4 ms·

There's a reason this kind of thing is against the rules of war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons https://en.m.wikipe

by hajile 6y ago

There's a reason this kind of thing is against the rules of war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conven... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W... These conventions don't matter unless they're actually enforced. For example, gas shells were banned 16 years before their use in WW1 by the very countries using them. Lots of victims lived horrible lives of suffering or killed themselves as a result of their use.

tomashubelbauer 6y ago
Based on my reading of the article this laser weapon doesn't (maybe even is not capable of without modification?) cause permanent blindness.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Correct, it’s got safeguards to ensure it’s only usable at ranges that won’t damage human eyesight.
  - beenBoutIT 6y ago
    The company's CEO could really drive this point home in a presentation video where he gets 'dazzled' repeatedly at close range.
    - hajile 6y ago
      And yet, the US military has admitted that their own troops have had permanent eye damage done with this weapon. It would be legal suicide to every say that something similar had happened to enemy combatants even if it happened frequently. The Red Cross still maintains that dazzlers should be banned. The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law). Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to detect the range accurately. Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences. There's a CEO famous for shooting himself and others wearing his brand of flak vest. That doesn't mean it always stops bullets (even in premium environments). It means they're idiots. The same applies here. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-police-and-coastguards-use-laser-dazzlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p... https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-caused-by-presumed-laser-dazzler-2161-1076-4-191.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau... https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
- hajile 6y ago
  That would imply the use of class 1 lasers, but those lasers wouldn't have the required range. The laser in that picture is definitely capable of much, much higher power output then a few milliwatts of low frequencies light. It's much more likely that the US simply refused to sign that treaty just like they refused to sign treaties about other horrors like land mines or chemical weapons.
  - smiley1437 6y ago
    The article and the manufacturer's literature explains that the laser, while capable of fairly high output, automatically reduces power using rangefinders and some sort of smart detection so that it is eye-safe at all ranges.
  - navbaker 6y ago
    It seems like you're just choosing to ignore the parts of the article that specifically address the protective measures built in to the device in order to make sensationalist claims about US policy.
mtnGoat 6y ago
im going to assume you did not read the article or understand the device in the photos.
dmh2000 6y ago
apparently the difference is between temporary and permanent blindness.
tantalor 6y ago
"The dazzler is a non-lethal weapon intended to cause temporary blindness or disorientation and therefore falls outside this protocol." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)#Legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)#Legislation
- hajile 6y ago
  Citation missing. I'll guarantee you there has NEVER been a ruling about this and it's just an assertion added by someone who has a vested interest in the idea.
  - rimjongun 6y ago
    This type of discourse, completely biased with no good faith, makes me wish I had a downvote. Instead, you get an upvote! #plottwist
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Based on our more modern understandings of blindness, it would definitely not be worse than death. They should make killing against the rules and only allow blindness-based weapons.

by hajile 6y ago

tomashubelbauer 6y ago

Based on my reading of the article this laser weapon doesn't (maybe even is not capable of without modification?) cause permanent blindness.

valuearb 6y ago
Correct, it’s got safeguards to ensure it’s only usable at ranges that won’t damage human eyesight.
- beenBoutIT 6y ago
  The company's CEO could really drive this point home in a presentation video where he gets 'dazzled' repeatedly at close range.
  - hajile 6y ago
    And yet, the US military has admitted that their own troops have had permanent eye damage done with this weapon. It would be legal suicide to every say that something similar had happened to enemy combatants even if it happened frequently. The Red Cross still maintains that dazzlers should be banned. The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law). Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to detect the range accurately. Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences. There's a CEO famous for shooting himself and others wearing his brand of flak vest. That doesn't mean it always stops bullets (even in premium environments). It means they're idiots. The same applies here. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-police-and-coastguards-use-laser-dazzlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p... https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-caused-by-presumed-laser-dazzler-2161-1076-4-191.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau... https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
hajile 6y ago
That would imply the use of class 1 lasers, but those lasers wouldn't have the required range. The laser in that picture is definitely capable of much, much higher power output then a few milliwatts of low frequencies light. It's much more likely that the US simply refused to sign that treaty just like they refused to sign treaties about other horrors like land mines or chemical weapons.
- smiley1437 6y ago
  The article and the manufacturer's literature explains that the laser, while capable of fairly high output, automatically reduces power using rangefinders and some sort of smart detection so that it is eye-safe at all ranges.
- navbaker 6y ago
  It seems like you're just choosing to ignore the parts of the article that specifically address the protective measures built in to the device in order to make sensationalist claims about US policy.

mtnGoat 6y ago

im going to assume you did not read the article or understand the device in the photos.

dmh2000 6y ago

apparently the difference is between temporary and permanent blindness.

tantalor 6y ago

"The dazzler is a non-lethal weapon intended to cause temporary blindness or disorientation and therefore falls outside this protocol." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)#Legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)#Legislation

hajile 6y ago
Citation missing. I'll guarantee you there has NEVER been a ruling about this and it's just an assertion added by someone who has a vested interest in the idea.
- rimjongun 6y ago
  This type of discourse, completely biased with no good faith, makes me wish I had a downvote. Instead, you get an upvote! #plottwist

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Based on our more modern understandings of blindness, it would definitely not be worse than death. They should make killing against the rules and only allow blindness-based weapons.