3 ms·
> For the Navy, it's not so much about the whiz-bang technology as it is about the economics of such armaments. Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with m
by lutusp 13y ago
> For the Navy, it's not so much about the whiz-bang technology as it is about the economics of such armaments. Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs, and the weapons can be fired continuously, unlike missiles and bombs, which eventually run out.
Why is no one mentioning what seems an obvious side effect of this class of weapon -- all the people who will be blinded by it once it goes into service? If this system goes into service and sees actual battlefield service, the opposing army will be quickly divided into two groups -- those wearing protective goggles, and those who can no longer make out their hands.
My conspiracy theory (isn't there always one of those?) is that laser weapons are a sneaky plot by the Braille publishing industry to spring back from their present near-irrelevance.
- spingsprong 13y agoWeapons that are designed to blind have been illegal for a long time. And these types of lasers are so powerful that if one hit you in the face, you'd probably lose more than just your eyesight.
- lutusp 13y agoYes, but as the range increases, the chance of death declines, but the chance of blinding continues out to a much greater range. If there's really an international law against weapons that blind, it's about the be seriously violated.
- spingsprong 13y agoThere's laws against weapons designed to blind, but weapons that occasionally blind as an accidental side effect, are legal. I mean, bullets and shrapnel can and has blinded people, yet bullets and bombs remain legal.