Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 530 posts

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#211

Post by gruez »

mandmandam wrote: post #206
gruez wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This isn't a case of a noncentral fallacy. > "Tear gas is bad because it violates the Geneva convention" makes as much sense as "MLK is a bad person because he's a criminal". Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. That's not the same thing as saying taxation is theft, or MLK is bad.

>Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense.

Mind elaborating? The arguments in sibling comments seem to be some variant of "avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents". I don't see how that's relevant to protests. Are we seriously expecting the protesters to escalate to mustard gas because the police used tear gas?

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#212

Post by s1artibartfast »

zozbot234 wrote: post #192
s1artibartfast wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, it is an escalation. Governance is maintaining public support for the government having a monopoly on violent escalation. If the government does not have this power, then any person has an individual veto over the rest of the country. Laws are used to describe how and when individuals can protest.

As it turns out, part of maintaining that "public support" is not taking advantage of it. The very idea of a stable monopoly on violent escalation is obviously meant to deter violence. When it instead makes violence more likely (because the monopolist is suddenly planning to abuse its monopoly) that's quite a big change and people can be expected to react accordingly.

That is correct. It really depends on the temperature of public sentiment .

Many protests get a charitable assumption in the US as a legacy of civil rights and the Vietnam anti-war movements. However, I think a lot of that good will is eroding.

Each country has different perceptions, and ultimately, each protest is different (e.g. who shot first, is it abuse, ect)

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#213

Post by amatecha »

lor_louis wrote: post #160
zozbot234 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Dunno, ask Tesla owners how they're feeling about driving their vehicle and parking it, lately. On that note, ask Musk how he feels about the trending direction of his stock value. The highly visible gimmick of swastikas spraypainted on cars, torched charging stations & Cybertrucks, etc. seems to have an effect. Probably a lasting one, though that remains to be seen of course.

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#214

Post by Aeolun »

alabastervlog wrote: post #147
Aeolun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like protecting the capitol from being stormed by a mob?

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.

I thought they made these sound cannons so they didn’t have to mow down their own populace?

I also feel like that’d have a counterproductive effect.

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#216

Post by hellotomyrars »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #141
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.)

Who defines what counts as a riot?

The people who have the state-sanctioned monopoly on violence are the ones who get to decide when a protest becomes a riot or unlawful assembly.

I’m not saying they’re always wrong but when only one group gets to pull the card that allows them to shut down protest it creates perverse incentives.

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#217

Post by mandmandam »

gruez wrote: post #211
mandmandam wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a case of a noncentral fallacy. > "Tear gas is bad because it violates the Geneva convention" makes as much sense as "MLK is a bad person because he's a criminal". Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. That's not the same thing as saying taxation is theft, or MLK is bad.

>Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. Mind elaborating? The arguments in sibling comments seem to be some variant of "avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents". I don't see how that's relevant to protests. Are we seriously expecting the protesters to escalate to mustard gas…

Even if mustard gas escalation is unlikely in protests, the reasoning behind banning the use of tear gas on protesters still matters:

1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send.

2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't see it that way).

3. Normalization - just as in war, allowing tear gas domestically could open the door to more severe measures over time. Maybe not mustard gas, but you know, that's not the only possible escalation.

4. When the government are describing peaceful protesters as "terrorists", and abducting them pending illegal deportation, arguing to give them carte blanche on using sonic and chemical weapons to suppress protest is... Well, it's kinda fascist. I don't know a nicer way to say it. Context matters.

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#219

Post by labster »

cantrecallmypwd wrote: post #178
ty6853 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppressing protests in US isn't usually law enforcement, its purpose is to violate the law and suppress speech.

In the case of the Bonus Army, it was Herbert Hoover's intent to deny a means of existence with bullets to deny existence of vets and their families even sooner. History really wants to rhyme again soon, which is unfortunate.

Don’t worry, that will never happen again, because America will never be willing to fight another war in Europe.

Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia

#220

Post by kubectl_h »

avaika wrote: post #125
neilv wrote: post #16

I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that less-lethal weapon feel about it.

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.

It should be about the entity who brings something like this to a market and profits off it. In this case a corporation.
Post reply on HN