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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
All of that is very illegal for civilians to own citizen.
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 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".
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.
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'.
... 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.
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.
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
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.
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
or mabey you can consult outside sources, before "ask a veteran what he learned in bootcamp", which is a basic history lesson for someone with an IQ of 85, which is exactly what basic military and just about all non SF infantry courses are.
only if their enemies are the ones doing the violating of conventions or treaties, otherwise
nope.jpg
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.
Your troll does not make sense. If ball ammo has longer range how the fuck can this possibly relate to close quarters combat? Fuck you are stupid.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military. I'm better asking Richard Jewel about 2 man tactics than I am reading a military TM, which provides the history and theory as well as the tactics.
Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong. The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.
Contrary to your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem, the source is usually the best way to get information. Not always, but military doctrine and principles are very well documented and available to every soldier that wants to go read. Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.
Lastly, before you go another round of pathetic fallacy, learn what "one of many" means and then reread the post.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
>Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military.
.50 cal machine gun at
no. I am just saying, repeating what they teach you in BCT as absolute fact is bullshit. Lot of it is outdated(generally fighting a few wars past), and very biased.
>Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong.
I serious suggest reading something before getting mad.
>ad hominem
you keep using that word, you don't seem to know what it means. It doesn't mean "someone proved me wrong on internets", like I was doing to you, it means "attacking someone's character as a counter argument", such as you are doing.
>The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.
the M9 bayonet has a serrated backside and is a multipurpose tool. The M9 was not designed with the serious intent of being used as a weapon.(its basicly a camping knife)
Oh speaking of e-tools, those are also serrated, and your instructed to use those as a weapon as well, as they have been used as weapons, because, oh, the last bayonet charge by US forces was in WW2, and it was outdated by then. ZOMG THE US ARMY LIKES TO FIND WAYS AROUND THE CONVENTION. Sweet shit. next your going to tell me that US forces would never aim a
I think what you mean to say, is no bayonet used by the US Army, when bayonnets were actually used against people, which would be true, because it wouldn't be praticle.
>Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.
military libraries? no such thing. I've sifted through boxes of documents in my time, but there is no military library. And no, most soliders don't spend their off time sifting through such manuals on the rules of war.
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.
I would hold very little faith in tales told by military brass at a boot camp. They are too far and remote from actual military decision makers, and impossibly far from military historians. Being a boot camp they are also not very accountable for the shit they make up. Try to pull your head from your arse from time to time.
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
Most invisible lasers are infra-red.
Infra-red will certainly go through the eye's lens and cook the eye.
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.
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.
Piss off. The UN's own members ignore it regularly. The organization is a joke.
Then enjoy living is your shithole nation...
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
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.