our troops to use new weapon on the Iraqis - it's terrible

[donsu]

http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1338

-snip-


In a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times, military analyst William M. Arkin reported that the Marines being deployed in Iraq this month will bring along the newest high-tech gadget in America's ever-expanding arsenal to try out on whatever resistant Iraqis they may happen to run into. The Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) emits a powerful tone which brings agonizing pain to those within earshot. While Woody Norris, chairman of the American Technology Corporation which manufactures the device, refuses to call it a "weapon," he claims, "It will knock on their knees." But Arkin asks a crucial question seldom heard these days: "Is actual combat in a foreign country the appropriate place to test a new weapon?"
-snip-
-----------------------------

and if it works well on them they will use it on us.

wonder if it makes a person forever deaf?

[wryter2000]

1. omg

More shock and awe. And using our children to deliver it. These people have no heart or soul.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

3. shock and audio

[shekina]

4. clever

eom

[Endangered Specie]

46. mmm, good one

[shekina]

2. Sounds like a high tech form of a taser

except with sound. Let's hope it's used responsibly

[donsu]

5. you jest - of course it will NOT be used wisely

nt

[acmavm]

6. You gotta admit we're the Number 1 nation in the development of new

and improved ways to kill, maim, and torture people. Nice to see that we still have an edge in some field, isn't it? Wonder when they start exporting to other nations?

"Coming to a country near you! A new and improved weapon that'll bust your eardrums and send you to your knees."

[RedSock]

7. nyc repuke convention

could that device be used on a crowd of protestors?

:tinfoilhat:

[G_j]

10. was it present at the Miami FTAA protests?

This describes the use of infrasound and ultrasound. Ultrasound being "researched" for crowd control.

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/153_sonicweapons.shtml

Is this it at the FTAA? Looks like a large version of a hand held device pictured in the article.

[seemslikeadream]

8. This is not enough?

"We remain true to our stated purposes of removing the regime
and liberating the long-oppressed people of Iraq, and we will not stop until we have done so,"


-U.S. Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, CENTCOM Briefing, March 27, 2003



By our actions in this war, we serve a great and just cause"


- Bush, Radio Address to the Nation, April 5, 2003

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Beats the hell out of shooting them.

Don't you think?

[donsu]

11. NO - we shouldn't be there at all, killing & maiming them

this is an illegal war

we are criminals for being there

[DarkPhenyx]

14. OK, point of order. We ARE there. Ain't changing any time soon.

Even if we shouldn't have gone in to begin with we can't just up and pull out now. We are legally obligated to finish this and, hopefully, leave things better than we found them.

So, taking into consideration that we don't have a choice about being there now, don't you think this is a better option than shooting them? Remember that the dead only know one thing. It is far better to be alive.

[donsu]

17. yes we can and should leave Iraq right now

as long as the bloody hands bushgang is in power america will be in Iraq and every other place the gang wants to be, causing whatever havoc they want to, steadily sucking up that countries money and resources.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. OK, you apparently aren't aware...

...that under international law we are REQUIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!! to finish this.

[RedSock]

29. sorry i've already started raping you ...

... you have to let me finish.

:grr:

stop the attack NOW and get the victims some real help.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. Wow! Completely irrelavent comparison...

...and reactionary hyperbole. Most impressive. I take it then that you are completely disinterested in having a logical, fact based, rational discussion on the subject?

[Q]

53. I couldn't resist...

...responding to your strange post. What you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter that we broke international law by attacking and occupying Iraq. All that matters now is 'finishing the job'?

- This is the type of 'logic' that got us into Vietnam and kept us there years longer than necessary. Wouldn't it be better if America could admit that Bush* is a damned liar and war criminal and hand over the mess to the UN?

[DarkPhenyx]

56. No, I'm saying that out having broke IL previously...

...does not justify our doing it again.

We can't use "but you are breaking IL by invading Iraq" as an argument against the war, then ignore IL because it dosen't serve our purpose now. I believe that is waht they call hypocrasy.

[Columbia]

42. Holy smokes.

Again I agree with you. My universe is falling apart...

[DarkPhenyx]

50. Don't you just hate it?

:evilgrin: For my next trick I'm going to make you vote for Nader.

[HFishbine]

58. Well, if you want to talk about legal obligations

one should consider the legality of a weapon that does not discriminate between militants and civilians. (See Geneva Conventions)

[truth2power]

24. False dilemma?

Possibly other choices than shooting them or making them deaf?

[DarkPhenyx]

51. The dilemma is actually quite real.

People are getting shot in Iraq every day.

There are, of course, other choices. This is why our troops aren't issued just rifles, or just sonic weapons. Interestingly enough they also comes with brains and are trained to use them in stressful situations.

Lets please try not to over simplify this and make the original issue any dumber than it already is.

[Lone_Wolf]

55. Increasing the decibals...

an LRAD puts out could make it lethal. In theory anyway....

[DarkPhenyx]

57. Yup!

Definately a possibility.

[Capt_Nemo]

12. and it's useless if it's knocked out by an RPG

Non-lethal methods are useless against people with very lethal guns.

OTOH non-lethal methods are well suited to crowd control.
This is not going to be used against guerrillas, it is going to
be used against peacefull protests that the US must be expecting
(maybe in the Shia areas).

[DarkPhenyx]

15. This does make it very difficult to shoot that RPG though.

And it isn't like it's going to be the only weapon that the soldiers have.

[Capt_Nemo]

28. In an ambush, by the time you know where to aim the loudspeakers

the RPG will already be flying towards you.

[DarkPhenyx]

31. In an ambush...

...even if you ahve a tank you are fucked. Please. Try something rational if you want to argue against the weapon system.

[Capt_Nemo]

34. I'm arguing it is not a very effective weapon against an elusive opponent

that uses lethal methods. I'm arguing that it could be effective for
crowd control (depending on the size of the crowd).
That is a pretty rational argument IMHO.

[DarkPhenyx]

35. But an argument for what would be the question.

Atom bombs are bad for crowd control, great for destroying the world. Rifles suck for home defense, and handguns are horrid long range weapons.

[corporatewhore]

13. But But We need to stay there

:eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

16. You are right.

We do. We are legally obligated to stay there now.

[donsu]

18. No we are not legally obligated to stay

nt

[DarkPhenyx]

21. Under IL as the occupying force...

...until we can put the country in a position where it can be self governing and won't devolve into anarchy we are required to be there. Sorry.

[Columbia]

43. Absolutely right

We are obligated under the Geneva Conventions to follow through.

[G_j]

44. we need to turn control over to the UN.. -period - n/t

[DarkPhenyx]

47. UN dosen't really want it...

...and I can't say I blame them. Bush dosen't want to give up control, adn I can't say I blame him either. If the UN takes over he is all but admiting defeat. He can't do that. Particularly after he told the UN to go fuck themeslves so publically.

[G_j]

48. of course Bush doesn't want to give up control

but nothing he has ever 'wanted' was for the benefit of the people. The fact is, it needs to be done. The situation continues to deteriorate and a new array of 'non-lethal' weapons won't make the Iraqis any happier with the occupation.

[DarkPhenyx]

49. Of course it needs to be done.

But until something changes, most likely a ne President in the US, then it is going to remiain as it is. Even after we elect a new President we are still going to have to keep troops commited to Iraq until a stable government of and by the Iraqi people can be established. Doing anything else puts us in direct contravention of Internatioonal Law....again.

[G_j]

52. get ready for a LONG haul then

again Kucinich is the only one ready to do the right thing. Kerry's approach will not make the occupation more acceptable to the Iraqi people. The bottom line of the 'control' issue is really privitization not democracy. No surprise that greed comes first.
Us troops are not trained as peace keepers and resentment grows daily just as the casualty rate increases.

"The fog of war"

[DarkPhenyx]

54. What did Kucinich want?

To pull us out immediately? How unbelievably shortsighted, horribly flawed, and downright stupid.

[libbygurl]

20. Not the first time...

...weapons for the first Iraq war were tested on slum neighborhoods in Panama in the search for "bad boy" Noriega.

[neebob]

22. Chalk up another one for Star Trek

How many and what kind of weapons are DARPA and other agencies working on right now, d'ya think?

[Deja Q]

45. From the hippie episode no less!!!

"The Way to Eden" - insane guy with his naive hippie-like followers constructs a weapon which uses sound against the crew of the Enterprise...

Vile.

[Must_B_Free]

23. The Panama Deception

according to this documentary, we tested out new weapons technologies in the barrios of Panama.

[libbygurl]

25. Yup, yup, see post #20.

[Nlighten1]

26. It isn't terrible

Non-lethal methods of crowd control should be preferred.

[Mattforclark]

27. Exactly

It sounds to me like using this is far preferable to using M-60's, which is the alternative. I think the pictures in post 8 should make that point very well.

[G_j]

38. but who is asking exactly in what context "crowd control"

will be used? As Kucinich says, we should turn control over to the UN and get the hell out!

[thebigidea]

37. I hope to do some beta-testing of it in your neighborhood... for safety.

[bobthedrummer]

32. American Technology Corp. of San Diego has patents on tech

going back to 1974 that can project voices into your head-long a diagnostic criteria of mental illness.

American Technology Corp. was given DoD contracts to weaponize some of this tech-like LRAD.

This stuff is part of the non-lethal arsenal. Here is a USAF article on Non-Lethal Terms and References-this is declassified dated material--who knows what has been developed since?
http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/nonlethal.html

American Technology Corp. executives have engaged in inside trades.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/14/1529.html

Here are some more links to American Technology Corp. and other companies patents and DoD contracts for this kind of tech
http://www.raven1.net/5159703.htm

http://www.raven1.net/atc-ag98.htm

http://www.raven1.net/hssweapon.htm

It may go way beyond LRAD in Iraq, there is much evidence of remote behavioral influence technology and weapons that bestow seemingly God-like powers
http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/starwars.html

Certainly some of this was referenced by Dennis Kucinich in the original language of The Space Preservation Act of 2001/HR2977, but all text mentioning "exotic weapons" disappeared from the revision, The Space Preservation Act of 2002/HR3616
http://www.raven1.net/govptron.htm

I'm certain that this is only the tip of the iceberg, deployment of these weapons to Iraq. The good thing is that people can now discuss these systems and not be branded as tin-foil hatters.

[bobthedrummer]

33. There is a US human rights group against the misuse of this tech

and a great source of documentation of it's covert development and abuse.

http://www.mindjustice.org

[Nailzberg]

36. I, for one, celebrate the introduction of non-lethal options.

It seems far preferable to MOABs and machine guns.

We should be supporting that non-lethal options are being pursued by the DoD. This device was brought into service after the bombing of the USS Cole and has been used to deter small craft attacks since about 2000. So really it's not like we are testing it in Iraq.

We sit here and complain about killing people needlessly, and here we have another option, and we complain about that, too. Huh?

[bobthedrummer]

39. The potential for abuse of this tech is staggering, for instance US

aerial "influencing" of foreign elections-it isn't just about not killing, it's about covert manipulation of human perceptions for political agendas imo.
http://www.raven1.net/commsolo.htm

[Nailzberg]

40. I think we have plenty of methods for influencing foreign elections

Like assassinating foreign leaders and backing military coups. Hovering over a polling place with a sound device is far too inefficient. If the government wants to influence an election, they'll find a way. So I won't throw out this device because of the potential for misuse.

The same misuse argument is used in every city when a police department introduces tasers or beanbag guns for conflict resolution purposes. But I think that it's better hit someone with the taser than it is to shoot them. Can they be misused? Yes. Better they misuse the taser than the handgun.

[G_j]

41. "conflict resolution"

here is a method of "conflict resolution" used to "control" non-violent protesters that has been growing increasingly popular. But as you say, I guess she should feel lucky she wasn't just shot. :shrug:





A protestor, who refused to give her name, bears the wounds after she says was hit by Oakland police weapon during a anti-war protest in Oakland, Calif., Monday, Aug. 7, 2003 outside the port area. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)



photos of 'projectiles'
http://www.hulla-balloo.com/ftaapics/projectiles