Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Jeff Berkowitz) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Offensive use of Sound possible? Message-ID: <1991Jan23.043358.7315@cbnews.att.com> Date: 23 Jan 91 04:33:58 GMT References: <1991Jan21.041118.5204@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 18 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Jeff Berkowitz In article <1991Jan21.041118.5204@cbnews.att.com> tipmo@oak.circa.ufl.edu writes: > Here's a question I've been wondering about. I know that sound waves >can be quite destructive if focused/handled/played-with enough and I was >wondering if the military has looked into this destructive capability. Fighter and strike aircraft afterburners have been used as weapons on several occasions when bombs were deemed inappropriate. The example that I'm fairly certain of is the "Mayaguez" incident near Cambodia in 1975. Since they didn't want to bomb the ship, they had jets make passes at low altitude with full afterburners. As you note this can be incapacitating (or worse) for unprotected personnel. -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb | Bugs are God's way of saying Sequent Computer Systems jjb@sequent.com | you have too much free time.