Nov 19, 2009: LRAD

Until now, it wasn't widely known that the US Defense Department was sharing the so-called Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) with commercial cruise ships. The weapon is essentially a small dish that beams hellishly loud noise that is deafening but not lethal. Weighing 20 kilograms and as big as a TV satellite dish, the device looks deceptively harmless. But once trained on its target, it blasts a tight beam of painful siren-like sound.

It's not known how the grinning pirates 160 kilometers off the coast of the Horn of Africa reacted as they suddenly were hit by the LRAD. But they were close, and the closer one is to the sonic cannon, the worse the effect is. It's possible they received permanent hearing damage, but at the very least they experienced an excruciating headache and ear pain to the point that they could no longer see or hear. They also quickly lost the desire to board the ship. Of course, even Captain Blackbeard would have quickly set sail when confronted with 150 decibels of pure noise.

Undertoad;609784 wrote:

Can this device be rendered useless by a $50 pair of noise-cancelling headphones?

SPUCK;609773 wrote:

I'd want to stand there behind a large round target with psychotic pirates shooting at it. Yeah yeah. I volunteer.

Undertoad;609784 wrote:

Can this device be rendered useless by a $50 pair of noise-cancelling headphones?

newtimer;609811 wrote:

...or some foam earplugs?

That's why I'd rather just let a submarine lurk quietly in the area.

Pirate boat comes. Sub launches a torpedo. Pirate boat breaks in half and sinks without ever knowing what hit it. Sub resumes lurking down below.

xoxoxoBruce;609819 wrote:

The "area" is thousands of square miles, and trying to hit those speedboats with a torpedo would be like trying to shoot fruit flies with a rifle.
IF, the sub was in the right place, at the right time, a deck gun would have a better chance.
I think aircraft is a better choice, but the ship has to hold them off long enough.

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1998 to provide independent assessment on human effects, data, and models for the use of 'non-lethal weapons' on the general population,[15] the TECOM Technology Symposium in 1997 concluded on non-lethal weapons, “Determining the target effects on personnel is the greatest challenge to the testing community,” primarily because "the potential of injury and death severely limits human tests." However, "directed energy weapons that target the central nervous system and cause neurophysiological disorders may violate the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980. And weapons that go beyond non-lethal intentions and cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” could violate the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977."


Interference with breathing poses the most significant, potentially lethal results.
Cavitation, which affects gas nuclei in human tissue, and heating, can result from exposure to ultrasound and can cause damage to tissue and organs.
Studies have found that exposure to high intensity ultrasound at frequencies from 700 kHz to 3.6 MHz can cause lung and intestinal damage in mice. Heart rate patterns following vibroacoustic stimulation has resulted in serious negative consequences such as arterial flutter and bradycardia. Researchers have concluded that generating pain through the auditory system using high intensity sound resulted in a high risk of permanent hearing damage.

The LRAD was designed by a small San Diego, California firm called American Technology Corporation. The company has sold thousands of the acoustic cannon since 2003, including large orders to the US Armed Forces. Following the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 that killed 17 sailors, the Pentagon wanted a non-lethal weapon to defend its ships that wouldn't necessarily kill potential attackers.

dar512;609821 wrote:

I'm sure you're right, Bruce. But I bet it would be fun to go Q-shipping through that area.

xoxoxoBruce;609824 wrote:

Q-ships. Oh yes. :D

xoxoxoBruce;609819 wrote:

The "area" is thousands of square miles...

xoxoxoBruce;609819 wrote:

...trying to hit those speedboats with a torpedo would be like trying to shoot fruit flies...

newtimer;610085 wrote:

1) Speed is relative. And relative to a torpedo, a speedboat is granny limping upstairs with her cane, hoping to catch the end of Lawrence Welk Show before going to bed at 8:00.
2) Speedboats aren't made to be stealthy while they're buzzing along the surface. But subs are made to detect folks who are trying to be stealthy. Not much challenge.

Adak;610336 wrote:

I doubt if you could make Somalia "right" with an invasion.

Millions of people, armed to the teeth, stubbornly supporting different brands of Islam - they can't even agree on what kind of Islamic law they want.

Getting them to agree to the kind of reforms that would be necessary to get Somalia back up on it's feet with a working government, is just not going to happen in that kind of absolutist atmosphere.

Best thing is just to leave them alone to sort it out. It's an exercise in futility to try and cram good government down people's throats, if they don't want to support it.

Eventually, they'll see "this ain't working, we need to make some compromises and quit fighting amongst ourselves, for the good of the country". Or they won't. :(

Toughening up the international laws on piracy and putting some security personnel on board, with the weapons they'll need, might have to do, in the meantime.