Slashdot Mirror
How Governments Are Getting Around the UN's Ban On Blinding Laser Weapons
Lasrick writes Despite the UN's 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, the world is moving closer to laser weapons in both military and law enforcement situations that can cause temporary and even permanent blindness. Military-funded research in this area continues to be conducted by the Optical Radiation Bioeffects and Safety program, and already "dazzlers" have been in use in Afghanistan. Domestic versions of these weapons are intended for use by law enforcement agencies and in theory cause motion-sickness type illness but not blindness. "But something bright enough to dazzle at 300 meters can cause permanent eye damage at 50 meters, and these devices can be set to deliver a narrow (and more intense) beam."
Used on Navy boats. They manual says "for starting fires", but, of course, anyone that looks towards the fire at the reflected beam is most likely blinded, and anyone can walk in front of it. This is no different. The manual says for dazzling at long distance. "Improper use" or "unintended circumstances" will be the excuse when people start to go blind with any of these weapons.
Last time I mentioned tens of kw fire starting lasers potentially leading to blindness from primary or even greater reflections...people down voted me here.
They only expect these rules enforced on other nations.
But we knew that already
Cool now the corrupt masses of police in America will have a middle ground between "Mild discomfort due to mace" , and either beating or tazing people to death. Permanent blindness sounds totally non-lethal and great.
I guess they have never been to a Pink Floyd concert, oh wait Pink Floyd pre-dates 1995.
Powerword Blindess, roll fort save vs 14 or be permanently blinded!
Is protester gear going to require properly polarized glasses in addition to cameras (and armour wouldn't hurt) and gas masks?
Go to adafruit and you can make one as well
https://learn.adafruit.com/bedazzler/overview
It's wavelength dependent. visible light will blind people but for the military combat lasers they probably use wavelengths that the eye is opaque to, meaning no focusing on the retina and damage due to minor scatter and reflections, but will still literally cook the eye if directly exposed.
Also, the military type blinder weapons that was developed in the past to intentionally blind had a kilometer+ range. Blindness at 50 meter or blindness at 2km? Is it really a getting around or unintenional consequences(in the same manner that less-lethal weapons can still be lethal)
The Protocol contains a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, never mind some photons:
"Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."
As long as the blinding is a side effect (mitigated by "all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision") of a non-blinding purpose(setting things on fire, destroying machine vision/optical sensor gear, 'dazzling', and basically anything else you might feel like using a laser for, it's all legal. That is not exactly fertile ground for any sort of serious arms control, even if lasers weren't comparatively cheap and trivial to build, especially at the modest powers that will really boil your eyeballs but aren't subject to the engineering challenges of aspirational air-defense and antimissile systems.
It gives me no pleasure to say so; blinding is a pretty ugly thing to do; but the Protocol as written is about as effective as forbidding murder; but making it legal to put a bullet through any hat you see, regardless of whether it contains a head or not.
How is this any different then a spin on the concept of security/exploit research?
You have to know the issue intimately to protect yourself from it, but that same knowledge and research can be use to cause harm...
Double standards hidden behind a biased plot twist? Nothing new here.
The simple fact is that in a world where non-uniformed combatants is becoming the norm then "less than lethal" means will become more wide spread.
Getting a dazzler waved at you isn't fun. But then it is generally healthier than weapons fire in the form of a 'warning shot'.
Dazzlers are a way of reaching out to the edge of aimed rifle fire (300-400 meters) and warning somebody that they are in a kill zone that they may not want to be in.
I can shoot you in the head and kill you but I can not just intentionally blind you?
Actually it seems like a simple enough technical problem. When you go to fire the first burst is a range finder burst and then you set the power for the range. Of course this would all be done by the weapon and not the user.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Does anyone give two shits what the UN says, I mean really?
This plus the microwave weapon that makes you feel like you're on fire for "Crowd Control" - oh, no one would ever use it to "interrogate" someone, I'm sure.
What a sick fucking world we've created, or have allowed to be created by silent consent. Getting tear-gassed in the 60's was all for nothing, we were all just a bunch of idealistic assholes; we shoulda just kept our mouths shut and concentrated an getting rich, then we could be doing the burning and the blinding. What a colossal species fail we are.
I welcome that killer asteroid.
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing or maiming them with a bullet?
An intentional blinder could be built to sweep square miles of terrain from a drone. The protocol at least prevent that sort of weapon, though it's a bit retarded that trying or succeeding in killing someone is totally okay but anything less is not.
It gives me no pleasure to say so; blinding is a pretty ugly thing to do; but the Protocol as written is about as effective as forbidding murder
Actually, murder is totally fine in war as long as you claim the victim really deserved it.
Land mines work better when they maim instead of kill. If you kill a soldier, you take out one soldier. If you maim a soldier, you take out two or more. Same thing with blinding soldiers. They're a liability to the remaining soldiers. So there's a huge nasty incentive to maim instead of kill.
I didn't know they could see in the firstplace.
Nobody gives a shit what you have to say.
But your choices are to have a framework by which countries can discuss things like adults and try to solve a problem, or you can say fuck it, and let everybody go to war over everything.
The US was instrumental in creating the UN. But, now the US likes to deride the UN because it doesn't always do everything the US wants. The UN isn't there to do your every bidding.
The conclusion is that America, as a nation, is full of childish assholes who want to take their ball and go home every time something goes against them. The same a you do with the WTO.
So, fuck you, fuck America, and stop fucking spying on the rest of the planet.
I'd rather see a thousand Americans die than give up any of my rights in order to let you assholes chase your security.
Fuck you you useless cock. Fuck your country, you bunch of childish cunts.
You sound like an American.
just when are yo uyankies gonna clean up your fucking acts...and start treating people with dignity and respect....it just might work ya know
spying lying sacks a shit the whole lot a ya
Consider how much chemical weapons were used in WWI and how seldom they have been used since the Geneva protocol was put into place.
Before anyone answers with "Syria!", I would ask that they look up the word "seldom".
After all, you could turn the cops laser right back at him...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unfortunately the police and attorney generals think that non-lethal weapons are okay to deploy against civilians. They literally say that about tazers which they have used to kill people in our state and the next state over many times in the last few years. Give them a non-lethal weapon that 'merely' blinds the victims and they'll use that too. The attorney generals then say it was justified and let the officers off scott free.
Our police forces are becoming too militarized and offensive.
Time to for government to suffer three times the destruction against themselves.
As long as the UN uses the same tactics to stop this research as they're using to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, nobody cares what they say.
How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing or maiming them with a bullet?
Welcome to international rules of war. They're chock full of semi-absurdities like this. One of my favorite is the fact that the M2 .50 caliber machine gun is not classified as an anti-personnel weapon. That means you are not allowed to shoot people with it. You can, however, shoot it at any sort of military equipment, including any that may be carried or worn by an enemy soldier.
I say "semi-absurdities" because with all of these rules you can construct situations where they do make a difference and make war more "humane" (to the degree that makes sense). But you can also always construct common scenarios where they're absurd.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's wavelength dependent. visible light will blind people but for the military combat lasers they probably use wavelengths that the eye is opaque to, meaning no focusing on the retina and damage due to minor scatter and reflections, but will still literally cook the eye if directly exposed.
So doc, you're saying I'll still be able to see perfectly well out of my cooked eyeball then?
And will I also be able to play the piano after this "procedure"?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
It's like the sign says, "Do not shine laser in remaining eye."
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The laws of war generally oppose weapons intentionally intended to maim rather than kill. Mostly dates to popular revulsion around the WW1 era over weapons designed to inflict nonlethal but gruesome casualties to hobble the other side by flooding their hospitals and supply chains. As a result, countries agreed to a ban on various chemical weapons, expanding bullets, weapons designed to blind people, etc.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...which is explicitly forbidden by this protocol.
This protocol doesn't say "no weapons which blind people", because that is a bit too broad (bullets blind plenty of people).
This protocol doesn't say "no laser weapons", because that is a bit too broad as well (rules out 'legitimate' laser usage, such as long range targeting).
It does say "don't make something whose purpose is to blind people".
Give one good reason why the entire world should NOT hate Jews.
After hoodies, welding glasses.
I am just glad that the governments are still respecting the FTL weapons ban.
How about 5, to start?
Bar Rafaeli.
Scarlett Johansson.
Mila Kunis.
Natalie Portman.
Rachael Weisz.
How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing or maiming them with a bullet?
The assorted 'laws of war' are heavily leavened by what their framers suspect that they can actually get at least some people to agree to; but the overall theoretical foundation always seems to be an attempt to steer weapons in the direction of "Kills outright, or leaves a wound that, if treated, will heal with comparatively limited permanent damage."
It's not an easy standard to maintain(both in terms of convenience, mass-maiming is a hell of a shock to morale and logistics, and engineering, something that will kill if it hits you as designed will likely cause serious tissue damage and/or amputation if it scores a sub-par hit); but it's not really a terribly strange shared desire, from the perspective of the warring European powers of the 20th century that wrote most of them.
What a baby. Probably an ISIS wannabe...
We should just nuke ourselves already and save the planet.
http://www.infowars.com/new-police-compliance-weapon-blinds-targets/
I didn't originally read the inforwars article but can't find the one I did read.
Yes. That is exactly the rule. Weapons that are intended to injure but not kill are illegal, weapons intended to kill are ok. Injuring someone because you tried to kill them and missed is considered acceptable, because not everyone has perfect aim.
In world war 1, countries invented poison gas, which caused blindness and severe lung damage, leaving huge numbers of soldiers badly injured but alive, exactly when battlefield medicine was advancing enough to cause soldiers who were losing an arm or a leg to be far more likely to survive.
This caused everyone to realize that poison gas was an amazing weapon for destroying the enemy country for the next two generations by INJURING soldiers -- all the 18 year old guys who are blind and have bad lungs from your gas attack go home, and are a drag on the economy for 50 years by being unable to work and on intensive health care... Civilized countries take care of their veterans, so you know your enemy would deal with the cost... but a world war with unlimited use of these weapons causing millions of badly injured veterans would basically cripple the economies of winners and losers alike.
Thus, after the war, everyone decided that before the chemists finished perfecting gas weapons, we should all agree to ban them. Laser weapons for blinding, as soon as those became vaguely practical, got the same treatment. Other, more obscure types of weapons get this treatment too.
Does anyone give two shits what the UN says, I mean really?
You misunderstand the way the UN works. It is a collection of the world's states. The UN blinding-laser protocol is a protocol authored by various states, and signed by various states. In this case the protocol on blinding weapons was co-authored by the US, and was signed by the US in 2009.
Does anyone care what the "UN says"? In this case, yes, in 2009 the US consented to be bound by that protocol, so it becomes part of the body of US federal law, so yes everyone in the US cares about it.
Hint: whenever you say a sentence with phrase "the UN says", replace it with "the collective nations of the world say", and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't (as in this case) then don't bother posting.
'Law enforcement'.
I agree. Maybe we can hook up a Google glass like display so that we can count, Terminator-like, how many people are dead or blinded, with ZERO BLIND PEOPLE being the desired display.
... or THC psychosis.
How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing or maiming them with a bullet?
This world holds a lot of horrors worse than death for our tribe of domesticated monkeys. Personally, I would rather die than go blind... But of course, given that we as a society regularly allow the infirm to live past birth, holding such a belief has become gauche to an extreme. Handbasket, please.
That said, this has nothing to do with issues of morality and mercy, and everything to do with military logistics. A dead enemy merely means one less fighter for the other side. A crippled one still means one less fighter, but also means risking still-tactically-useful men getting him out of combat, then wasting precious medical resources providing immediate treatment, and then (in most civilized countries) supporting him for the rest of his life.
It gives me no pleasure to say so; blinding is a pretty ugly thing to do; but the Protocol as written is about as effective as forbidding murder
Actually, murder is totally fine in war as long as you claim the victim really deserved it.
Fun fact: the definition of murder is "illegally killing somebody". If you can swing it so that your killing fits within the legal framework provided, no matter how insane, broken or unethical those laws may be, it's technically not murder. It's also interesting how the winner generally gets to decide what was or was not illegal. While there is technically a war crimes court, it really only exists to punish the losers.
One of the primary reasons that the US Military went with a 5.56mm round instead of the standard 7.62mm is because it does not kill, it wounds people more often. Military Philosophy is that if you wound an enemy, it takes 3 soldiers out of commission and demoralizes them. The wounded soldier, a medic, and someone to carry the guy to the medic. Killing someone only takes 1 person out of commission, and will often make enrage their companions.
The convention against certain types of weapons had nothing to do with not wounding someone, it had to do with humane ways of wounding and killing people. This is why it's perfectly fine to stab someone with a smooth bayonet but you can not stab someone with a serrated bayonet, even though death from serrated bayonet was more likely. You can stitch up a wound from one pretty easily, the other is going to leave a big mess that probably won't be closable..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
in spite of the neckbeards, 5.56 was selected because it's a lot lighter, so you can carry a lot more. No conspiracy to wound needed. Ball ammunition is used because hollowpoints are designed to increase damage. Simple, not a conspiracy theory.
that's exactly how American laser weapon systems are designed. Oh yeah, the whole "tracker optimized for missiles" or "tracker designed against aircraft" thing that effectively prevents them from being effectively used as a blinding weapon.
And the dazzlers? Eye safe at the aperture. Legal requirement of the design of almost all military lasers. Even on an airplane, it has to be eye safe at the aperture, in spite of interlocks that prevent it from operating on the ground. Measure the aperture of a western laser and you can immediately figure out the maximum design power.
This is why Pirates were way ahead of their time.
Eye patches both to help night vision and eye patches to stop being blinded by lasers in one eye.
Somehow manage to walk in front of 2 lasers in your life time? Eyesight wasn't meant for you.
one of those is not like the others, one of those just doesn't belong..
Is lethal force justified when cops start going around causing permanent blindness and life-long disability? Because my 357 thinks it probably is a reasonable level of self defense.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Feel free to join Hamas or sign up with the Ukranian army.
I'm certainly not intending to.
Worst is something that will almost certainly kill you, but does it slowly. More humane, but hardly different in the end, is something that kills you quickly. Best is something that takes you out of commission for a while, but causes no permanent damage. Fairly rotten is something that has a tendency to cause permanent disability, but less likely to kill. This last one causes a lot of damage to militaries and governments, even if individuals would prefer to be permanently disabled then killed. Although bullets can maim, they generally result in either a recoverable wound, or death. Conversely, weak lasers will only result in temporary or permanent eye damage, and have enough ammo that you can fire it continuously.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Believe it or not, those military conventions restricting certain weapons are also done because of an often ignored military logistic. Rather simply put, a bad public perception of your activities will have a strong negative impact on your military capabilities in the long run, and sometimes in the short run.
People get killed in wars, that's been pretty much understood and accepted by the populace. However, there is that little phrase "worse than death". Exactly what it means may vary by culture and time period, but it's very important. In general, if the public finds out you are doing things they consider too abhorrent, they will withdraw their support. That means less recruits, less funding, less access to other resources, and politicians trying to deal with the masses calling for your resignation and/or prosecution for war crimes.
Every military leader through out history that has ignored those very factors has ended their career in disgrace if they were ever in a position to act upon it, unless they got killed first. It's been going on since at least the Roman times. Just look at some of the politics their generals had to put up with. Although admittedly, there wasn't a lot you could do back then that would piss off your people without going out of your way to do it, but still, it did occur at times.
1. Jews are a people, Israel is a state. The Israeli state murdered
2. Stop pretending America was any diffrent before or after your imaginary jew take over. The problem is a system, not a group of people, and especially not a race.
I'm guessing logic isn't strong with you.
shooting a laser is easier than shooting a bullet. Laser goes speed of light (obviously) but a bullet needs to be targeted, has considerable travel time, good chance of missing, etc. Scary thing is a high power laser can quickly cover a wide area, blind large numbers of people without considering if they are enemy troops (including conscripts dumped in the field by an emperor) or protesters against government practices.
mfwright@batnet.com
Be that as it may, laws that are not enforced or do not have penalties for infraction that are enforced are meaningless.
Be that as it may, laws that are not enforced or do not have penalties for infraction that are enforced are meaningless.
Not true. Often laws are in place to provide cover for those who want to engage in activities the laws sound like they should prevent. For instance if you have a law that has a few well crafted loopholes then the people engaging in activities that may not fall under a technical definition of the law but are certainly against its spirit can point at the law and say "hey, we are following all relevant laws so we are the good guys".
I dont read
only if their enemies are the ones doing the violating of conventions or treaties, otherwise
nope.jpg
As far as law enforcement goes, this will be a self correcting issue. The reason the UN ban was enacted is because the mere thought of permanetly blinding our fellow human beings with lasers is both sickening and terrifying. As soon as the police begin using these, people WILL be blinded, many more will claim injury, and the resulting lawsuits will push cities to the brink of bankruptcy.
No one in government has cared about the UN at all for a number of years now; yes, seriously.
In addition to this a lot of the rules are centred around clean up operations later. It's one of the reasons for the discussions around cluster munitions. In 2010 about 100 countries agreed to stop the use, manufacture and delivery of cluster munitions - about 35 have ratified that I think.
It has nothing to do with them being inhumane and everything to do with cleaning up the un-exploded bomblets later.
The other is the ban on anti-personnel land mines. It is the cleanup costs later.
Lets see ...
Blind vs Dead, Ill take death vs a lifetime of not being able to do ANYTHING that I previously enjoyed doing.
Blind Vs Maimed, At least if i am maimed I would be able to do some if not most things that I previously loved doing.
So yea Dead or Maimed better than Blind in my book.
Why don't you educate us, then, friend? As far as I'm able to see, all 5 women that GP lists are of Jewish ancestry. I'm genuinely curious what pattern you think you see.
The laser was meant to drill a hole in his head but someone set it to "Stun". Give it a second to charge up and I'll bring up back into conformance with the treaty...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Does a uniform count as military equipment?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The long parroted thing about the 50 BMG being anti-material applies only in a very narrow envelope: explosive warheads such as Raufoss, which is basically an anti air round, and does not apply to most ammo fielded.
The reasoning being that explosive bullets under some threshold of weight are somehow cruel to human beings, not being reliable enough in killing them outright. All other ammo is good to go.
At these rates it is preferable to be thrown back into the stone age.
Just a matter of time till the nukes fall like rain.
Well, in theory anybody can choose to violate the laws of war, but if you do so chances are your enemies will do so as well.
So, you could go bombing enemy hospitals. The problem with doing that is that it doesn't really get you much (you're bombing people that are already out of action), and then you suddenly have to put all your own hospitals in bunkers lest they be bombed.
Likewise, if you start firing off gas weapons, then you get to watch cities full of thousands of people being killed with gas in retaliation. Or if you get too liberal with the laser blinders you get to watch your enemy come up with weapons designed to cause blindness and deploy them against battlefields such that huge numbers of your troops end up being blinded. The weapons being talked about here are more about dealing with individuals, but if you set out with the goal of blinding people I'm sure you could come up with more effective area-based weapons. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there were super-intense flares you could fire into the night sky that would cause permanent eye damage to anybody looking in their direction.
The Geneva Conventions are just that - conventions. Nobody can force anybody to obey them, but countries choose to do so in the hope that their enemies will do the same.
Obligatory "Real Genius" reference. "Your mother puts license plates on your underwear? How do you sit?"
It is down to a matter of control. One bullet fired at a particular target versus a continuous beam of laser energy including, potential for reflection, aim vagaries and the threat to civilians, much like using chemical or biological weapons. The preference is to get the enemy army to surrender not to mass main or murder as many soldiers and civilian bystanders as quickly as possible. If that was the case we might as well just let the nukes fly and get it over with. So it is worse because of likely hood of collateral damage. As for law enforcement use, a stern legal reminder needs to be issued to law enforcement that the only legal use of force is the minimum use of force to initiate an arrest. They are blatantly abusing the law when they use chemical, electrical, sonic, percussion or brute force weapons upon citizens with no intent to initiate an arrest.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
..but not permanently blind them?
I know some forms of warfare are inhumane and are thus outlawed (chemical weapons, flamethrowers, et al.) but is a blinding weapon no preferable to a lethal weapon?
It's a horrible device if used in lieu of other, less damaging non-lethal weaponry, but when used as a substitute for lethal force is it not a favorable alternative?
I'm asking questions, not trying to imply any answers. I really have no clue about this type of ethical reasoning and would really like to hear about it.
Most invisible lasers are infra-red.
Infra-red will certainly go through the eye's lens and cook the eye.
Lets see ...
Blind vs Dead, Ill take death vs a lifetime of not being able to do ANYTHING that I previously enjoyed doing.
I don't know about you, but it's not my vision system I'm sticking into her.
But, hey, we live in a pluralistic society. If your fetish is eyeball-in-the-vag, I'm sure there's porn of it.
This guy is not going to take flight anytime soon.
Does anyone give two shits what the UN says, I mean really?
The soldiers care.
The US is a signatory, and the US military has given long prison sentences to its own soldiers who have violated the Army's Rules of Engagement which are an extension of the Geneva Conventions.
BTW, 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons is part of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of warfare. It's not simply a UN resolution.
I'm sick of this shit - the Russians DID NOT invade Ukraine.
They have had a standing forces agreement, and a large naval base in Crimea, for fucking decades.
The Russian soldiers DID NOT INVADE - they were there under legitimate laws and authorities.
What you might claim, on the other hand, is that the Americans have invaded Ukraine by subverting their government and installing stooges and neo-nazi fascist thugs. But you won't read that in the papers or see it on TV; so it can't be true, can it?
I isn't. I mean you can always finish your blinded friends yourself and then you cannot be worse off than if they were shot in the first place, right?
Does a uniform count as military equipment?
From what I was told, no. But a web belt does, and so does a rifle.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Sorry, but if it protects U.S. soldiers, I'm all for it. Enough of the hand wringing.
Piss off. The UN's own members ignore it regularly. The organization is a joke.
Then enjoy living is your shithole nation...
Unless the UN actually get some real teeth; until then, they will remain the laughing stock of the world, by both citizens and world leaders.
I'm sick of this shit - the Russians DID NOT invade Ukraine. They have had a standing forces agreement, and a large naval base in Crimea, for fucking decades.
Crimea is not Donetsk. Really. Go look at a map.
The Russian soldiers DID NOT INVADE - they were there under legitimate laws and authorities.
lol. The dead Ukranian soldiers and their leadership disagrees.
What you might claim, on the other hand, is that the Americans have invaded Ukraine by subverting their government and installing stooges and neo-nazi fascist thugs. But you won't read that in the papers or see it on TV; so it can't be true, can it?
You can claim that. But without proof, such as the photos produced of dead Russian soldiers, you're just dumb.
If you go blind, I seriously doubt you would be remotely interested in sex, at all. I know I certainly wouldn't.
I have never, ever, seen good evidence for the claim that the .50-caliber machine gun may not be used as an anti-personnel weapon. I haven't found anything about it in any treaty I've read, or ever seen a reference to some sort of regulation.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Jesus Christ, you seem to have a tenuous grip on life. Good luck with that.
I'm surprised even vision is enough to keep you from committing suicide with your attitude.
Vision may be primary among our senses, but you *do* have four others. I could enjoy pizza, music, sex, and aromas just fine without vision.
My source was a US military training manual. It didn't provide references, though.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Are there (simple and inexpensive) wearable devices that can be made or used that would thwart laser devicea? Glasses of a certain color for example?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Yes plenty of laser glasses out there.
When people's eyeballs are at stake you kinda don't want dirt cheap eBay glasses though.
Not on US navy boats...
-Sailor