over their ears."

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Yeah, we went over this a couple days ago.

It was one of those deadend discussions where we ended up with people screaming that we needed to get out of Iraq now. Others calmly trying to explain that doing so would be a violation of International Law.

Ah, well. Logic and reason beaten out by hysteria and foolishness yet again.

[slackmaster]

2. The people screaming we need to get out of Iraq now were right

:argh:

[DarkPhenyx]

4. No, they weren't.

Bush breaking IL to get us into Iraq does not justify our doing the same thing to get out. Saying anything else is shortsighted, immoral and hypocritical.

[Desertrose]

5. Yes- they were right...

I am amazed at folks saying we can't get out....

Yes we made a horrible mess of it...and they sure as hell ARE NOT better off than before we came in...

When we say get out...it does NOT mean fold up our tents, take our guns & go home...it means a responsible withdrawal . I see no signs of either bush or the dems wanting to shut this war down, clean up the mess and go home any time soon.

This weapon makes the point that this whole war is shortsighted, immoral and hypocritical.

and FYI..if they use it on the "brownskinned folks" what makes you think they won't use it on us?

It's a sad day when people don't see how low we've fallen.....bullets are bad enough...but using a babys sound against humans is very sick people.

Peace...the only way
DR

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Oh for crying out loud.

I can already see this is going to devolve again.

Please explain to me how our pulling out of Iraq now that we have screwed it up, leaving it with a broken economy and no viable government, is going to be a good thing?

[MadHound]

17. Well of course it will devolve

Just like a self fulfilling prophecy, especially when you set it up with your first post. What else did you expect?:eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

19. I expect people to think logically.

Respond rationally. Stop acting like the opposition and be better than they are. I am frequently disappointed however.

[MadHound]

20. And like it was truly logical thinking on your part

To be the first responder to a thread, bitching and moaning about a previous thread most of us hadn't heard of nor participated in. Really logical thinking there friend.

Like I said earlier, self fulfilling prophecy. Apparently you wanted it, now you've got it. Why are you complaining?

[DarkPhenyx]

24. *soft chuckle*

OK, point taken. However this subject, like threads on ELF and PETA, have a given end point. Sadly things don't change. Logic and rational discorse are swamped by people who want to scream louder and use rhetoric and hyperbole to push their view forward. Yes, it's cynical on my part. Ah, well. Cynicism is one of my few true flaws.

Who's complaining?

[redqueen]

34. You

You're complaining.
:crazy:

[DarkPhenyx]

36. I am?

Where?

[G_j]

31. does Vietnam ring a bell?

the UN needs to take control NOW!! I don't care how much begging it takes, or if Bush has to don ashes and sackcloth and get on his knees and apologize to the world. Of course he won't. but it is the ONLY right thing to do.

I'll say it again "Vietnam",
Things are spiraling downward fast.

[DarkPhenyx]

37. Yes they are.

What's your point? The UN isn't a magic bullet. Things are going to continue to be bad there. Even creating a viable Iraqi government isn't goihng to fix things. All it is going to do is allow us to wash our hands of it.

[G_j]

40. my point is

contued US occupation can only make things worse. The resentment is directed specifically at the US and grows daily.

[DarkPhenyx]

41. And pulling out completely...

...will leave a destabalized country behind which will make things worse as well. Until we can get the UN to come in and clean up after us, which will still require American troops on the ground in Iraq, we are stuck carrying it all ourselves.

Or am I wrong?

[Desertrose]

22. Where did I say to leave it that way?

and why must "fixing things" entail more troops & more weapons??

we have to drastically change the focus...we are still the occupying force, whether you choose to see it that way or not, Phe, doesn't matter. The Iraqis see it that way.
Far as I'm concerned this conversation has not devolved from my side- it is a discussion ... because I disagree with you you choose to paint me as having no logic or common sense...well, thanks a lot. But again because you state that , doesn't make that true either.

Can the US alone, change the focus from occupier to rebuilder...or do we need to get some help with this. I never said pull out & let em fend for themselves (neither has Kucinich for that matter) so please don't put words in my mouth.

But we do need to get out of there....
Peace
DR

[DarkPhenyx]

25. I know we are the occupying force.

That is part and parcel of why we are obligated to fix things before we leave. Yes the Iraqis see it taht way too. And they choose to shoot at us and kill our and their own people. This is why it requires more waepons and troops.

Absolutely we need to get out of there. However till we can leave the country in a stable situation, and no I am not saying that we are on the road to doong that yet, but until we can then we are obligated to stay there. As long as we are there we are obligated to defend out people as best as we can w/o killing innocent people in the process.

Now. Taking reality into consideration, and not how we wish things were, give me a better solution. If we had things the way we wanted we wouldn't be there to begin with, correct? We are there though. How do we clean this up w/o making it worse for everyone?

here's your chance to save the world. Take it.

[Desertrose]

30. honey, its not my job to save the world

nor respond to your snarky post...

But I will say this...we will never solve anything with more weapons...unless we kill everyone there...we will never be able to come to any kind of agreement as long as the US controls things. AS long as we play conqueror & and seek to control a conquered people there will never be a real peace, there will be zero progress towards it. AS long as the US wants to control the money & oil- forget it. We will continue to be hated and attacked. I believe this is called a standoff. Someone has to make a move towards peace...towards talks and fairness... and obviously it has to be the one with the power....

How do we clean this up w/o making it worse for everyone?
We resolve this by pulling US interests out ...we have not approached the UN with any new plan other than by agreeing to "our" terms...we have not made any serious attempts because this war is obviously about money & power. We (our corporate gov't) doesn't give a rats ass about those people or its own people, (bottomline is the almighty dollar) therefore...they don't really care how they are perceived (by the ones they want to control) or who & how many get killed. The fact that so many Americans buy into this terrorism threat & "oh my god, those poor people need the good ol USA to hold their country to gether" is just f**king sad IMO...and mistaken.

Your attitude seems to be very common...you tell us to read up on the Geneva convention...I suggest you read between the lines of corporate gov't news speak and see beyond the "military might is the only way" crap.

Peace
DR

[DarkPhenyx]

32. The first part of your post while absolutely true...

...dosen't have a lot to do with how we fix Iraq and get out of there. It's great for future issues, but it's too late for it now.

As for part two: Well, duh. I'm glad we all agree on what this war aws really about. This still dosne't deal with how we fix things in Iraq now and get out of this situation. Great food for thought, but not horribly applicable to now.

Yes, we need the UN in there. I've already said that. But the UN is going to do what? They are going to put more troops and more guns into Iraq.

Now. Please point out where I said military might was the only way?

[Desertrose]

33. uhhm...right here.....

"Now. Please point out where I said military might was the only way?

DUH
"And they choose to shoot at us and kill our and their own people. This is why it requires more waepons and troops."


All your posts have been why we can't pull troops out...you state it in just about every post and when someone offers up another idea, it appears to fall on deaf ears.

I would imagine that just knowing that the US was pulling back & being replaced with UN peacekeepers/forces and that talks would be progressing would certainly scale down the violence & tempers to allow for minds and reason to have a bit more say than emotional reactions.

There has to be a beginning and it won't be easy and probably won't be too pretty but someone has to take the first step....and then another and another until trust is established. You do not establish a lot of trust with troops and weapons and treats. Look at what is going on there now. No, what we are currently doing is NOT WORKING....I'm sorry- logic does not dictate to continue doing what is clearly not working, does it?

Pece
DR

[DarkPhenyx]

35. No...that would be why we need more trrops.

Nowhere do I say that military might is the only way.

Yes, I am saying we can't simply pull our troops out. The problems doing that would cause far outweigh what we have going on now. Long term vision, not short term results.

Yes, the UN presence in Afganistan is certainly fixing that problem nicely. Even the UN going into Iraq isn't a perfect fix. I seriously doubt the violence would stop. We do remember that they blew up the UN HQ in Iraq, right? People will still die. The handover to an Iraqi government won't happen any faster. The only thinkg it will accomplish is lessening our presence in the country. It won't eliminate it though. We will still have troops there.

[Dhalgren]

6. You mean occupying another country against their will,

just because we know what's best for them? I would say that if the citizens of Iraq want us out of their country, we should leave. If conquering a country is against IL and occupying it against the will of the citizens is against IL, I'm not sure how leaving when asked would be so horribly wrong. But then I don't like being part of an Empire, evidently others do.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. Go and read the Geneva Convention.

Till you do you aren't going to understand.

[MadHound]

12. So we should do like we did in Vietnam

Stay in a situation where we aren't wanted for years and decades, while both side commit atrocities against each other, sucking up lives and money like a vacumn cleaner on steroids, until we are finally, reluctantly forced out by the sway of public opinion, leaving the formerly occupied country a gutted shell full of dead innocents, and not spending a cent to help our former enemy recover. Is this what you are proposing? Sorry, been there, done that, hoping that our "leaders" would learn the lessons of history, but nothing like that corporate cash from the military industrial complex to blind one to the homicidal insanity you are perputrating upon the world.

Geneva convention or not, we should smoothly, responsibly transition ourselves out and the UN in. It is the only way that Iraq will recover. The longer we occupy the country, the longer it stays a deadly quagmire. If this means that we have to crawl to the UN begging for assistance, so be it. If this means that we have to pick up the entire tab for peacekeeping after we're gone, so be it. But for the sake of Iraq, the world, and ourselves, we need to get the hell out of Iraq NOW.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. No, that isn't waht I have been saying.

Don't be intentionally daft.

The UN dosen't want in, the Bush Admin dosen't want them in. Even transitiong us out would take time and is not a "get us out now" solution.

Inflamitory rhetoric and hyperbole isn't going to help Iraq either. Nor will it help the discussion.

[MadHound]

16. Not being intentionally daft,

Nor resorting to inflamatory rhetoric and hyperbole. I'm just explaining how the situation is going down. Once again we're at war with a people who we don't understand and don't want to. We have forcefully occupied a country that doesn't want us there, and will fight us tooth and nail to dislodge us. Sure, they are using primitive weapons now, crude bombs, old mortars. But that is a hell of a lot further ahead than the Vietnamese were, who started out their fight to get rid of us using muzzle loaders and punji sticks smeared with shit. We, as the occupying conquering nation, will never ever be able to bring long lasting peace or stability to Iraq. Look at your lessons of Vietnam. Hell, look at the last great imperial power, Britain. They were able to conquer vast territories, yet in the end, were unable to hold on to any, and bankrupted themselves in the process. Don't you get it? If the citizens of Iraq don't want us there, sooner or later we're going to leave. And when we leave the chaos we've created, even further chaos will be unleashed. Nation building by the conquering Imperial army is a policy that has failed time and again. Learn from your history, or be doomed to repeat it.

And a good part of the reason the UN doesn't want in is because of how callously the Bush administration brushed them off. If Kerry gets in, and apoligized to the UN for our treatment of it, along with forking over the money to fund the peacekeeping forces, the UN would go in. And the sooner Iraq would be back on it's feet. But hey, Kerry is already committing himself to a kinder, gentler war, just so he doesn't get accused of being soft on terror and looking like a wimp on defense. In other words this is going to be another Dem-'Pug pissing contest ala Vietnam, meanwhile the world burns and our country goes bankrupt from military expenditures. Oh, not to mention the increasing the threat of real terrorist attacks as we continously piss off at least one third of the worlds population.

So what, should we wait until there is 58,000 troops dead like in Vietnam, with millions of Iraqi casualties? Should we wait until we spend billions upon billions of dollars on a quagmire without end? Shall we wait for years and decades until the American public is outraged enough to force us out of Iraq? No, we should do the right thing, the moral and responsible thing. We should transition out and let the UN transition in. That way Iraq will not be occupied, and can quickly go about the business of rebuilding. Because no matter how much the Dems and 'Pugs bluster and brag and talk about nation building, not a damn thing is going to be able to get done until US forces are out of there. That my friend is the reality of the Iraq situation. Deny it at your peril.

[DarkPhenyx]

18. yes, of course.

we wait for exactly that. :roll:

Black and white thinking. You assume there is no middle ground. We either pull out immediately or we are there forever and lose tens of thousands of soldiers. Your oposition thnks in black and white too.

Unfortunately reality is grey.

[MadHound]

23. So, do you deny the historical reality of what I'm talking about?

Do you deny that the Dems and 'Pugs are setting themselves up for a multiyear pissing contest over an illegal and immoral invasion? Do you deny that Kerry is rattling the saber in order not to appear wimpish? And just how long do you think we will be in Iraq? Kerry is already promising another forty thousand troops to be thrown into the fray, with no end game being talked about. Hell, and we all know what Bush is thinking and doing.

Don't try and be cute with your "black and white" quips. Doesn't fly my friend. If you can't respond to the obvious situation that we have in Iraq with any more that ad hominem attacks and cute quips, then all you are doing is showing up the intellectual and moral void that your position entails. Perhaps you need to do a little more reasearch, and learn some things.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. If you can't see the situation is far too complex...

...then prehaps you need to quit commenting on world politics and go back to watching TV where all problems are solved in 1/2 an hour and everyone is happy.

I said before we went in that we would be there for years. That's because I know how complex the situation is.

Nice little quip there yourself about my being ignorant, immoral and uninformed simply because I disagree with you. Nice touch. Real cute.

[MadHound]

27. Ahh, no answers, just more pretentions

About what I thought. Defending the indefensible is not a position that I would wish to be in either.

And yes, the situation is complex, that is another reason we need to get out. Using the US military for nation building is like using a hammer for surgery, a lot of things will get smashed for no good reason.

But hey, who am I to deny your right to not learn from history. However I hope that the people who are in a position to actually do something aren't as equally good at burying their head in the sand. Unfortunately, I think that my hopes will be dashed, and we all to have to take remedial history, yet again:eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

28. What Kerry and Bush are doing...

...has precious little to do with what is the right thing to be doing. What we are obligated to be doing under IL. That's the flaw in the "we must get out now" logic. We can't. Doing so is worse than staying. You don't see it that way, fine. BUt insulting me simply because I don't agree? That's just plain childish.

Oh yes...I don't learn from history. Yet another jab that does nothing at all, and answers no questiuons.

[uncle ray]

9. ah, i was on vacation and no where near a computer

and not priviledged enough to search...

[DarkPhenyx]

11. No worries.

Simply mentioning the probable route this thread will take again.

[uncle ray]

14. probably only probable because you mentioned the probability.

.

[DarkPhenyx]

15. no, because someone would have brought up...

..."how inhumane we need to get out of Iraq now" and I would have had to point out the flawed logic of that position.

[bryant69]

3. Obviously the first priority

should be to figure out ways not to have to use weapons. Find ways to make peace.

But in situations where that's not likely, I guess it's better to use non-lethal weapons.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[KittyWampus]

8. I Have Predicted The Emergence of Sound Based Technologies

and frankly, given the low evolutionary level of those in power, this is what scares me more than Nuclear weaponry.

[NoPasaran]

21. Already deployed in this country

Rush et al

[Viking12]

29. I wouldn't be surprised if this shows up

I wouldn't be surprised if this shows up in a "Free Speech Zone" in a town near you. Thug cops are always looking for "non-lethal" means to supress speech, er, I mean control crowds.

[G_j]

38. was this it?

picture taken at the FTAA protests in Miami,

[DrWeird]

39. I'll believe it when I hear it.

A few years ago it was the microwave gun, that caused excrutiating pain but left no damage. It was supposed to be ideal for non violent protests.

Then it was the space based holographic laser. Which was supposed to project an enormous image of the face of God in the upper atmosphere. Coupled with a laser that targetted the suspects ears to create the illusion of sound, this illusion of God was then supposed to trick the pious yet stupid islamists into dropping their guns and falling to their knees.

And then there's the millions of dollars we spent on researching psychic warfare.