Slashdot Mirror
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."
in 3...2...1
with remaining eye.
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
Import of mirrors and mirror related paraphernalia spiked sharply in Somalia, leaving traders baffled.
> meter-wide bean
That's a huge bean!
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.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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?
Bottom line: I suggest before coming up with idiotic suggestions, you actually google a bit of naval history. (And yes, I did do a feasibility study on missile attack defenses based on cannon, not rifles, and even they are not a very good defense.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
That's non-sense. These pirate boats are six meters per TFA. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.
From TFA:
"Sunglasses wouldn't help," he says – in fact, wearing them would only exacerbate the effect. That's because the glasses would not affect the green laser light – chosen because that colour is particularly irritating – but the laser would appear even brighter contrasted against the darkened background.
I'm guessing they think that people who can put their hands on automatic weapons and RPGs, sales and purchasing of which is regulated/prohibited in most of the world - won't be able to put their hands on some $25 protective glasses sales and purchasing of which is not regulated/prohibited anywhere in the world.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Luckily, active-duty Navy SEALs are approximately representative of the sniping ability of your average nautical rentacop, so there should be no difficulties with applying this scheme more broadly...
I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.
If by "unnecessarily" you mean "when they decide to become a violent, unprovoked aggressor" then sure.
... disturbing when you really think about it.
Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try. This is as simple as it gets: 1) pirates leave the mainland and they don't come back 2) other would-be pirates decide that robbery isn't the best way to improve their situation 3) piracy declines.
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. That is, it goes against their religion because certainly no contact with the facts would cause one to miss the point. The point is: criminals love helpless targets who can't effectively fight back. Criminals really hate facing targets that are as well armed as they are, or better armed, because at this point their instinct for self-preservation kicks in.
The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. The facts say that conceal-carry leads to more timid, less aggressive criminals who'd rather not end up in a gunfight, have no idea which person is armed, and cannot effectively choose vulnerable targets. The religion says that arming targeted ships would result in many more armed conflicts at sea. I believe the facts will be the same as they've proven to be for conceal-carry, only more so, since we can arm every ship that goes through dangerous areas and not just a fraction of them.
Whether it's on foot in the streets or on ships in the sea, the basic predator-prey nature of violent criminals and their victims remains unchanged.
It doesn't bode well for us as a society that we have such a large population of adults who are in strong denial of anything they perceive as an ugly reality. Rather than work to change an ugly reality, they pretend that the facts are just someone's perspective, like an opinion. It's
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
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. Cargo ships check in their weapons into the armory, sail into the port, unload, reload, return, pick up their weapons and go their way. Between the armory and the port, a distance of about 10 or 20 miles, the Navy or the Coast Guard of the country should provide escort and patrol services with destroyers and cutters.
That would be a sane and cheap solution understandable to one and all. All the news reports about gizmos like laser beams really have an entirely different purpose. Some company somewhere making a key component of such a system is looking for investment or begging to be sold out. The PR firms step in, come up with such "news" stories and create some media interest. Once the company got bought out or got its investment goals met, these news reports also would melt away like fog.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Cost and international treaties are two big reasons why merchant ships aren't armed. If you want military on board with weapons, well a 24/7 hour crew is going to cost a fair bit of money. Merchant shipping tries to cut costs as much as possible.And you aren't just going to put a crate of machine guns and sniper rifles on board and hope that the ship's cook or the 18 year trainee engineer on a cruise ship are going to know how to operate them correctly in an emergency situation, probably more likely to end up hurting themselves or the passengers than anybody else.
Plus international treaties come into play. It's all well and good suggesting you're going to mount miniguns etc or even just AK47s on your ship but a lot of countries aren't too happy about armed merchant ships turning up in their harbours. Can't imagine American authorities would be too happy about accepting an Iranian ship sailing into New York with a crew of marines on board manning deck mounted rapid fire machine guns.
We have different ideas of necessity. Wanting to put killer criminals in jail time vs. execution is fine if you can apprehend them. The apprehension is a very key difference here. If you can't apprehend them, and the people that you don't want to kill are out there, still with weapons, still killing other people, then what? These criminals clearly don't have the scruples that you do, and these scruples can end in even more unnecessary deaths, this kind of criminal is probably more likely to be willing to kill many people rather than allow themselves to be captured.
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
Thank you for saying what he should have already known. It won't take crates of weapons to start with, and the only time you need to have anyone armed is in KNOWN dangerous waters. The route between NY and UK? Um, probably don't need it for that route. Going around Somalia? Good time for weapons. You don't need the snipers on guard for the entire journey, or even most of it.
Personally, I say you take a fake cargo ship and roam around the area with a full compliment of trainees and give them some real world experience. I have no moral problem with taking out people who are armed and dangerous and whose only goal is to harm others.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The only other option is to capitulate. It's not the fault of the people defending themselves that criminals decide to attack more viciously. The moral responsibility still lies with the pirates not to be criminals in the first place.
There wouldn't be pirates if it wasn't profitable. Right now you can make a million dollars for 3-6 months worth of work, and you get to shoot a gun off without having to kill someone. Insurance companies are paying 100's of millions of dollars annually into the pirates coffers.
Also the pirates have had to go far from home in order to get around the naval vessels in the area. They are getting violent also because they are having to work harder. The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade, and then pay them top dollar for it for several years. It would be cheaper in the long run, and they would become stabilized at the same time.
Of course because it is the smart thing it is the one thing that no one will do.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
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?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "
The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.
Well no. It was a heavily armed society and therefore it tended to be a polite society. Most people didn't want to end up in a duel, so most people minded their own business and didn't flagrantly disrespect others for no reason. Those who were belligerent assholes tended to eventually pick the wrong person to screw with, and so long as it was a fair fight, the law left that person alone. That is, in most places two men could fight a duel without the survivor being immediately arrested and imprisoned. If you didn't like that possibility then you didn't own/carry a gun, for it was dishonorable and illegal in the extreme to shoot an unarmed man.
Overall I'd say most people were kinder and more decent than they are now. What you didn't have back then were so many bleeding-heart types who think that all violence is always wrong even when it's against a bully or other aggressor. I don't think that's a coincidence.
In summary, you're nitpicking one metaphor I used while deciding not to respond to my overall point. We can talk about the good old days some more, or you could further tempt me to follow every single metaphor with a line saying "the previous sentence was just a saying, an expression, meant to illustrate a point and not intended as literal historical commentary about the Wild West or other object of metaphor, get over it". I find both to be unnecessary. That latter option definitely should be unnecessary.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
BM3
So I am "stubborn" when I believe people should have the ability to defend themselves against an unprovoked violent aggressor? Please elaborate. Tell me how else you deal with someone who, by initiating violence, has already demonstrated that they cannot be reasoned with. Do you intend to send them a strongly-worded letter?
WIth that line you suggest that I am unable to think for myself and need an organization to tell me how I should feel about a subject. How nice. I get the idea you'd be disappointed to learn that I am a free-thinking individual who is unaffiliated with the NRA. My suspicion is that you'd be disappointed because that's a much tougher target for rhetoric than a list of talking points.
Speaking of facts, what I don't see you doing is telling me why my facts are mistaken. I don't suppose you're about to do that, are you? That should be easy since I've "got no clue what's going on" to borrow your words. Except it's not really so easy, is it, or you would have done it already.
There are literally millions of people who have had some kind of military, police, or private security training in the USA alone. Especially if you are talking about military experience, they have already faced far worse than a few rag-tag pirates with shoulder-mounted weapons and small arms. People with this kind of experience are not hard to find. Make the price right and they'll be quite easy to find.
I agree with you that the untrained should generally not be handling weaponry, except maybe as a last resort. Because you argue from emotion, you think that's a reason for no one on any of the ships to have weaponry. Because I argue from reason, I think that means we should recruit people who have the necessary training. See the difference?
We seem to have no problems killing many more Iraqis and Afghans than either have killed of ours. This is a non-issue.
For pirates, I say fire a couple of warning shots at them. Give them an opportunity to reconsider their attack. If they keep coming, give other would-be pirates something to think about. That would be more than fair.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. The facts say
that this would be awesome. Also there would be dinosaurs and space ships and ghost wizards who all shoot bullets from their nose when they roar.
Whether it's on foot in the streets or on ships in the sea, the basic predator-prey nature of violent criminals and their victims remains unchanged.
Because as we all know, the human species is genetically split into two completely non-inter-breeding subraces, the Victims and the Criminals, so all comparisons based on the Discovery Channel are completely valid.
And that, gentlemen and ladies of the Institute, is why we must arm the gazelles immediately. Because do we want an African veldt where only the lions have surgically implanted Uzis?
I know I don't, and that's why I created the hoof-held Stinger.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Somalia needs a unitified government for that to happen. At the moment there are 2 major groups (which are at war) trying to control Somalia. On one side you have the Islamic Courts Union which is an Islamic group wanting to push Sharia Islamic law on the people. The other group is the Transitional Federal Government, which isnt a liberal democracy and is made up of the most powerful warlords (which sprang up during the last unitified Somalia government fall in 1991). With peace and these factions not fighting the people would more likely stop piracy (also if the ruling group is good to the people).
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Personally I deal with that by not hanging out with shady people who have homocidal tendencies. I'm also going to guess that the forensics labs are a lot more clever than the average homeowner and can identify manufactured evidence effectively enough that it's still an incredibly risky thing to try. That and .. believe it or not, most homeowners with regular jobs who are not career criminals have no desire to murder the innocent, nor to put their families through all of the trauma caused by doing it where they live.
If you really think you have a point here, reserach states like Texas which have Castle Doctrine. See if they have rates of in-home shootings far higher than states which throw homeowners in prison for not trying hard enough to turn tail when an armed assailant threatens their families.
Things like capable vessels and military hardware cost money. That would certainly destroy the currently accepted theory that the Somalis are resorting to piracy because they are destitute and desperate. If that theory is found invalid, it would be grounds for using more of a military solution against a hostile nation that targets our vessels. I'm guessing that their improved cargo vessels wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. Navy. Think about it: it's in the pirates' interests not to escalate this conflict.
Do you seriously think a USA ship in waters near Somalia has travelled all that distance in order to pirate a few ragtag Somalian skiffs? Do you know anything about Somalia? I doubt they'd find enough plunder to even recover the cost of going back home. You talk like this is a law-enforcement issue where we have no clue which side is likely to be the perpetrator. That just isn't the case.
To a pirate, it doesn't serve any purpose to risk sinking a ship before it can be plundered. It would mean they risked their lives in a firefight for absolutely nothing. Again I believe you haven't thought this through.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Kennesaw, Georgia
From that link: "Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw." so it's more a viral meme than a fact. Forcing people to own a weapon would imo lead to more weapons nobody will miss and that end up in the wrong hands; kids or burglars (hey, every house has to have at least a gun to steal).
Armed ships are forbidden by treaty unless the weapons are controlled by a countries military who happens to be in good standing with the rest of the world community, i.e. they don't commit piracy.
There are weapons systems where it would be trivial to turn that boat to scrap from 1000 yards and it's cheap to run. It's not person to person sniping but it's close enough. I would prefer a system such as the one mentioned as it temporarily blinds them but I'd want the lethal system run by a competent military to back it up when the thieves figure out that device won't aim to more than one place at a time.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Are you listening Obama? Do you care about jobs?
Then authorize Blackwater (Xe) and Dynacorp to go after these scallywags in exchange for bounties put up by shipping companies. Pay out $100,000 an ear.
It will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and provide gainful employment for ex-military facing challenges reintegrating into the domestic laborforce. I see no downsides. It will cost the taxpayers nothing.
Then the next time these pirates approach a merchant vessel, they'll see a gunboat coming around the stern of the ship flying a US flag and ready to kick ass and take names.
It will be the economic gift that keeps giving. Just wait until the movies start to come out. "Pirate Hunter", "Pirate Hunter 2: With a Vengeance", "Rambo V: Arrrr!". America could become known worldwide as the finest mercenary exporting nation since the middle ages.
Problem with your line of thinking, is that to get the subsidized "fish farming education" you speak of, they would have to be pirates in the first place. Anyone not getting the subsidy would begin piracy just to tap that new source of funds. Increasing piracy in the end.
And people not fond of fish farming would probably go towards piracy because criminals are basically lazy. Your proposal cannot solve this part of that problem. This is the problem with most left wing style "let's help them" approaches. They don't want help or it screws the hard working people who've played by the rules.
In other words, DON'T FEED THE BEARS, it just makes them lazy and viscous.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yknow what? Enough of this "disproportionate force" bullshit. When someone wants you dead its not disproportionate to fucking curbstomp them before they have a chance to kill you.
How do you think wars are won? Do you think that we keep careful records of how many casualties we inflict so we can go and execute some of our own guys to even it up if we do to well?
We're not nuking cities to take out a single bread thief, we're dealing only with people who are explicitly combatants. Blowing them straight to whatever god they worship right off the bat instead of making sure that the violence is "proportional" is not only perfectly acceptable but in fact generally the whole freaking idea of combat.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
When you have heavily armed gangs around you have a big social problem that should be addressed head on, but disarming the citizens for this makes about as much sense as lobotomizing the internet and installing mandatory spyware on all computers because there are criminals around using the Net. Oh wait, that's what's happening now.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.