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

Cue something about sharks

[vakuona]

in 3...2...1

Re:Cue something about sharks

[badran]

Sharks

Don't look at approaching ship

[line-bundle]

with remaining eye.

Re:I have a better idea

[Jeremy Erwin]

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

related?

[Jeek Elemental]

Import of mirrors and mirror related paraphernalia spiked sharply in Somalia, leaving traders baffled.

meter-wide bean?

[theskunkmonkey]

> meter-wide bean

That's a huge bean!

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?

Will not work

[Kupfernigk]

This will not work because:

• Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship? Last time I checked, snipers did not use moving platforms, or aim at rapidly moving targets . Therefore, range would be greatly reduced.
• It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
• If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.

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.)

Re:Will not work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So, 1.5 million a pop(not counting the necessary radar, integration, staffing, and maintenance), per turret(larger ships would almost certainly need more than one, to prevent attacks on their blind spots), to deal with a problem that affects under 1% of the ships passing through that area?

I'm fairly sure that that sound I hear in the distance is the actuaries at Lloyds laughing through their stiff upper lips...

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Actually... green light.

[denzacar]

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.

Re:Actually... green light.

[marcansoft]

To throw some numbers in: The glasses that the GP linked to are OD 4 for 532nm light (i.e. green Nd:YAG lasers, which are basically guaranteed to be the type used by this weapon). That means they block 99.99% of the beam at that wavelength. That's quickly going to turn any beam designed to be borderline non-permanently-damaging into barely a bother.

In fact, I just ran a quick test. I have a 30mW green pointer, which is definitely unsafe for direct eye exposure. I expanded the beam with a lens to about a 20cm radius, which is eye-safe at this power level. Looked at it thought my glasses (I actually have that same model), and it was just a very slight orange glow, about on par with an indicator LED. Took the goggles off and it was very annoying (I had an afterimage for a few minutes). I imagine the laser weapon will be closer to the damage threshold than my quick test, but still, the glasses will totally destroy any effect unless the laser runs at power levels much higher than eye-safe ones.

Or, testing with the (definitely eye unsafe) collimated 30mW, through the glasses, onto a wall: the green dot is barely visible. I'm going going to try pointing it into my eye (see below), but that mount of light is not going to bother anyone.

Note for anyone wanting to try this: don't unless you really know what you're doing. In particular, looking into the bare beam with glasses on is a very bad idea. You probably won't damage your eyes with the green light, but these cheap chinese pointers tend to lack IR filters, and that can screw you since the glasses won't block IR (worse, your blink response won't trigger and you'll slowly cook your retina). In fact, I can see a slight deep red glow around the projected green dot going through the glasses, which indicates there's a considerable amount of leaked IR, probably well above the damage threshold (if you can see IR, there's a lot of it).

Re:I have a better idea

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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...

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.

Root cause of the problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The root cause of the problem is that, most port authorities and countries prohibit a merchant marine ship from having arms on board. So cargo ship with machine guns would not be permitted to dock on most harbors and ports in the world. That is the reason for these ships from being armed. These guys are coming up with stupid weapons like water cannons, beamed sound waves, and now lasers, because they would not be called "arms" by the ports.

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.

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?

Cost and international treaties are why no weapons

[fantomas]

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.

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

[peragrin]

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.

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

[causality]

"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.

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:I have a better idea

[lennier]

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.