[HN Gopher] Military grade sonic weapon is used against proteste...
___________________________________________________________________
Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
Author : aquir
Score : 247 points
Date : 2025-03-16 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| chinathrow wrote:
| These LRADs have always been planned to be used against mass
| protests, from day one.
| RickS wrote:
| Planned? Perhaps. Destined? Certainly.
|
| The imperial boomerang:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang
| anthk wrote:
| The Basque Country has been a huge sandbox against the later
| leftist groups in the rest of Spain.
| crooked-v wrote:
| I've seen some theories that it was actually an ADS (basically a
| low-power microwave beam, immensely painful but tuned to be just
| under the threshold to actually cause visible burns), since there
| haven't been any reported cases of permanent deafness yet.
|
| The student organizers in the crowd did an incredible job
| clearing people out of there before the police could escalate
| further and cause more mob-crowding panic deaths.
| boppo1 wrote:
| >cases of permanent deafness
|
| Ah so these sonic weapons are indeed seriously harmful. I was
| wondering if hearing loss was a result.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| https://xcancel.com/nexta_tv/status/1901244199220982213
| aquir wrote:
| The protesters described the noise it was like something huge was
| flying past over them, looking at the reaction it must've been
| terrifying
| hettygreen wrote:
| Is there any counter measure for this?
|
| Hardcore hearing protection?
|
| Noise cancelling headphones?
|
| Handheld sound insulation "shield"?
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| https://youtu.be/CXKTBQBugIA
| malfist wrote:
| The report I read said it relied on bone conduction, so hearing
| protection wouldn't do a whole lot. Only things that can
| attenuate low frequency sounds before it gets to the ear. So
| muff style headphones might work, or mass
| gizajob wrote:
| Ear muffs aren't going to do much against 160dB
| wl wrote:
| It's not so much that LRAD relies on bone conduction to
| inflict pain (and sensorineural hearing loss!), but that the
| sound levels are so high that even if you block the air
| conduction route with earplugs, the bone conduction route
| (approximately 30 dB of attenuation compared with air) still
| might deliver enough sound to the inner ear to cause pain and
| hearing loss.
|
| This kind of thing is a problem on aircraft carriers, where
| people working on the flight deck are so close to loud jets
| that no amount of conventional hearing protection will
| adequately conserve hearing. Creare has been working for the
| last decade and a half on special helmets for the US Navy to
| overcome this issue, resulting in the HGU-99/P Hearing
| Protection Helmet.
| darepublic wrote:
| Can you have a device which upon detecting the frequency
| emits some kind of counter vibration that cancels out th
| attack?
| XorNot wrote:
| It's not theoretically impossible but it is completely
| impractical to engineer such a thing - destructive
| interference has to be precisely matched to cancel out a
| sound, and if it's not you just get "beats" as the phases
| overlap.
|
| And that match depends on matching frequency _and_ distance
| - or having a very fast tuning system, and then you 've got
| to do all this in a device that's not just another LRAD (at
| which point you're back to "the best defense is a good
| offense").
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| This is how active noise cancellation works in headphones.
| You stick little microphones on the outside of the
| headphones, then play back what's picked up through the
| headphones themselves but with a very slight delay so all
| the peaks and troughs match up. The problem is that you
| need to put out sounds at least as loud, and that's a
| pretty bad thing to get even slightly wrong if the energy
| levels are that high.
| treyd wrote:
| You do it with the waves inverted otherwise the delay
| would have to be dynamic and frequency dependent.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Once there's violence targeting you, the solution is to bring
| real weapons and resolve it using ordinary military tactics,
| that is, you kill the operator.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| "Attack is the best form of defence" is a well-grounded
| doctrine, but it's not mutually exclusive with protecting
| yourself. Armies use armoured vehicles even though armour-
| piercing shells exist, for example.
|
| It's also not always necessary; actively using force against
| the authorities would essentially be the start of a civil
| war, and personally I don't think starting a civil war is
| more likely to result in change than peaceful protest. For
| instance, Serbia is to some extent reliant on the EU, and has
| expressed an interest in joining. That should force the
| current government to reconsider and crack down on corruption
| much better than an attempted coup would.
|
| Full disclosure: I have never been to Serbia and this is just
| my personal feeling. But for expressly peaceful protests to
| seamlessly turn into a full-blown revolution, and a
| successful one at that, seems incredibly unlikely to me.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Yes, but these kinds of systems are not actually very good
| as military weapons. They are easily countered by simply
| shooting the operators.
| dmurray wrote:
| Are they? They seem easy enough to operate remotely, or
| by a guy in a tank or a bulletproof Popemobile or
| whatever.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| It's probably something like horn, or a speaker. A couple
| of bullets are probably enough to break it.
| 6r17 wrote:
| Defensive measure are also enjoyable as they give an
| increased tactical field - as to put it, they increase the
| luck area.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Yes, but presumably dealing with just a couple of systems
| like this has to be a quick matter. These things are
| probably off right now, so it's just a matter of finding
| them, shooting the people guarding them and either
| destroying or taking them.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Operator is typically thousands of kilometres away
| impossiblefork wrote:
| No, he's probably just around the corner, having just set
| up the speakers and put on his hearing protection.
| mmooss wrote:
| That sounds bold and exciting, but it's clearly false and
| terrible advice.
|
| Violence, like warfare, is politics by other means. Every
| expert knows that law of warfare - the first law of warfare,
| in a sense - that it ends when and only when there is
| political agreement. Even in warfare, violence just buys time
| and changes your political position.
|
| In countries with rule-of-law, you can use the political /
| legal system to stop the violence and hold accountable the
| perpetrators. In countries without, the only solution is
| political.
|
| It's also well-established that non-violence and other
| tactics can be quite effective. While if you attack back and
| injure others, your credibility and legality is gone - nobody
| will listen to you or pay much attention to 'they started it'
| (which the other side will dispute anyway).
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over
| and a different kind of problem solving begins.
|
| If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology
| or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated.
| Once he's done it, he may well try again, in which case you
| might _die_. Better then to get rid of him.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Use some thick metal plate as a shield and let it reflect the
| sound back towards the source, most likely. Or something foamy,
| like mattresses or the like, to just attenuate it. But I don't
| think any of that would protect you if you're facing 160 dB
| (though it would indeed be useful if you're farther from the
| source); the appropriate tactic then is indeed to disperse
| uniformly over a larger area and make it infeasible for your
| adversary to launch a concentrated attack. (After all, this
| _is_ how actual present-day military tactics copes with the
| existence of much older "area denial" weapons, such as machine
| guns, tanks etc.) Your protests should then become more "hit
| and run" in style, relying on highly visible gimmicks rather
| than mere physical presence to demonstrate continued support.
| lor_louis wrote:
| That's the exact same circumstances that lead to the
| development of guerilla warfare. I don't know how you'd go
| around creating a "highly visible gimmick" that has any
| lasting impact though.
| rasz wrote:
| FPV drone blowing up the LRAD. Total cost below $1000.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| For all we know, certain types of deafness may be immune.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43377133
| mdhb wrote:
| I don't think governments should have access to the "make the
| protestors immediately go away" button that they can just hit
| whenever they want.
| vvchvb wrote:
| Governments, by definition, have legal access to anything they
| can get their hands on.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| That depends on where you put international law into this.
| Since 1945 it has generally been considered that there's a
| limit to the actions that a sovereign country can take.
| International law might work primarily with treaties rather
| than 'conventional' laws, but there are already parallels
| with national legal systems. We have a kind of international
| legislature (the United Nations General Assembly) and a
| judiciary (the International Court of Justice).
| ncallaway wrote:
| The problem with these devices, for the government, is that the
| people _might_ come back, but this time with tools designed to
| defeat these devices (such as guns as explosives). If that
| happens, it can be _very_ bad (for both parties).
|
| Overuse of these kinds of things is...dangerous for the
| government
| neilv wrote:
| I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that
| less-lethal weapon feel about it.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Same way Google engineers feel about their AI models being used
| to target Palestinians.
| neilv wrote:
| There are "dual-use" systems, and there are systems that are
| only weapons.
|
| There's also technologies and basic research, but those are
| different matters.
|
| I'm first interested in the more straightforward situation of
| the people who worked on a less-lethal weapon system, which
| they might've anticipated would be used in exactly this way.
| What do they think about that?
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| their first thought was maybe that used again riot or
| violence in the first place not necessarily to attack
| people
|
| I mean its just moral Highground at this point, same can be
| said for Oppenheimer if he didn't do it maybe war that more
| costly would occur
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Can you have the moral high ground if you're using
| violence against your people?
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| well if they turn out out to be violence and can be
| destructive (they called riot), yes they can
| g-b-r wrote:
| > I'm first interested in the more straightforward
| situation of the people who worked on a less-lethal weapon
| system, which they might've anticipated would be used in
| exactly this way. What do they think about that?
|
| It seems easy to justify it as "it will take the place of
| lethal weapons", as with tazers
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| I stand with Israel btw.
| codedokode wrote:
| "Well I am not breaking any laws so this won't be used against
| me. And I need money anyway"
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I've worked on lethal weapons. I feel great!
| neilv wrote:
| (Just to be clear, I think weapons in general can be used for
| good, as well as for bad.)
|
| From your perspective, can you guess how you'd feel building
| _a less-lethal weapons system like is the subject of this
| post_ , given what you think the typical uses of it would be?
| avaika wrote:
| This has to be about people who pushes the button. Not about
| the people who invents the technology. Otherwise you might want
| to stop all the kitchen knifes production, cause people
| occasionally use those to kill each other.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| No there is a very clear difference of responsibility between
| creating an instrument that can be turned towards harm and
| one that is designed to cause it. Someone designed,
| engineered, and built these tools knowing this is what they
| were to be used for.
| ncallaway wrote:
| Okay, but if the tool is a weapon and is designed
| specifically to inflict harm on humans, then I think that
| analogy completely breaks down.
| Jach wrote:
| Probably enjoyed working on cool sci-fi shit. Invisible weapons
| are pretty cool -- though I think conceptually the heat ray
| class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System?usesk
| in=v...) is cooler than the LRAD class. How they're used or
| should be used? An unimportant question in the face of
| coolness. Then there's just basic pride in good engineering or
| craftsmanship that can help spark joy in whatever one is
| working on, from weapons to some hairy enterprise legacy ball
| of mud you're slowly making improvements to. A silly quote I've
| always liked, from Nathaniel Borenstein: "It should be noted
| that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent
| to write a "DestroyBaghdad" procedure. Basic professional
| ethics would instead require him to write a "DestroyCity"
| procedure, to which "Baghdad" could be given as a parameter."
| tptacek wrote:
| LRADs have been used against protesters in Australia, New
| Zealand, the United States, France, and Germany.
| sega_sai wrote:
| I don't necessarily dispute that claim, but do you have
| evidence to support it ?
| rtkwe wrote:
| It's extensively covered on the wikipedia page alone.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-
| range_acoustic_device#Uni...
|
| Also if you just google "LRAD use in [country]" there are
| source for any country you're actually wondering about...
| photodeveloper wrote:
| I assume it was used to disperse riots, in Serbia it was used
| as people were standing peacefully, observing 15 minutes of
| silence.
| mmooss wrote:
| Very important to know, though could you share a source where
| we can read about it?
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Serbia is one of the Russian-controlled Governments, along with
| Hungary and Georgia; these are the countries where we expect to
| see such attacks made to suppress protest.
|
| (USA is not controlled, any more than say China is controlled,
| but is an authoritarian regime (so no real elections), so there's
| a shared world view, and here also I would expect to see much the
| same.)
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Serbia is one of the Russian-controlled Governments
|
| Serbia is a major weapons supplier for Ukraine [0][1][2] and
| has backed Ukraine's stance on Crimea as it has implications
| for Serbia's stance on Kosovo.
|
| Vucic only cares about Vucic, and will work with any country
| (Germany [3], Russia, China [4], America [5], Turkiye [6], UAE
| [7], etc) to continue to hold power and balance alternatives.
|
| By becoming close with every major player in the region, it
| makes it easier for Vucic to continue to crackdown on
| opposition without dealing with condemnations (eg. Germany will
| remain silent because of the billions in FDI).
|
| Orban did the same thing, but after grinding the EP to a halt,
| patients for Orban grew thin. By remaining outside the EU,
| Vucic can continue to hold power while not burning that many
| bridges with European leadership.
|
| > USA is not controlled, any more than say China is controlled,
| but is an authoritarian regime (so no real elections)
|
| Huh? Serbia is a night and day difference to the US. The best
| comparison to the US is probably Israel.
|
| [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/leaked-us-intel-document-
| claim...
|
| [1] - https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/09/19/ukraine-is-a-
| boo...
|
| [2] -
| https://www.ft.com/content/136ed721-fd50-4815-8314-d9df8dc67...
|
| [3] - https://www.politico.eu/article/serbian-president-
| aleksandar...
|
| [4] - https://apnews.com/article/serbia-china-xi-jinping-visit-
| nat...
|
| [5] - https://amp.dw.com/en/serbia-and-us-the-next-great-trans-
| atl...
|
| [6] - https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/defense-at-
| for...
|
| [7] - https://www.mei.edu/publications/serbias-best-friend-
| arab-wo...
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I am corrected.
|
| Thank you, and very much; I had thought I knew where Serbia
| was in things, but I was mistaken. I don't want to be
| mistaken, especially not now, where the situation is so
| serious. It's an excellent post, and I'm very grateful to you
| for the time you spent pulling all the links together.
| Davidp00 wrote:
| Given the correction, can you edit your initial comment?
| qingcharles wrote:
| I don't think it's totally clear-cut that the USA isn't
| currently Russian-controlled, at least in terms of some of the
| higher offices.
| grujicd wrote:
| It's incorrect that Serbia has Russian-controlled government.
| Why would you say that? We're quite capable of having our own
| independent dictator, thank you. If anything, Vucic was widely
| supported by EU. One of our problems is that there's almost no
| pressure on government from any external side - not from US,
| not from EU, not from Russia, not from China. Opposition is
| entirely internal.
| hahamaster wrote:
| If you're not rabidly Russophobic then you're pro-Russian
| puppet controlled by Putin - didn't you know?
| codedokode wrote:
| It is not Russia-controlled but it has a long history of
| relationship with Russia: for example, Russian Empire entered
| WW1 to protect Serbia.
| elaus wrote:
| Even without knowing the background of those protests: It is
| heartbreaking to see a crowd of peaceful people (seemingly during
| a moment of silence) being attacked by their own country and
| fleeing in panic and pain.
| martin_a wrote:
| Here's some background:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g8v32q30o
| anticensor wrote:
| Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43377133
| observationist wrote:
| Serbia had the LRAD systems on hand, after buying them in 2022,
| most likely from Genasys, but possibly from HyperSpike.
|
| https://genasys.com/lrad-products/
|
| It's a legal gray area in Serbia where the use against civilians
| isn't explicitly forbidden, so they're playing fast and loose and
| moving fast to crush opposition. It's better than troops just
| gunning people down, but for a modern, supposedly civilized
| country it's horrible to see.
|
| The people in power are the type of people that use their power
| in these ways. The US shouldn't be supplying them. We're not the
| world police, we don't need to enforce global norms, and we
| shouldn't be selling hyperoffensive mass crowd control
| technology. They should be limited to Temu LRAD, or their LRAD at
| home; we shouldn't be providing them S-Tier dystopian
| authoritarian kits for DIY oppression.
|
| The people that profited off of this are a special kind of evil.
| We shouldn't be outfitting dictators, gangsters, or warlords.
|
| But, greed is good. The dollar is king. This is what happens when
| incentives and principles don't align.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| the only acceptable condition to use it maybe if there are riot
| or violence breakout in that area not for peaceful protest
| timewizard wrote:
| It's a weapon meant to deny the use of an area by threatening
| non-selective permanent physical damage. There are very few
| legitimate civil use cases for something like that.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Something like protecting the capitol from being stormed by
| a mob?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Only if you want to justify the mob's presence there.
| timewizard wrote:
| I might have tried just closing and locking the doors
| first.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Yes because Trump's lot are too stupid to break down
| windows and doors
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/06/jim-
| himes...
| alabastervlog wrote:
| You could outfit the front steps with crewed machine
| guns, but apparently they only do that if they expect
| people protesting _in favor of_ liberal values.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy
| and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? I'd
| either come back prepared for actual violence, or switch from
| protest to sabotage.
|
| It just screams "escalation" to me.
| propagandist wrote:
| And that is possibly the aim. When the protests turn into
| violence or sabotage, the state uses that to justify its
| own violent repression.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| so you saying if there are violence or sabotage, you let
| these people do it??? how can that be better
| NewJazz wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_riot
| Philorandroid wrote:
| Are chemical irritants preferable, then? Or just LEOs in
| riot gear with rubber batons? There's no amount of pushback
| or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane,
| and the mindset of "I'll turn violent and/or destructive if
| my participation in civil unrest is punished" is a perfect
| justification for these systems to exist.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| > There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a
| rioter will feel is fair or humane
|
| I mean you're talking about using violence against people
| to stop or prevent property damage. Most options are off
| the table in the moment, in the same way you can't
| execute someone if you catch them vandalizing your car.
| Smashing their fingers with a hammer wouldn't probably
| kill them but you can't do that either.
|
| After-the-fact repercussions like criminal charges or
| civil liabilities, well, it doesn't matter how they feel
| about it? That's not how court works.
| tehjoker wrote:
| maybe the government should consider protestor demands
| and reform in many cases
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit
| rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you
| do?_
|
| Leave. The moment it turns into a riot you're doing damage
| to your cause. (If you're in a protest and see hooligans,
| restrain them.)
| AngryData wrote:
| I don't find it acceptable for any reason whatsoever.
| camilo2025 wrote:
| You are aware that these LRAD systems have been used against US
| citizens, aren't you?
| hammock wrote:
| When?
| alborzb wrote:
| NYPD -- https://gothamist.com/news/city-settles-lawsuit-
| protesters-w...
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Apparently used multiple times during Black Lives Matter
| protests: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-
| release/2020/06/04/204368...
| perching_aix wrote:
| Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-
| range_acoustic_device#Uni...
|
| Was an especially commonly discussed topic in 2020 during
| the George Floyd related protests. Some notable video
| resources on how to defend against these devices and what
| one can expect: [0] and [1]. To save you time, if i
| remember correctly, the most effective is one of those
| plastic riot shields held in reverse to direct the sound
| back at the sender (notably pretty difficult when you don't
| want to just hit other protesters, or don't know where the
| sound is coming from and/or are getting hit by
| reflections).
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKTBQBugIA
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqIvak-4Ek
| observationist wrote:
| Yes - we've got a long way to go with regards to these
| technologies.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Police also regularly use tear gas against US citizens. These
| are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but
| we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.
| amelius wrote:
| What would ICC think of it, I wonder.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The ICC is fine with it. France is a particularly big fan
| of firing tear gas canisters at protestors. It's not just
| the US.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| are they against the Geneva convention because of the
| direct effects, or because in a war you'd then proceed to
| kill everyone while they're coughing?
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Both? Indiscriminate chemical weapons is the issue, not
| the intent. Otherwise wouldn't all weapons be illegal?
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Some weapons are intrinsically forbidden because of their
| effects on individuals: soft-point bullets for instance.
| These are as discriminate as you want them to be, but are
| nonetheless prohibited in conflicts. Thus it's not just
| indiscriminate weapons that are banned by international
| agreement!
| NewJazz wrote:
| AIUI they are mainly banned because they could lead to
| escalations in chemical weapons usage. If your enemy uses
| tear gas vs cs gas, it could be hard to tell right away
| and you might feel pressure to use all the tools you have
| available (including lethal chemical weapons) vs. Play by
| the rules.
|
| Of course if you are fighting a real war, there is
| probably going to be chem weapons used. It happened in
| Syria. It is happening in Ukraine. It will keep
| happening. Geneva convention is wishful thinking.
| tehjoker wrote:
| something to consider is that in the Gulf War (Operation
| Desert Storm) the military used a bunker buster on a
| Sarin gas storage facility and shot the sarin high into
| the atmosphere, where it then floated far downwind and
| landed on US troops. Ofc, reporting on it doesn't really
| consider Iraqi civilians and is only weepy about US
| soldiers.
|
| https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-202
| 2/s...
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| It's because of the direct effects; chlorine gas for
| instance will almost instantly blind anyone exposed to
| it, and tear gas can also be fatal. My great-grandfather
| was gassed in the First World War and only narrowly
| survived. Chemical weapons were technically already
| banned by this point, but it was WW1 that prompted the
| modern Geneva Protocol (not the Geneva Conventions; these
| are slight different). Unfortunately, none of the Geneva
| treaties cover their use outside of wartime.
| sa46 wrote:
| The Geneva Convention bans all chemical weapons. Part of
| the rationale for a total ban is to avoid escalating to
| more dangerous chemical agents. Helpful r/AskHistorians
| thread:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwtj89/the_
| c...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Part of the rationale for a total ban is to avoid
| escalating to more dangerous chemical agents_
|
| Chemical weapons are tactically useless for modern
| militaries [1]. You're pretty much always better off
| pounding with high explosives.
|
| And there isn't a known path to escalation potential. If
| there were, everyone would be developing it.
|
| [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-
| we-use-ch...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Chemical weapons are tactically useless to the American
| combat doctrine, as described in that article. As we have
| seen, the Russian doctrine (and Ukraine's doctrine)
| relies on much more brute force to push a meter at a time
| and much more indiscriminate damage. It's hard to imagine
| chemical weapons being useless.
|
| He makes the mistake of looking at how the US military
| fights and thinking that is the only way to fight a war.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _These are weapons that would violate the Geneva
| convention, but we 're okay with them to disperse a crowd._
|
| Isn't that a category ban that came out of a couple
| specific members of that category that were used and had
| particularly nasty effects? And then countries' domestic
| law enforcement rules tend to be defined in different
| terms.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| It is. People think that the "Frangible bullets and
| teargas banned by the Genevan Conventions" means that
| they're seen as too cruel to use in war. Unfortunately
| the "wisdom of crowds" that we've created on social media
| has decided that it does.
|
| The reality is that we're talking about the views of
| people in 1925, as informed by a previous group of people
| in the late 1800's. They were far more concerned with
| avoiding the use of gas as a weapon than in dealing with
| the LD50 of the various gasses.
|
| Likewise with frangible/hollow-point ammunition, it isn't
| even banned by the Geneva Conventions, it was banned
| under the now-defunct Hague Convention. For better or
| worse they thought that these "tumbling" or "expanding"
| bullets were designed to inflict intentionally greater
| suffering. Who knows maybe the versions that existed in
| the late 1800's did too, the ones today aren't used
| because they're worthless against even modest body armor.
|
| But again, people just see text on a picture in a meme
| and take it to heart.
| conception wrote:
| Generally if you do it to your own people the world is fine
| with.. just about anything.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Serbia is currently using it on its own people, and yet
| we here we are reading about it and discussing, with no
| small amount of outrage.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (a follow-on to the 1925
| "Geneva Convention") allows for the use of riot control
| agents (like tear gas) for law enforcement purposes.
|
| https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon
| _heimdall wrote:
| I think that's inline with what the point the GP was
| trying to make. Tear gas would otherwise fall into the
| definition of a weapon that would violate the Geneva
| Convention if not for the specific earmark that its okay
| for law enforcement to use it.
|
| Its a bit of a logical loop based only on definitions.
| Its not against the convention because the law includes
| the exception, but the exception otherwise goes against
| the principles of the convention.
| ty6853 wrote:
| Suppressing protests in US isn't usually law enforcement,
| its purpose is to violate the law and suppress speech.
| inopinatus wrote:
| > We shouldn't be outfitting dictators, gangsters, or
| warlords
|
| Perhaps that was the subtext.
| spacecadet wrote:
| My American Citizen score card:
|
| LRAD + Tear gas 2009
|
| Tear gas 2017
|
| Tear gas 2021
|
| Still got the exhausted canister from 2009 as a souvenir.
| Carry a bottle of water, the tear gas rinses out quickly.
| kylecazar wrote:
| You were among the first to get hit by LRAD in the country!
| Congrats?
| g-b-r wrote:
| Yes, but the US has done enormously worse than that with arms
| sales/donations
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Everything short of the worst we've ever done is totally OK?
| What even is this argument?
| shermantanktop wrote:
| This attempted deflection is as old as the hills. The
| Soviet Union spent a great deal of propaganda time talking
| about American slavery and Jim Crow, and it wasn't because
| they cared about the issues. We call it "whatabout" now but
| it's been the first defensive move when defending the
| indefensible for ages.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Ah "but the USA!!". Cant tell if you are a suburb leftie who
| lives there or a russian troll.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| It really isn't smart to do this kind of thing.
|
| Once an organization actually attacks you, it's very easy to
| decide that any legitimacy they view themselves as having is
| irrelevant and to come back next Monday with mortars and machine
| guns.
| captainkrtek wrote:
| Reminds me of the escalation seen in the Ukrainian Maidan, went
| from some heavy handed policing to non-lethal rounds (eg:
| teargas / beanbags) to BBs to snipers and live firing on
| crowds.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Yes, although that was exceptionally irrational, to the point
| where I don't really feel I understand the events.
| tpm wrote:
| It would be rational if you would think killing a few (or a
| lot of) protesters will intimidate the rest of the country
| into submission. It didn't, but it could have.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| But nobody thinks that way. If they can kill your
| friends, they can round you up afterwards and kill you.
|
| Once it gets to that point, there's no reason not to
| immediately organize a military response.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Hold on to that thought we're going to need it this
| summer.
| nkmnz wrote:
| Almost every single authoritarian thinks that way. That's
| how they stay in power. Please google Volksaufstand
| (1953), Hungarian Uprising (1956), Prague Spring (1968),
| Tiananmen (1989), Vilnius Massacre (1991)...
| timeon wrote:
| Unfortunately, it worked in Belarus.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Estimates are that something like 300,000+ people were out
| actively protesting just in Belgrade... in a country of 6.6
| million people.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Yes, but polarization is a possibility. You can't know you're
| the majority, so until violence is used against you, you
| don't necessarily have a reason to turn the thing into a
| civil war.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _any legitimacy they view themselves as having_
|
| I'm pretty sure that's not actually how power or legitimacy
| work anyway.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Once they're shooting at you, or going after you in some
| other way, that legitimacy etc. is irrelevant, simply because
| they're going after you.
|
| The solution is then always an organized military response.
| This applies whether it's your government or somebody else's.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| That's some impressive range, 200 meters.
|
| And it seems as effective in the back as in the front.
|
| I bet this video will 10x the orders for these devices.
| grujicd wrote:
| Close friend who was on the spot described it as car or plane
| running towards you, you don't only hear it, you also feel
| vibrations in the body creating panic and fear.
|
| All demonstrations of LRAD I heard on youtube were with high
| pitched sound, not a "whoosh" as witnesses experienced last night
| in Belgrade. Can these devices play any kind of sound?
|
| What is described by victims, and what can be heard on some
| recordings from last nights, sounds more like Vortex Cannon:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJpChS-_RJg
| nntwozz wrote:
| What happened to just shouting at each other? That would have
| been more civilized.
| hello_computer wrote:
| These are peaceful civilians. This affront must be answered in
| blood.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%93present_Serbian_a...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-16 23:00 UTC)