New Laser Makes Pirates Wish They Wore Eye-Patches

vieux schnock writes "The New Scientist has an article about a new laser developed by a company in Farnborough, UK, that aims to deter modern high-seas pirates. Devised as a 'warning shot' to 'distract suspected pirates rather than harm them,' the meter-wide beam can scan the pirates' 6-metre skiffs and make it difficult for them to aim their AK-47 or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship."

Comments

Re:I have a better idea

[wizardforce]

Because you generally leave killing as a last resort. If you use the laser and they keep coming with hostile intent, then you break out the sniper rifle.

Re:I have a better idea

[0123456]

I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.

If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others.

What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?

Re:I have a better idea

[Pharmboy]

While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.

No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.

Re:I have a better idea

[c6gunner]

It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.

If by "ship" you mean "6 foot inflatable dingy", then yeah, it is. If, on the other hand, by "ship" you mean "cargo-hauler the size of several football fields" then no, it's not.

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.

No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.

The idea of being able to effectively defend oneself against a violent, unprovoked aggressor really seems to bother the hell out of a lot of people. I can't be the only one to notice that. All kinds of people will come out of the woodwork with arguments amounting to "you should have sympathy for the devil" and/or "criminals somehow don't choose to disregard their own safety when they violently attack others". Both are bullshit.

If you're so worried about your own safety then don't become a criminal who violently attacks others. If you become a criminal who violently attacks others, understand that you have voluntarily chosen a dangerous lifestyle and will have to accept the consequences.

That's particularly true for the home-invasion scenario you bring up. I want breaking into the homes of strangers while they are at home to be as risky (to the perpetrator) as possible. The world is a better place that way. Why would you want to make that easier to do, or safer to do in the form of laws stating that a homeowner would ever face any kind of civil/criminal liability for anything that happens to those who do this? Anyone else notice that if you oppose things like warrantless wiretapping, then "you want the terrorists to win" but if you support bad laws no one accuses you of "wanting the home-invading criminals who threaten your family to win"?

Anyone see how one-sided that is, or how clear the message is? State power good; personal initiative and independence bad; know your role; submit. It extends to the point that they don't even want ships to be able to defend themselves but wouldn't dream of opposing the efforts of the Navy to rescue the hostages of said pirates.

Re:I have a better idea

[Xaositecte]

There are all kinds of international laws and regulations that prevent civilian ships from being armed.

I mean, you could arm them properly, they'd just be denied entry into most ports on the planet.

Re:I have a better idea

[houghi]

Many people fail to understand that for the same reason they fail to understand that states which enact conceal-carry laws experience lower rates of violent crime.

You mean states like Bavaria in Germany or Flanders in Belgium? They not only have no 'conceal-carry' law, but have lower murder rates then any state in the US.

And when talking about states, we could also extend to who countries.

So to get peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, all we have to do is to allow conceal-carry and not take away their weapons?

And on a bigger scale, we should have applauded Iraq if they actually HAD concealed weapons of mass destruction.

Or might it be that things are a bit more complex?

Re:I have a better idea

[blind monkey 3]

That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Hmm, Venezuela allowing armed U.S. aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
The U.S. allowing armed Venezuelan aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
Being able to use a proper knife and fork on a plane instead of the flimsy plastic crap... priceless.
Countries trusting international agreements to punish errant vessels? Who will enforce it? The UN?
In all seriousness, it would be great if the ships could defend them selves but I can't see any way that countries will accept this. This could be used as a cover to smuggle arms to other countries. If any of the major powers are involved there is no way to police it (veto powers, back room coercion etc).
There are a couple of hot spots that could in theory be properly watched by navies and swiftly dealt with, this requires money and resources that will ultimately come out of our pockets and the amount of money required will be a lot greater than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Arming ships will end up costing more than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Collectively we are not a people that puts principles above profit so I suspect the current status quo will continue.

Re:Root cause of the problem

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Simpler solution would be to have a ship or a platform offshore, just on the international waters as close to the port as possible to act as an armory.

I don't claim to be an expert, but it's my understanding that most merchant shipping runs on pretty thin margins, and port fees are already a major expense. Who would pay for this undoubtedly expensive setup?