4 ms·

Just looking at that thing hitting a non reflective target is going to melt your eyes. Are we going to rely on traditional laser goggles that block certain fre

by lsc 9y ago

Just looking at that thing hitting a non reflective target is going to melt your eyes. Are we going to rely on traditional laser goggles that block certain frequencies? Or like fiber optic diagnostic microscopes, are we going to issue fully occlusive goggles that display a camera feed?

ProfessorLayton 9y ago
Yeah I wonder how they plan to resolve that issue. Even those ~$10 10,000mw green lasers from aliexpress can permanently harm your eyesight from a reflection.
pjc50 9y ago
And that's why laser weapons are a war crime: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...
- adventured 9y ago
  Not quite. You have to be a lot more specific: only laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. "Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. The parties to the protocol also agree to not transfer such weapons to any state or non-state entity. The protocol does not prohibit laser systems where blinding is an incidental or collateral effect, but parties that agree to it must take all feasible precautions to avoid such effects."
elihu 9y ago
I believe there are international treaties against blinding weapons. Some weapons get around those kinds of restrictions by having a different primary purpose; for instance, I believe incendiaries aren't allowed as anti-personnel weapons, but white phosphorous is allowed for creating a smoke screen. I guess if you aren't intentionally trying to blind people that's allowed?
- fapjacks 9y ago
  You can't target personnel with incendiaries (e.g. white phosphorus), but you can target their equipment with incendiaries. While this normally means stuff like artillery pieces or crew-served weapons, belts and canteens are also considered "equipment". There's ways around international law and enough fog of war on the battlefield that anything short of organized gross violation isn't going to get brought before a court. Totally agreed that the use of these laser weapons could obviously and easily blind someone won't matter because it's not intended to blind someone.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- IntronExon 9y ago
  As Syria’s use of chemical weapons has shown, those treaties simply aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
  - ISL 9y ago
    As the general lack of widespread usage of chemical weapons since WWI (yes, there are notable exceptions, including the Iran-Iraq war) would suggest, those treaties have prevented a whole lot of human suffering. Imagine what Vietnam would have been like if both sides had used chemical weapons extensively.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      We did use chemical weapons, just not organophosphate nerve agents, vessicants, and choking agents. Instead we used defoliants, which just happen to also be carcinogenic and teratogenic agents. Besides, chemical weapons are for urban and open battlefield use, they would be counterproductive in a jungle. You know why we don’t use them? They suck. Even in WWI, after people figured out what they were about, casualties from chemical agents were never as extreme as in their initial deployment. Militaries train and equip soldiers to handle chemical agents, which rely on favorable atmospheric conditions as well. What chemical weapons are good at doing is murdering civilians, especially the very young and very old. They’re a terror weapon with minimal utility beyond killing people who were never going to fight you anyhow. So no, we didn’t use them in Vietnam, we used daisy cutters and napalm and iron bombs, not because they’re kinder, but because they’re efficacious. Laws against white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons hasn’t altered their prevalence, because they work. Depleted Uranium, megatons of lead, and other horrific pollutants, not to mention land mines are still wildly popular because they work as intended. That they also decimate populations for years after conflict ends doesn’t matter to people, just that they work. Don’t kid yourself.

by lsc 9y ago

ProfessorLayton 9y ago

Yeah I wonder how they plan to resolve that issue. Even those ~$10 10,000mw green lasers from aliexpress can permanently harm your eyesight from a reflection.

pjc50 9y ago

And that's why laser weapons are a war crime: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...

adventured 9y ago
Not quite. You have to be a lot more specific: only laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. "Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. The parties to the protocol also agree to not transfer such weapons to any state or non-state entity. The protocol does not prohibit laser systems where blinding is an incidental or collateral effect, but parties that agree to it must take all feasible precautions to avoid such effects."

elihu 9y ago

I believe there are international treaties against blinding weapons. Some weapons get around those kinds of restrictions by having a different primary purpose; for instance, I believe incendiaries aren't allowed as anti-personnel weapons, but white phosphorous is allowed for creating a smoke screen. I guess if you aren't intentionally trying to blind people that's allowed?

fapjacks 9y ago
You can't target personnel with incendiaries (e.g. white phosphorus), but you can target their equipment with incendiaries. While this normally means stuff like artillery pieces or crew-served weapons, belts and canteens are also considered "equipment". There's ways around international law and enough fog of war on the battlefield that anything short of organized gross violation isn't going to get brought before a court. Totally agreed that the use of these laser weapons could obviously and easily blind someone won't matter because it's not intended to blind someone.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
IntronExon 9y ago
As Syria’s use of chemical weapons has shown, those treaties simply aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
- ISL 9y ago
  As the general lack of widespread usage of chemical weapons since WWI (yes, there are notable exceptions, including the Iran-Iraq war) would suggest, those treaties have prevented a whole lot of human suffering. Imagine what Vietnam would have been like if both sides had used chemical weapons extensively.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    We did use chemical weapons, just not organophosphate nerve agents, vessicants, and choking agents. Instead we used defoliants, which just happen to also be carcinogenic and teratogenic agents. Besides, chemical weapons are for urban and open battlefield use, they would be counterproductive in a jungle. You know why we don’t use them? They suck. Even in WWI, after people figured out what they were about, casualties from chemical agents were never as extreme as in their initial deployment. Militaries train and equip soldiers to handle chemical agents, which rely on favorable atmospheric conditions as well. What chemical weapons are good at doing is murdering civilians, especially the very young and very old. They’re a terror weapon with minimal utility beyond killing people who were never going to fight you anyhow. So no, we didn’t use them in Vietnam, we used daisy cutters and napalm and iron bombs, not because they’re kinder, but because they’re efficacious. Laws against white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons hasn’t altered their prevalence, because they work. Depleted Uranium, megatons of lead, and other horrific pollutants, not to mention land mines are still wildly popular because they work as intended. That they also decimate populations for years after conflict ends doesn’t matter to people, just that they work. Don’t kid yourself.