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

meter-wide bean?

[theskunkmonkey]

> meter-wide bean

That's a huge bean!

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: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...

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: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?