71–80 of 530 posts
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.
I'm pretty sure that's not actually how power or legitimacy work anyway.
Is there any counter measure for this? Hardcore hearing protection? Noise cancelling headphones? Handheld sound insulation "shield"?
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.
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…
the only acceptable condition to use it maybe if there are riot or violence breakout in that area not for peaceful protest
It just screams "escalation" to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Everything short of the worst we've ever done is totally OK? What even is this argument?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Something like protecting the capitol from being stormed by a mob?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"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 tha…
Jeez. Getting your comment flagged for asking for a source. I'm out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Can you have a device which upon detecting the frequency emits some kind of counter vibration that cancels out th attack?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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