[Sandwich]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1117851564499

Quoted text of the JP article (IIRC it can't be read in it's entirety from overseas):

IDF uses 'The Screamer' on protesters
After years of research and experimentation, the IDF on Friday finally employed its latest secret weapon: a non-lethal acoustic cannon it used to disperse violent demonstrators rioting against the construction of the security fence near Jerusalem.

Military sources confirmed soldiers used the sound gun, which emits a painful burst of sound at a special frequency making it uncomfortable for protesters to remain in the area.

The IDF used the new weapon on Friday to disperse hundreds of protesters at the village of Bil'in near Har Adar in the Jerusalem corridor. A soldier lost an eye when hit by a rock during the protest.

IDF sources said the decision to use the non-lethal acoustic cannon represented a significant turning point in dealing with demonstrations.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Saturday, an IDF officer confirmed that soldiers operated "the Screamer," a small white box attached to a jeep that transmits the high-pitched sound waves.

"In Bil'in, after the demonstrators had dispersed, dozens of Palestinian youths returned and began throwing stones at soldiers," the officer said.

The high-pitched "voice frequencies" it emits are not only hard on the ears, but can cause some to feel nausea, "a little like sea sickness," the officer said. He stressed that the army would only use it in violent demonstrations and when soldiers were positioned a safe distance from the protesters. "The last thing we want to do is harm the soldiers," he said.

The officer noted that the device was used in many countries to disperse violent demonstrations, and the army had come under criticism for failing to use it in such instances.

According to an Associated Press photographer who witnessed the incident, a military vehicle arrived toward the end of the demonstration, which lasted several hours.

Located about 400m. from the demonstration, the vehicle emitted several bursts of sounds, each about a minute long. Although the sounds were not loud, they caused people to cover their ears and grab their heads in discomfort.

A crowd of about 400 people, most of them Palestinians, but also including some foreign and Israeli activists, was attempting to disrupt the construction of the security fence.

The IDF Spokesman on Saturday issued a statement saying the new acoustic weapon "caused minimal injuries" to protesters while "dispersing them efficiently." The IDF has long tested various non-lethal weapon systems, but had always refrained from using them because there was too much uncertainty about injuries they could cause. One major barrier had been their effect on children who might fall into the path of the weapon.

For decades, armies and police forces around the world have been on a quest for a "politically correct" instrument that would stop demonstrators in their tracks without seriously harming them. Known as "non-lethal" or "less-than-lethal," these weapons aim to stun or disable enemies without killing them or causing them irreparable, long-term damage.

Ideas have included a large red light flashing at 7 hertz. According to those familiar with the idea, the light would send anyone gazing at it into a temporary epileptic fit.

Pentagon papers have described an acoustic gun that vibrates the insides of humans to a point where it would "liquefy their bowels and reduce them to quivering diarrheic messes." There were no reports of such effects during Friday's test.

Other near science-fiction weapons include microwave guns that raise people's temperatures, inducing flu-like symptoms, and vortex guns that shoot a doughnut-shaped shock wave that knocks people down as if they had been hit with a heavy blanket.

Just what Israel is developing on the non-lethal front is a heavily censored subject. The IDF Spokesman flatly turned down a request to discuss the matter. This is mainly because the weapons' effectiveness relies greatly on the element of surprise.

However, other ideas examined by the IDF include anti-traction lubricant, that makes surfaces far too slippery to drive or tread upon, and glue. The army is also reportedly looking to introduce stink bombs to prevent crowds from gathering.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8092340/

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050605/asp/foreign/story_4829192.asp

Let's try to leave the political potential out of this thread, ok? That's not the point.

[FireCrack]

Awesome, future stuff!

I liked the pant-****ter in the first article.

I had no problem reading the JP article, i'm located in vancouver, canada

[Fineus]

Non lethal sound? Sounds quite useful... certainly in the application you mentioned. I wonder though... about this simple counter-invention.

If memory serves me - producing a sound of an opposite wavelength will cancel out both sounds. If someone were to aquire the correct tech and do this with effect to this weapon - would it render it useless?

[Turnsky]

sounds like an advanced version of an hotted-up Subaru WRX with too many subwoofers to count... times ten

[Rson]

I know of a car alarm that uses very low noise that just makes it very uncomfortable to be near, I think it does something to the internal organs.  I also heard something of the military in the Cold War trying to make a similar that kills.

[vyper]

Charming stuff. Now where can I buy my ear protection gear... oh right, any hardware store

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Non lethal sound? Sounds quite useful... certainly in the application you mentioned. I wonder though... about this simple counter-invention.

If memory serves me - producing a sound of an opposite wavelength will cancel out both sounds. If someone were to aquire the correct tech and do this with effect to this weapon - would it render it useless?

I think you mean oposite phase, not wavelength.

[phreak]

you'd also need an equally powerful emitter, which means you'd need another tank.  And i thought the sound tanks were supposed to knock down buildings and **** (from c&c)

[Bobboau]

it would have to be the opposite phase and _EXACTLY_ the same frequancy, if your off by just .01 herts it'll cancel it out for a moment then double it's strength the next.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Non lethal sound? Sounds quite useful... certainly in the application you mentioned. I wonder though... about this simple counter-invention.

If memory serves me - producing a sound of an opposite wavelength will cancel out both sounds. If someone were to aquire the correct tech and do this with effect to this weapon - would it render it useless?

That'd be extremely difficult.  You'd have to be operating at the same frequency with the same amplitude and then there is no guarantee that the waves would completely cancel each other out.  Although it would reduce it.

Its not impossible...its just highly improbable.

Its much better than shooting people and using tear gas...but I still worry about the effects.  Just a few years ago I thought were were told by the US army that sonic weapons were inhumane...but no idea.  Maybe something has changed.

[achtung]

We had a powerful sound weapon for a while....  the (not so new) but still new Cher albums:D  it is excellent for dispersing large crowds.  They induce heavy vomiting and cause seizures.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by IceFire

That'd be extremely difficult.  You'd have to be operating at the same frequency with the same amplitude and then there is no guarantee that the waves would completely cancel each other out.  Although it would reduce it.

Its not impossible...its just highly improbable.

Its much better than shooting people and using tear gas...but I still worry about the effects.  Just a few years ago I thought were were told by the US army that sonic weapons were inhumane...but no idea.  Maybe something has changed.

[color=66ff00]They most likely glossed over the fact that it causes hearing damage; irrespective of frequency the output of the device would have to be of a great enough intensity to blanket an area and still have the same uniform effect.

Anyone very close to the device would most likely suffer long term hearing damage and possibly tinnitus which can cause mental breakdown. There was investigation into directional sonic weaponary done a while back, theoretically if you get the frequency just right you can osscilate internal organs causing death.

Yet another case of military choosing which facts to unveil in order to placate the masses.
[/color]

[IceFire]

Seems to me like they are still better off using tear gas and rubber bullets.

[Janos]

I don't like the idea of non-lethal weaponry. It could give any authority too much power. Killing protestors is a ****ty thing and will backfire. Zapping them with some funky beams of vomiting and then cackling evilly in your dark lair whilst torturing virgins in unspeakable, sadistic and pervertedly sexual ways, which would include a lot of black leather, whips, heavy chains and dark, damp cells and heavily built half-naked Eastern Europeans with hairy breasts wouldn't.

Hmmm I think I got kinda derailed there.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Janos
I don't like the idea of non-lethal weaponry. It could give any authority too much power. Killing protestors is a ****ty thing and will backfire. Zapping them with some funky beams of vomiting and then cackling evilly in your dark lair whilst torturing virgins in unspeakable, sadistic and pervertedly sexual ways, which would include a lot of black leather, whips, heavy chains and dark, damp cells and heavily built half-naked Eastern Europeans with hairy breasts wouldn't.

Hmmm I think I got kinda derailed there.

[color=66ff00]Yes. Yes you did.
[/color]

[Grey Wolf]

I'd rather have a dissonance tank. Far more annoying than any pure tone sonic tank.

[Kie99]

Originally posted by Janos
I don't like the idea of non-lethal weaponry. It could give any authority too much power. Killing protestors is a ****ty thing and will backfire. Zapping them with some funky beams of vomiting and then cackling evilly in your dark lair whilst torturing virgins in unspeakable, sadistic and pervertedly sexual ways, which would include a lot of black leather, whips, heavy chains and dark, damp cells and heavily built half-naked Eastern Europeans with hairy breasts wouldn't.

Hmmm I think I got kinda derailed there.

 What the hell?

Oh well, made me laugh.

[Janos]

Originally posted by kietotheworld


 What the hell?

Oh well, made me laugh.

To kinda make my point clearer.

With guns comes responsibility. That's exactly why using guns is frowned upon. And as soon as someone uses violent ways - even rubber bullets and tear gas - to somehow subjugate and overcome your resistance, you will be called out on it. If it's war, then it's, if not OK, maybe and often understandable. If you're saving yours or someone else's life, same thing. If you're using guns to disperse protests, keep dissidents in line, disarm and disable non-dangerous criminals or shootin small children, other people will react. You have the responsibility and you will answer for your deeds. If you don't kill anyone, you might still permanently damage or otherwise harm innocent people. Press will be all over it. Opposition will cry foul. People dance in the streets, orange revolutions, armed resistance, TV documentaries, prison time. Whatever - bad things.

With non-lethal weapons you essentially remove or severely dimish the one step that gives the guns the "final means" sense. You didn't kill the democratic protestors or those damn opposition figures. You just easily disassembled the entire rally! No one died. No harm done. Or hell, you just used your right to use force on some random dude on the street, but even if you are to face any consequences, they're smaller - you didn't kill him, he just suffered permanent hearing damage! No biggie mates.

Of course, the less people die the better, but sometimes the entire point preventing the use of guns is their power. (I'd love to throw out a stupid comparison between artillery and nukes here even though it's fallacious.)

[delta_7890]

I think the point is though that these "weapons" aren't used without reason.  These protestors weren't only speaking out against the Israelis, but were also trying to sabotage construction efforts of the security fence, and if the report above is to be believed, were even harming the soldiers.  And that kind of protesting behavior shouldn't, and wasn't tolerated.

While the use of sonic weaponry is a bit..iffy, in my opinion, especially if it can cause permenant or lasting damage to the hearing, soldiers need to have some means of quelling these violent masses.  The less violent and harmful those means, the better, but it does have to have SOME intimidating or uncomfortable effect, lest it simply won't work.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Janos

... Or hell, you just used your right to use force on some random dude on the street, but even if you are to face any consequences, they're smaller - you didn't kill him, he just suffered permanent hearing damage! No biggie mates.

Really? I think anyone that suffers permanent hearing damage would think it's a very big deal. That's still causing harm. It may not be using a gun that shoots bullets or some other projectile, but it's still shooting something that can harm. Yeah, like the government cares though.