Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Scientists Have Developed the World's First Destructive Laser Rifle (popsci.com)

PopularScience: Chinese scientists have developed the world's first destructive, man-portable laser weapon. However, there is more to the story of this cool looking, but "less than lethal" directed energy device. The laser rifle is the ZKZM-500, developed by Xian Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics in Xian, Shaanxi. It's manufactured by the Institute's subsidiary, ZKZM Laser. Weighing at 6 pounds (about the weight of a typical assault rifle), the ZKZM-500 has a range of 2,600 feet. The ZKZM-500 uses a lithium battery with enough power for 1000 two second shots (keep in mind, those 1000 shots may not be at full power). According to Institute designers, its laser is powerful enough to instantly scar human skin and tissue. It can also ignite clothing, knock a small drone out of the sky, or even ignite a fuel tank. That would place its power output around 100-500 watts (most surgical lasers top out at 100 watts).

252 comments

  1. Re:Lasers are dumb. by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready? Or you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror??

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  2. proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    screen shots?

    1. Re:proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The linked article is 404'd even.

      I'd say this is just typical chinese research bluster.

  3. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready? Or you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror??

    Yes, please walk down the battlefield wearing a full dress mirror. It's completely safe and will not get you instantly spotted and killed by conventional weapons at all.

  4. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    No, but that's also not necessary. All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well. The effect of a laser weapon is based upon absorption of the light. Technically if you know what kind of laser it is, the color of your clothing might already be enough.

    Laser guns look cool and futuristic in sci fi movies, but they really make pretty poor weapons in reality.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need. Fire off smoke rounds or aerial spray and keep the area soaked with haze or mist. Laser = useless.

  6. Re:Lasers are dumb. by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, it's almost like you picked up on my sarcasm.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  7. First? I call bullshit. by Narcocide · · Score: 1
  8. popsci.com sets 382 cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously?!

    1. Re:popsci.com sets 382 cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it tries to.

    2. Re:popsci.com sets 382 cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

    3. Re:popsci.com sets 382 cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I also "love" that it says to me:

      Update to privacy policy and how we use cookies.

      Bonnier Corp. and its brands use cookies to identify your individual device so that we and our third-party partners can efficiently deliver content and advertisements that will be relevant to you, based on the pages you visit on our site(s) and other websites across the internet.

      View Privacy Policy
      View Data Disclosure
      View List of Cookies Used on this Site

  9. Re:Lasers are dumb. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Defeated by a simple mirror.

    Trying to deflect random laser small-arms fire with some sort of wearable or man-portable mirror system is...sub-optimal.

    All you really need is shark repellent. :)

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  10. The real question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it attachable to sharks yet? If not, why?

  11. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like a spray can of water..... a garden sprinkler could thwart this. it would setup a suspended cloud of prismatic reflectors (water droplets) , the laser would have to burn through the cloud, transferring sufficient energy to each droplet to vaporize it. If those droplets are constantly in motion due to the use of a high pressure fine mister and are hence being replaced continiously, that could be an effective shield.

  12. Let me know by meglon · · Score: 1

    when they get up to the 40 watt phased plasma rifles.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:Let me know by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Hey, just was you see in the article pal.

  13. Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our IP" by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    . The laser rifle is the ZKZM-500, developed by Xian Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics in Xian, Shaanxi. It's manufactured by the Institute's subsidiary, ZKZM Laser.

    While I congratulate the Chinese, I can almost guarantee that some country (which you all know very well), is going to scream: -

    "That's our IP", "Why do the Chinese steal our IP?"

    But the Chinese will borrow a leaf from their Russian friends and will retort, "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."

    Congratulations to those Chinese, from one Slashdotter here.

  14. Re:First? I call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    these are 10-15W Max portable lasers, this thing is probably 100-500W.

    You can buy solid state lasers with 15-20 W output on Chinese sites that run on 12v, most laser engravers have that kind of power.

    https://www.banggood.com/445-450nm-15W-Blue-Laser-Module-Mark-On-Metal-for-DIY-Laser-Engraver-Machine-p-1137779.html?rmmds=search&stayold=1&cur_warehouse=CN

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzUoe-9bKa0

  15. possibly bullshit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdURyWZD9tk

    any optics nerds can confirm?

    1. Re:possibly bullshit? by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Definitely bullshit. No need to be an optic/photonics nerd to confirm. To give you an idea combat lasers are used today to burn the optics of incoming missiles. And in an experimental setting to boot. Beyond this they are hugely impractical. You also need a huge amount of energy which means a strong electrical generator and a vehicle. There are experiments now to make them work on warships as self defense mechanisms.

      So basically news that pretend anyone has made the electrical output of a several thousand of tonnes warship in a man portable outfit are good for teenage rumor sites or clumsy state propaganda agencies like presstv. i wonder how such crud ends up on slashdot.

      There are lasers that cut trough steel at impressive speed though. Industrial infrared lasers in big factories. Sometimes powerful waterjets are used to the same effect. But if someone tells you a water pistol can cut people in two, be sceptical.

      Besides, i am also a photonics nerd. Not in such high powered application though.

       

  16. Yeah, but you can DODGE a laser shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you can't dodge a bullet, or tunafish. Maybe you get lucky. Once. Only the lucky ones.

  17. WTF !? by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 0

    How can people take seriously such improbable bovine manure ? Very clumsy propaganda. What's next , The Gaher 313 on slashdot ? It is not even funny.

    1. Re:WTF !? by pablo_max · · Score: 0

      You because they are Chinese and therefore are not able to invent anything? I guess if American didn't do it, it doesn't exist?
      Your casual racism is impressive.

    2. Re:WTF !? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Only idiots being race into this. Why do you bring up race? It has nothing to do with the fact this isn't real.

    3. Re:WTF !? by pablo_max · · Score: 0

      What ever helps you sleep at night man. Had the release come out of Japan, US or Germany the same guys would be cheering how awesome it is. That is typical slashdot though. If news comes out of China, it is either stolen, a lie or will break after one use, such as some comments below state.
      You can pretend your automatic prejudice of China doesnt exist if you like, but it seems pretty clear to any thinking person.

    4. Re:WTF !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you are projecting to me. The reason to suspect its bull is because the specs are unbelievable. 500watt estimated output. 2600 feet range, 2000 shots per battery and it weighs 6 pounds? Battery technology isn't that good yet. At least not for something a military would consider usable. The pictures also look fake as hell. It doesn't look like a real weapon, it looks like a movie prop. Being a laser it doesn't have to follow some design conventions of firearms but the human didn't change shape. Guns are shaped the way they are because its ergonomic.

      It's certainly not unbelievable that laser weapons can be made. The US military has made several and are currently trialing one on a warship. But nobody has put any serious design work into a laser small arm because batteries stink and lasers powerful enough to do real damage draw more than those batteries can reasonably supply.

    5. Re:WTF !? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      No we wouldn't. Because we understand Physics. It has nothing to do with China. Look at those EmDrive idiots: all Americans. It has nothing to do with your country or race. You should grow up.

    6. Re:WTF !? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      No you blithering idiot, it's because they would have to make multiple generational leaps in several separate parts of laser technology in order to be able to get the performance they're claiming.

    7. Re:WTF !? by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 1

      Only idiots being race into this. Why do you bring up race? (...).

      I think you answered your own question...

      Besides, this makes me wonder how poor is the background in physics of the editors of a "site for nerds" to publish something like that. I confess my astonishment.

      I have seen worse propaganda stints than that, my favourite being the Qaher-313, a mock-up of a "stealth aircraft" that was mercilessly mocked by aviation enthusiasts; The so called "test pilot" could not even enter the cockpit without bending the knees. :D You can google it if you want a bit of fun and time to lose.

      But that kind of stuff usually do not go farther than the general purpose press and wikipedia.

    8. Re: WTF !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500W for 2000 shots at 1.8 seconds each? 500 Wh battery. A 100 Wh laptop battery is roughly 600 grams. 5 of those would be 500 Wh at 6 pounds. Give or take.

    9. Re:WTF !? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Your casual trolling is mediocre, though a few took your bait.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    10. Re:WTF !? by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 1

      You made me read his precedent posts and i am afraid he is sincere. Not particularly surprising on the internet. Nor is the moderation.

    11. Re:WTF !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it that you understand about physics which makes this type of weapon impossible? Please show us your work, code monkey.

    12. Re: WTF !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdURyWZD9tk

      Beuler? Beuler? Beulerrrrrr?

    13. Re:WTF !? by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Not to mention battery technology

      --

      Normal people worry me!
  18. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you were being sarcastic were you? How interesting.

  19. So much for the Geneva Conventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignite clothing, cause scars, burn and char flesh, instantly permanently blind eyes, and so on, and so forth.

    This weapon is much worse than simple killing; I'd say it's a complete flouting of the rules of war. Nice job making it, scientists, but much like the atom bomb, now we have a lasting problem on our hands.

    1. Re:So much for the Geneva Conventions by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Ignite clothing, cause scars, burn and char flesh, instantly permanently blind eyes, and so on, and so forth.

      This weapon is much worse than simple killing; I'd say it's a complete flouting of the rules of war. Nice job making it, scientists, but much like the atom bomb, now we have a lasting problem on our hands.

      I've seen enough Sci-Fi to know that laser guns are completely inaccurate in the hands of the bad guys- so we needed worry... ... unless we are the bad guys.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:So much for the Geneva Conventions by houghi · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:So much for the Geneva Conventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you know, laser weapons like this already are forbidden by the rules of war - more specifically, laser "dazzlers" like the ones deployed by US law enforcement. It's quite legal to fire blinding lasers into unruly civilians, just not soldiers fighting for foreign states.

    4. Re:So much for the Geneva Conventions by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Citizens in a nation don't get as much legal protection as another nations uniformed military.
      What police and mil do in their own nation stays in their own legal system.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:So much for the Geneva Conventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Dazzlers do not permanently blind which a treaty prohibits.

      I long for the days when nearly all of the /. postings were by intelligent people, but now, they are by idiots like you.

    6. Re: So much for the Geneva Conventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol there was never such a day. I have been here since when it was still possible to get a triple digit uid. I never did. Why? Because mostly idiots posting.

      Go clean your rose colored glasses before you get burned by a Chinese movie prop.

  20. Re:Lasers are dumb. by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Informative

    Likely you are a troll, but a laser will happily burn through a mirror. Depending on the wavelength and the makeup of the "mirror" not all that much power is needed.

  21. warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under the âoeProtocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons, of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weaponsâ these are illegal to use against humans.

    So... nice to have and make drawings in the sand with... I guess

    1. Re: warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a great relief, since we all know that making something illegal 100% guarantees it won't be used.

    2. Re: warcrime to use against humans by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That's a great relief, since we all know that making something illegal 100% guarantees it won't be used.

      That is a version of the feeble libertarian argument that making murder (etc) a crime doesn't 100% stop murders, and therefore laws against murder (etc) are pointless.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re: warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when were the ChiComs libertarian?

      China cares nothing for Geneva conventions. If they mean to kill, maim, or otherwise harm someone, they will do so in any way they see fit, period. Don't like it? Okay, stop them.

    4. Re:warcrime to use against humans by oobayly · · Score: 1

      It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.

      Seeing as most soldiers are trained to shoot at the body centre of mass, you can easily claim that the weapon is to cause physical injury or death (like any other firearm). A weapon that fires tightly confined beam would be useless for trying to blind targets, for that you'd need a weapon that sweeps an area with wide (or rapidly oscillating) beam in order to cover the maximum area.

    5. Re:warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what exactly do you think anyone can do if the Chinese government actually uses them against humans? It's not anyone can fight them and win.

    6. Re:warcrime to use against humans by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Modern wars are not fought between nation-state that have agreed to follow the "Rules of War" and Geneva conventions. Or or more of the participants are terrorists, freedom fighters, Religious Martyrs, warlor5ds, protesters etc
      If one side dowan't abide by the rules then the other side will eventually stop obeying them as well.

    7. Re: warcrime to use against humans by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      China as a State Party of the Geneva Convention takes it more seriously than most signatories. They hosted the 40th anniversary conference last year.

    8. Re: warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laws exist to be able to legally prosecute offenders even in a libertarian society. Nice strawman. Where did you get him?

    9. Re:warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullets can blind people too...

    10. Re: warcrime to use against humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They hosted the 40th anniversary conference last year."
      Luckily, we have several cliches to deal with this logic fallacy: ..."do as I say, not as I do" ..."actions speak louder than words" ..."doth protest too much, methinks"

  22. Re:Lasers are dumb. by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's a helpful reply.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  23. "enough to instantly scar human skin and tissue" by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    "enough to instantly scar human skin and tissue" very effective against "model armies" - if you know what I mean ;)

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  24. Almost There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All we need to do now is train the sharks

  25. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original video since the Popsci article doesn't care to provide a link:

    https://www.scmp.com/video/offbeat/2153779/chinese-star-wars-laser-weapon-appears-set-fire-objects-distance

    1. Re:Video by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dunno why they are likening it to Star Wars, they were clearly using some kind of plasma weapons in that movie. Lasers produce a beam that travels at the speed of light, but the Star Wars they shoot short burst of relatively slow moving plasma.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Video by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      "SDI was derisively nicknamed by the media as "Star Wars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Video by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That rifle is being held awfully steady to put the pinpoint of light on something long enough for it to burn through. Either that rifleman has an exceptionally steady hand or there is some very cool steadying technology being used to keep the beam in one location once initially set.

      Or it's all a hoax/fabrication. Occams' Razor and all that.

    4. Re:Video by It's+the+tripnaut! · · Score: 1

      It isn't star wars until you hear "pew pew" as you press the trigger.

  26. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, you could also shoot and hit things without line of sight.

  27. It's Chinesium. It'll break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's made from Chinesium, meaning it'll break after two shots.

  28. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If those droplets are constantly in motion due to the use of a high pressure fine mister and are hence being replaced continiously, that could be an effective shield.

    Unlikely. Whatever speed the mister can push the droplets out in is insignificant compared to that of light speed.
    The laser will vaporize the droplets instantly and there is no way you can get the mist to move in fast enough to matter.

    You would do better with ashes or a small sandstorm or anything else that is harder to burn through.

    From the description in looks like it would be pretty useless against traditional body armor so the trick is to just treat it as if someone shoots at you with a musket. Avoid being hit in the face, modern armor will protect you just fine, and shoot back before they manage to hit anything important.

    Sounds like the more useful application would be to mount it on some automatic aiming device and use it to take down drones, but the range is a bit low for that.

    I think it needs a couple of iterations before it can find a niche where it is better than a regular bullet.

    I guess it is a bit like EMP weapons in that regard. They never really took off since traditional bombs takes out electronics just fine.

  29. And wouldn't it be hilarious by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    If the US were to steal the designs and market them to the rest of the world?

    1. Re:And wouldn't it be hilarious by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If the US were to steal the designs and market them to the rest of the world?

      It would be hilarious if anyone thought that a device like this made any sense. Laser weapons do make sense, but only on vehicles, and primarily for point defense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:And wouldn't it be hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would not be a new thing actually. You just described the US economy in the 1800s.

    3. Re:And wouldn't it be hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they probally will after all it wontbe the first time the nsa\cia help american companies out that way.

    4. Re:And wouldn't it be hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they make sense against humans? Why your narrow, specific uses?

    5. Re:And wouldn't it be hilarious by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It would be, only this is total vaporware. They're stooping to the level of North Korean propagandist claims here (although lately NK began to deliver on some of their claims).
      In short, the physics don't check out, not even close.
      Next week: China solves the cold fusion problem.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:And wouldn't it be hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well.. some guy created a replica fallout laser that could scar/burn skin and mark up steel plates. so if some random guy can do that at home.. not surprised to see a government make something slightly better. Im sure many governments have this and just arnt advertising it.

  30. Proof that it is yet another Chinese bullshit ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    What are you congratulating them for? You do realize this didn't actually happen did you? People are so gullible. Maybe Trump is right about "Fake News".

  32. Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I by pr0nbot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fortunately laser rifles are exceptionally effective against straw men.

  33. Re:Lasers are dumb. by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.

    Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.

  34. Most likely a hoax by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    There is no independent confirmation of the existence of this rifle. Absolutely none.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  35. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would you know? Have you ever seen anyone been killed wearing a full dress mirror? Didn't Think so pal

  36. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That laser doesn't seem useless to me.
    If you are one of those normal people who engage in the act of sleeping at home at night,
    there's a high chance of your property and therefore livelihood, if not life, getting torched by any of the easily flammable textile being zapped from a distance. Lasers such as these are an arsonist's dream.

  37. Re: Lasers are dumb. by UnConeD · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just imagine how fabulous the soldiers will be, covered in sequins.

  38. All it needs to do is burn out eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the ways of modern open war is not to kill enemy soldiers but to injure them in a way which demands even more resources from the opponent. A laser gun able to blind opponents is very useful. Give it a really good optical targeting assist to support massive range and a high rate of fire and you have a really good open field weapon.

  39. Not even remotely close to 'first' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in ~1955 the US military experimented with backpack fed man-portable lasers. they could blind and burn at several miles. damage equipment and ignite ammunition. but were deemed far too power hungry, heavy, inefficient, etc for use.

    1. Re:Not even remotely close to 'first' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1955??? In a backpack? The first operational laser was in 1960 in a lab.
      http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_townes.html

    2. Re:Not even remotely close to 'first' by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      1955??? In a backpack? The first operational laser was in 1960 in a lab.
      http://www.press.uchicago.edu/...

      Yes, but time travel was invented in 2045.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Not even remotely close to 'first' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was closer to 2245 before we found the first stable wormhole.

      fortunately for the exploratory crew it linked nearby in the orion arm, and getting back home was pretty quick.

      sadly for the exploratory crew it linked to 1947, and when they went to land they were shot down.

  40. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

    So the mirrored Disco Ball is making a comeback!

  41. Let the escalation begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soon everyone will have them.

  42. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

    Don't ask, don't tell, we can guess by your sparkles.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  43. The unspoken by unknown_user_name · · Score: 1

    The real challenge for military planners is not handheld laser weapons but ground and plane based laser weapons. It isnâ(TM)t necessary for a laser weapon to destroy a plane or a ship. It only needs to take out the external elements of targeting and defensive systems leaving it vulnerable to conventional attack. An Aegis combat system will protect an aircraft carrier against a cruise missile. Chinese and American military planners understands that without a working Aegis system an aircraft carrier is nothing but a large and slow moving target. Laser weapons are a game changer in that situation

    1. Re:The unspoken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rate of maturation of high energy laser weapons has always fallen behind the rate of development of laser countermeasure systems - metallized foil chaff, persistent smoke cloud generators, high-scattering broadband paints. The eyeballs of individual soldiers may be at risk, but no one seriously worries about a laser burning through an aircraft carrier, and I say this as a guy who worked on the ABL for nearly a decade.

    2. Re: The unspoken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed worrying

    3. Re:The unspoken by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The rate of maturation of high energy laser weapons has always fallen behind the rate of development of laser countermeasure systems - metallized foil chaff, persistent smoke cloud generators, high-scattering broadband paints.

      Only the latter of which is of any use on a missile, and right now we're talking about laser point defense. You could maybe use some of that stuff with whole swarms of missiles, but simply forcing the enemy to fire everything they've got makes it worth adding point defense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Perhaps we are missing the purpose of these lasers by huffybadger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps we are all missing the true end use for these lasers.
    Maybe their intended use is to blind night vision devices and infrared cameras.

    I read that the Chinese were using lasers to prevent pilots from getting near their bases and the island that they built in the South China Sea.

    Perhaps this is an extension of that use.

  45. Re:Lasers are dumb. by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Surely if the laser is vaporising water droplets it the steam and heater air will cause a large amount of diffraction.

  46. ..And its against the Geneva Convention as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.

  47. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a500W laser on that distance

  48. two things: visual and duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can see lasers with the right optics...just follow the source and take them out. Second, a 2 second burst is very impractical...do you know how hard it is to keep a dot on anything moving that is 2600 feet away...even breathing will cause the dot to move several feet. Ever wonder why snipers are laying down, with a tri-pod, have controlled breathing, and other tactics to keep the dot on point for a split second.

    1. Re:two things: visual and duration by src1138 · · Score: 1

      You are right. Maybe it's 2 seconds for a sweep shot.

  49. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

    That's also the opposite of stealth, so your gear would have the choice of being hard to track for guided weapons or hard to destroy with a laser, but not both. We rarely arm our soldiers or equipment with only one weapon system...

  50. In Other Words... by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    They hooked up one of these to a laptop battery and some capacitors, with a switch as a trigger:

    https://www.alibaba.com/produc...

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  51. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed

  52. Re:Lasers are dumb. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I predict scale-armor will make a comeback.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  53. Re:Lasers are dumb. by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Indeed. And even blinding soldiers is out as they will just wear laser googles. The only useful application of this weapon is to maim civilians.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  54. Re:Lasers are dumb. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Depends on the mirror.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  55. Re:Perhaps we are missing the purpose of these las by daten · · Score: 2

    FTA: "The ZKZM-500 has plenty of Chinese predecessors in directed energy weapons. Chinese police and soldiers have long been equipped with 'dazzler' laser rifles. These include PY132A, WGJ-2002 and BBQ-905, which are designed to target the optical imagers and sensors on enemy vehicles, aircraft and drones (since China's signed the United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, which bans the use of laser weapons that cause permanent damage to human eyes)."

  56. Re:Lasers are dumb. by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    The OP was likely being sarcastic but let's address this common misconception: a mirror is not a magical shield against laser weaponry. Go investigate some of the issues with powerful ground-based lasers developed for anti-ballistic warfare use. Laser aiming/focusing mirrors routinely blew up because no mirror is a perfect reflector of all energy. It may only absorb a small percentage of what's aimed at it but when you're putting out that much power it doesn't matter; that small percentage is enough. Same goes for us watery meatbags.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  57. Re:..And its against the Geneva Convention as well by daten · · Score: 1

    China has signed the United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, which bans the use of laser weapons that cause permanent damage to human eyes.

  58. Nigh impossible by guruevi · · Score: 3, Funny

    - The laser module - sure it exists but it is going to be big and need water cooling if it's going to be of any use
    - The weight - the module itself for a 500W laser comes in ~5kg. Even if they somehow got the module to fit in the 6kg they claim it weighs, the batteries and watercooling will pack on an additional 6-10kg.
    - The power requirements ~0.3 kWh (not accounting for losses from water cooling and other gear), that requires a small motorcycle battery, even if made from Lithium, not something you easily carry around in a 6kg package.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm pretty sure that lasers still suffer an inverse square power drop too...

      https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-the-inverse-square-law-as-distance-grows-similar-to-other-light-sources

    2. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An AK-47 weighs over 3kg. Put a decent-sized clip in there and it would be pretty close to 6kg.

    3. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range?

    4. Re:Nigh impossible by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 1

      - The weight - the module itself for a 500W laser comes in ~5kg. Even if they somehow got the module to fit in the 6kg they claim it weighs, the batteries and watercooling will pack on an additional 6-10kg.

      The summary and article both claim 6 lbs, not kg, making it an even more unlikely claim.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    5. Re: Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water cooling is needed only if the laser needs to run continuesly. For 2 second pulses, they probably used the body of the gun to act as a passive heat sink.

      The 5kg weight you mention is for commercial laser modules and most of that weight is the heatsink, if they use the gun itself as a heat sink, then thatâ(TM)s a 5kg non issue.

    6. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magazine, not clip. There is a big difference.

      A fully loaded 30 round magazine for an AK-47 is probably less than 0.75 kg.

    7. Re:Nigh impossible by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Whats the thinking with say a mil truck on site? Power from a mil truck of the dimensions and weight a truck could bring to support the power needs per device? A power cord from the truck to the laser system? Any size power supply that is within the wight and road/rail dimensions of a normal modern mil truck.
      The truck brings power to a number of troops with their laser packs?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 pounds is unlikely at the claimed range/power, but something less impressive is definitely possibly. I remember this guy's project from a couple years ago, only about 10% of the power but if nothing else it still 'looks cool'.

      http://4hv.org/e107_plugins/fo...

      Ignore the complete disregard for eyeballs.

    9. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's literally the only way this is physically possible imho. I'd be *extremely* skeptical if they're claiming they made a *CORDLESS* 6 lb. laser rifle. As far as I know, we aren't even close to having the battery technology to do that.

    10. Re:Nigh impossible by CyberKender · · Score: 2

      Further support for the debunking of this 'weapon.'
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      CyberKender
      Apparently Appointed Lord Mayor of There
    11. Re:Nigh impossible by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Only what you see here.

    12. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing would be said by 1960s computer scientist working on mainframe if I showed him my cell phone and claimed it's faster. Are you guys not believing this flat earthers by any chance?

    13. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only fucking difference is that you get to feel all high and mighty when you get to play Mr Knowitall. We normal people don't give a shit what it's called, only you gun pornographers do.

    14. Re:Nigh impossible by fredrated · · Score: 1

      lol!

    15. Re:Nigh impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pathetic. You can't even take a simple correction without losing your shit.

      "We normal people" don't go apoplectic over learning something new. We say, "thanks, you learn something new everyday" and carry on with life.

      Don't be a fucktard.

  59. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I predict scale-armor will make a comeback.

    I don't, because I predict the laser weapon if it really exists will only see niche operation.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  60. Re:Lasers are dumb. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Fire off smoke rounds or aerial spray and keep the area soaked with haze or mist. Laser = useless.

    That will work for the 1st day. What about the 2nd day, when you have run out of smoke rounds?

    Or are you assuming infinite logistical depth?

  61. Re:Lasers are dumb. by RobinH · · Score: 1

    So by employing a certain color of laser, I'm forcing you to dress in clothing that reflects and scatters that color? I guess I'll use a bright red laser then, since that color of clothing will stand out nicely in most landscapes we'll be fighting in.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  62. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but that's also not necessary. All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well. The effect of a laser weapon is based upon absorption of the light. Technically if you know what kind of laser it is, the color of your clothing might already be enough.

    Laser guns look cool and futuristic in sci fi movies, but they really make pretty poor weapons in reality.

    YES please equip your military with reflective materials because we have the lasers!

        - LIDAR Kill-bot

    P.S.
    Also consider venting excess heat in all directions, because freeze rays.

  63. Really? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    This fake story again?

  64. Re:Lasers are dumb. by higuita · · Score: 1

    actually you could wear a reflective camouflage, that is, normal camo pattern in a reflective vest ... it would be the middle term between the two, it would reflect most of the laser, but still be hidden enough ... unless the light conditions are exactly behind the shooter... from other angles, it would not make that difference from normal camouflage

    --
    Higuita
  65. Re:Lasers are dumb. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready? Or you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror??

    Sequined armour dah-ling... Full dress mirrors are so last year.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  66. Re:Lasers are dumb. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror?

    The soldier of the future

  67. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when was the last time a sophisticated modern military force ran out of "smoke rounds", Bill? Does that seem like an urgent problem for a country that spends a trillion on defense? huh? Did you read the article? Your dubiously-existent chinese flashlight runs for just over 30 mins.

    Or are you assuming infinite logistical depth?

  68. Aren't laser weapons forbidden? by kyjo · · Score: 0

    I thought laser weapons were among the forbidden weapon categories. Is China not a signatory to the Geneva Protocols?

    1. Re:Aren't laser weapons forbidden? by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      also, certain kinds of anti missile laser weapons are forbidden according to certain anti-nuclear treaties, but if you want to know what happens when you ignore such treaties investigate the Reagan era 'star wars' program, where the president ordered exactly such a treaty be ignored. "I'm sure you are as familiar with the terrible fallout of that decision as I am, specifically and exactly _nothing_ happened, except of coarse all players become more cynical about he effectiveness of treaties".

      Basically any large country can ignore any part of any treaty they feel like with little chance of real consequences.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  69. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Immerman · · Score: 2

    Probably risky - if the burning outer layer deposits soot on the mirror, then the laser will heat it rather than being reflected. Doesn't take much heating to disrupt a reflective layer.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  70. thanks for that. video proves nothing. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    A video of people on a rooftop allegedly setting stuff on fire with a laser proves precisely nothing. Even if a laser is being used, there's zero indication that it is the handheld device that's emitting it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:thanks for that. video proves nothing. by rlitman · · Score: 1

      No, that video proves everything. It is proof positive that this is a hoax, pure and simple. Looking past the fact that there is no shake to the beam over that distance, the size of the spot on the target is smaller than physics will allow for the divergence of a beam over that distance. I think that there may in fact be a laser being used. But it is setup behind the target, and is not coming from that "weapon"

  71. Only use : blinding civilian crowds by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Although China has signed the UN convention on not producing weapons "intended to blind", I'm guessing that means "as their primary function", since all bigger lasers (included ones fielded by the USA) can burn through solids, so can sure toast your retina in a heartbeat.

    These smaller "rifles" would be useless against a well-equipped conventional military force; while you're trying to burn them somewhere (at a 100 yards) they've already shot your balls off at 150...

    1. Re:Only use : blinding civilian crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the current ideology running rampant around the world, it's only a matter of time before the idea of "Human Rights" is trashed altogether.

      Don't believe me? Hell even the Human Right's strongest supporters are starting to have doubts about their current tactics.

      I don't think the powers that be are worried about the fallout from using a lazer like this. Rather, I think they are more focused on how to use it covertly to create FUD, and how to increase the power to be able to harm more than the unprotected masses.

  72. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready? Or you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror??

    He's a Glitter Boy and he's FAbuLOUs!

  73. Re:Lasers are dumb. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well. The effect of a laser weapon is based upon absorption of the light. Technically if you know what kind of laser it is, the color of your clothing might already be enough.

    Only if there's no dust in your clothing, and it is exactly, precisely the same color as the laser, and it is only that color. And if the color is a coating, not molded in, because then the laser will strip away everything but the pigment.

    It's a cute sci-fi trope, but the idea that wearing clothing of the correct color is a meaningful defense against a laser weapon is totally incorrect. If you just have a little contamination on a mirror, a laser will destroy it. You think you're going to get clothes to do the job? If that did make any sense, you'd want to wear fully white clothing, because that would reflect all visible frequencies. A flat white surface actually reflects more light than an ordinary mirror, because the light doesn't have to pass through the glass twice before you see it. But it still reflects less than 90% of the light, which means that as long as the remaining 10% is sufficient to discolor the garment, that 90% is going to go downhill rapidly.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  74. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ridiculous. Nobody is going to shoot at a reflection of themselves walking down the battlefield, that's suicide!

  75. Re:Lasers are dumb. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Probably easier to design something ablative, or something that carbonizes when hit with the laser - essentially leaving behind a highly-heat resistant and insulating carbon layer. The black parts of the space shuttle were made by carbonizing resins (RCC panels). The result would be a ruined, brittle fabric - but it would protect one's skin from the laser.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  76. Re:Lasers are dumb. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Is the opponent not also logistically constrained? The idea that one side could fire lasers at will for an indefinite period of time while the other side does nothing in response except deploy countermeasures is a little strange.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  77. Re:Lasers are dumb. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    perfect mirrors that are absolutely clean, will defeat them. Good luck getting them that way on the battle field.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  78. Re:Perhaps we are missing the purpose of these las by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The Falklands war had some reports of that too. Low-flying Argentinian pilots on the correct approach path at the correct speed in suddenly failed mid flight.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  79. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or you could join the us military and do all your killing remotely by drone from the safety of an office chair

  80. Re:..And its against the Geneva Convention as well by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China rarely honors treaties, even those that they sign.
    In fact, many nations ignore treaties when it is in their advantage. W and Putin are good examples of that.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  81. Re:..And its against the Geneva Convention as well by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    so what? China does not honor any treaty.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  82. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what drill instructors are for.

  83. Are chinese scientists bored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are chinese scientists designing stuff instead of doing science? Are they bored or what? They'd better let it to the professionals: engineers.

  84. For use in space? by dlingman · · Score: 1

    A lot of the disadvantages of these go away if there is no air in the way. Could this be a reaction to the "Space Force" announcements?

    I'm just thinking the space battle in Moonraker... If all you need to do is to poke a small hole in someones suit...

    1. Re:For use in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably this.
      Also no recoil, no need for extremely expensive ammo shipping too.

    2. Re:For use in space? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      A lot of the disadvantages of these go away if there is no air in the way. Could this be a reaction to the "Space Force" announcements?

      Unlikely. Standard cartridge weapons work just fine in space. The propellant chemical includes its own oxidizer. If anything, conventional weapons work better, as they have an ever so slightly higher muzzle velocity and a much longer range due to a lack of air resistance.

      Gas operated autoloading weapons might be somewhat prone to jamming, unless they're manufactured to fairly fine tolerances, since combustion gases can escape somewhat more quickly than normal due to a lack of external air pressure.

      Depending on the alloys of which the gun is made, it might freeze up due to vacuum welding of the components. It would be necessary to use a vacuum-friendly grease to prevent accelerated wear during operation, too.

      Other than that, guns work fine in space.

  85. Radiation hazard to shooter and nearby humans by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    With an energy rating of 100-500w, the direct hit isn't the only hazard. I used to be a laser safety officer at my employer and a laser of that energy level is a class IV laser, whose beam is hazardous in close proximity. Even if you're not in the direct path, the radiation emitted by a laser beam of that power is hazardous.

    Fire that puppy 1000 times and you've absorbed enough radiation that is unhealthy.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:Radiation hazard to shooter and nearby humans by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      Fire that puppy 1000 times and you've absorbed enough radiation that is unhealthy.

      Not a problem for the AV or drone (or shark) it will be mounted on

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    2. Re:Radiation hazard to shooter and nearby humans by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      absorbed enough radiation that is unhealthy.
      A laser does not produce any radiation, except the laser beam.

      For radiation you would need extremely odd lasers like a nuke induced gamma laser, or a free electron laser with stray X-Rays.

      And to know that: you don't need to be a "laser safety officer".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Radiation hazard to shooter and nearby humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A laser does not produce any radiation, except the laser beam.

      A laser does not produce radiation except the radiation it produces, yes. Are you taking radiation as being X-Ray and greater? Even radiators radiate infrared.

      Have you ever worked with lasers? The beam is not perfect. Motes of dust and even air diffuses the beam. Normally this isn't a big deal, but with time, sufficient radiation will be given off to be a problem. In industrial settings this typically means sunburns, eye damage over time, greatly heightened cancer risk from physical cell damage, the usual stuff that welders get from excessive UV exposure.

      Before being a smartass, you must be smart. That was your error today.

    4. Re:Radiation hazard to shooter and nearby humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's probably talking about a free electron laser, yeah

  86. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mirror armor

  87. I'll believe it when I see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH GOD MY EYES!

  88. You don't know the first things about laser rifles by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Funny

    All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.

    That's why these people made a laser rifle. The rifling causes the photons to have a twisting polarity, which allows them to drill through reflective surfaces.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  89. No they did not by Khyber · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Try 5 years ago Americans already had one made and operational.

    China did not make the worlds first destructive laser rifle. Not even fucking close.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:No they did not by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Oh, look, someone else already beat me to analyzing this bullshit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  90. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Blinding is also prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

  91. National Laser Association. by Zorro · · Score: 2

    You can have my Laser Rifle when you can pry it from my cold dead hands!

  92. Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I by gtall · · Score: 1

    Well, not a country, just the fake president of a country.

  93. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fewer US soldiers are killed than US schoolkids are shot!

  94. Re:You don't know the first things about laser rif by Entropius · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points for you.

  95. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It probably wouldn't work very well. Anything you do that reflects light is going to more or less completely defeat the purpose of the camo. You'd still be better off in most cases with camo, as they aren't going to hit things with the laser that they can't see.

  96. Re:Lasers are dumb. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    How many people do you think you can get dressed in scales? It's not like there are a who lot of lizard people outside of DC.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  97. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There would probably also be some sort of weapon that would leave deposits on the mirrored surfaces so that the reflectors aren't as effective.

  98. Race?? You revealed yourself as a racist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A racist is literally a person who thinks there is such a thing as races. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Despite the lack of scientific evidence that the scientific community noticed, nearly 100 years ago. The genetic differences are just way too small, to warrant such a concept. (And if you are thinking "But there are dog races!" ...They were literally created by the proponents of eugenics and racism. They didn’t exist before the 18th century!)
    Apart from the very very dumb and clueless, ignored by only two groups on the planet: The Nazis, and it appears the Americans.
    So, dear Americans: Whether you're pro racism or against it: Stop talking about "race" as if it is a real thing. Every single one of you is a racist, and nobody seems to even know what that word means.

    Sincerely,

    a German.

    1. Re: Race?? You revealed yourself as a racist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys invented racism LUL

  99. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    You clearly underestimate how many lizard-people are in the US. All the 1%ers are lizard people. Any non-lizard person who approaches their wealth are quickly stomped down.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  100. Re:Lasers are dumb. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re "weapons at all."
    Think of the optics on an event for the media. A line of troops, police aim their laser systems. Nothing happens.
    No sound from police lines. None of that 1970 US National Guard media image.
    Suddenly the criminals doing a riot have problems in their ranks. Their riot fails as individuals no longer want to riot and everyone knows its time to scatter.
    Undercover police and police informants get to keep their cover story as criminals run to escape.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  101. Re:..And its against the Geneva Convention as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell it to Trump.

  102. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops. Was that a mortar round in your vicinity? Hope I didn't dirty your mirror

  103. debunked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pyrofoam on youtube debunked the shit out of that laser.

    it's worth a look at.

    basically it came down to
    1 the wavelength would be ineffective on flesh and clothing
    2 the power requirements vs weight were all wrong.

    also this is a Chinese company not the Chinese military

  104. Re:Lasers are dumb. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    In this week's episode of, "Queer Eye for the Laser Guy" ...

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  105. The anglophone world invented stealing with "IP"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany was once called "land of the poets and thinkers".
    That description came up at a time when the UK had full "copyright" laws, while Germany had none such thing. As a result, German creativity spiked, while the UK one was nearly dead.

    All because some cokeheaded publishers (not creatives! never creatives!) decided they could steal ALL the money from the actual creatives and from their fans, by sitting in-between, and leeching off all the money. That was possible, because back then, there was no Internet, and creatives needed somebody to distribute their works. So the publishers blatantly made up the concept that you could "own" mere ideas, information, data ... And that the creatives needed to give them that "ownership" in order to get the "privilege" to be distributed by them. They lobbied (which still was literal treason and punished with 20 years of prison if found out back then) the government to grant them an exclusive monopoly on this made-up "good", to stifle its naturally infinite abundance, to raise its worth from zero to as much as they could squeeze out. Giving as little as humanly possible to the creatives, while acting like the whole thing protects creatives! (At the time when Napster arrived, I worked in the music industry, and the actual artists got about 3.5%... when they were a big artist... from which said artist still had to pay studio expenses. The "producer"... who did nothing special that the artist couldn't do, but snort shitloads of cocaine all day, got a whopping 60% of that CD price! ... This has massively changed in favor of artists since file sharing got big. So much for "protecting artists".)

    This is the sole and only purpose of the concept of "I.P." ... A concept that literally incompatible with the laws of physics (specifically, causality).
    To steal money, and not work for it. While calling anyone who doesn't let them steal, is ironically called a "thief".

    So the Chinese, like me, don't give a fuck about your leech vulture capitalist crime scheme, and say "If all you give me, is a mere COPY of the RESULT of somebody ELSE's hard work... Then all you will ever going to get, is also a mere COPY of the RESULT of somebody else's hard work!"
    Notice the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE between the actual work, which is worth money, and the mere COPY which is worth just as much as it took work to make the copy. Which is usually very very close to absolute zero!

    Oh, and by the way: Only 10 years ago, morons who were pro "I.P." were still laughed out of Slashdot. Nowatays, even this former bastion of tech clue, seems to have been fully brainwashed.

  106. Re:Lasers are dumb. by wafflemonger · · Score: 1

    Kilts are for day to day use, for battle you wear a floor length sequined ball gown. The idea is is blind your opponent with opulence.

  107. Re:Lasers are dumb. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.

    Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.

    Try using smoke which is already used to mask tactical troop movements and line of sight.

  108. Re:Lasers are dumb. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready?

    "After reflection, the enemy succumbed" -- Bullard: Tales of the Patrol

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  109. Re:Lasers are dumb. by meerling · · Score: 1

    Of course those deposits absorb the laser energy, which causes them to heat up, and a sudden spot with a high temperature difference on most materials that high reflectivity mirrors are made of will break under those conditions.
    Also, a low quality mirror doesn't work so well with higher power lasers. I talked to the guys at the local university who were demonstrating a laser that has a loud pop noise when fired (the beam is enough to instantly ionize the air and cause a mini thunderclap), and they told me about trying to use a regular hand mirror with that laser. Let's just say it didn't work and they needed a new hand mirror.

  110. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Geneva Convention, stopping horrible people from doing mean things since it was signed.

  111. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Disco is not dead! Disco is LIFE!" - Tony P.

  112. Re:Lasers are dumb. by meerling · · Score: 1

    Black increases it's absorption, and thus heats up, which isn't good for the human underneath.
    Also, much like a diamond, RCC is a rather special material, it's not just a layer of carbonized material.

    We do have several ablative materials that have been tested for use against lasers, but I don't have any details on those.
    However, the better armors and their inserts can alread protect reasonably well (or better) against a low power laser weapon like that, as well as defend against conventional weapons.

    Sorry about being so geeky on this subject. I've been poking around with it for decades ;)

  113. Re:Lasers are dumb. by meerling · · Score: 2

    Smoke does work very well for that. Common in sci-fi is a type of smoke grenade to specifically mess with lasers, but that might not be totally fictional anymore. One of the old things I saw listed on a Darpa list of tech they were wanting to look into was something like that. It was a long time ago, so maybe somebody has already created one that works better than the usual smoke grenade when it comes to blocking lasers.

  114. Re:Lasers are dumb. by meerling · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but these are only for drones and not shooting people in the eyes... honest!

    (People always find a way around limitations one way or another. Just research about the napalm/incindigel mess)

  115. Re:Lasers are dumb. by meerling · · Score: 1

    Except when the lasers, like these, are outside the visible spectrum. So what color is "invisible" ?

  116. Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

  117. Re:You don't know the first things about laser rif by meerling · · Score: 1

    Totally correct, but they are basing the "rifle" due to size and configuration of the weapon instead of a physical component like riflings.
    Though scientists have figured out how to put spin on a laser (or at least the photons, I forget the details of the article).

    Though I don't have any mod points today, you sir/madam/whatever totally deserve them ;)

  118. Re:Lasers are dumb. by meerling · · Score: 1

    The enemy will still be trying to recharge their batteries

  119. Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you chose him, so he's yours.

  120. Wait, there's more! by McFortner · · Score: 1

    And it uses a perpetual motion machine to power it!

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  121. Re:Lasers are dumb. by gweihir · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Which, let me see, the Chinese, the US and some other perverted authoritarian regimes care nothing about?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  122. Re:Lasers are dumb. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    That was a joke. Clearly the defense against laser-wielding soldiers is just the same as against those with flame-throwers: Shoot them on sight, even when they surrender.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  123. Re:Lasers are dumb. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Also, much like a diamond, RCC is a rather special material, it's not just a layer of carbonized material.

    I didn't mean to imply that they could design fabric that could transform itself into RCC when carbonized - I was just using it as an example of how pure carbon makes a nice insulator with a practical example. RCC would be overkill anyway, as it's not important that the fabric be durable or reusable - just that it absorbs and dissipates a short burst of laser energy. In the worst case we are talking 500 watts for 2 seconds. That's 1000 Joules, which is less than the energy that a bulletproof vest needs to dissipate. It seems feasible, that's all.

    Never apologize for being geeky on Slashdot! :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  124. Re:Lasers are dumb. by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Yes, please walk down the battlefield wearing a full dress mirror. It's completely safe and will not get you instantly spotted and killed by conventional weapons at all.

    That's when you pull out the dinner-plate-sized disc of chobham armor. To think people cover entire tanks with the stuff... what a waste.

  125. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

    It is best to think of lasers as emitting very specific wavelengths of EM radiation, in a very straight and thin line. Those that emit wavelengths detectable by our eyes (mostly in the red, green, and blue ranges since that is what our cones are designed to perceive) are considered visible; those that don't are not. For comparison purposes, consider that sunlight contains a wide range of wavelengths from longer than visible (e.g., infrared) to shorter than visible (e.g., ultraviolet) and it is actually the latter, the ultraviolet, that tends to cause sunburn and associated cell damage.

  126. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, unlike conventional bullet gun, anyone should see where it comes from (or at least the direction). So it is a no go in reality.

  127. Proof of Concept, Probably not Practical by foxalopex · · Score: 2

    The US have heavily tested laser weapons already and for the most part they aren't practical compared to conventional weapons in most cases. This is one of those cool Sci-Fi ideas that doesn't pan out. The problem is most lasers aren't very efficient and the ones that are (chemical lasers) use stuff so nasty they'd be deadly to the soldier carrying it if it burst or broke. Not to mention rain or dust or hazy day would reduce its effectiveness. It's probably a concept weapon that can give you a burn or blind but compare that to oh getting hit by a 50 cal round which would blow parts off you. It's likely a test concept weapon for experimenting but I highly doubt it'll ever come into widespread use.

  128. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill doesn't think things thru anymore.

    Anything coming from the motherland or her neighbors is automatically flawless. Bill knows the US stopped producing smoke rounds. He has inside knowledge. He's a spy, but we let him think we don't know.

    The fact that he's married to a local is all you need to know.

  129. Re:Lasers are dumb. by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

    If only Maurice Ward hadn't taken his recipe for Starlite to the grave with him.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  130. Re: Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong. The electoral college chose him.

  131. Sadistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, a Beijing police officer told the South China Morning Post that destructive lasers were sadistic and counterproductive for crowd control.

    So is running over people with tanks, but that's never stopped China in the past.

  132. Finally by jason777 · · Score: 1

    I'll take one in the 40 watt range

  133. The arms race is on its last legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will the enemy deend themselfves against laser rifles? Wrap themelves in tin foil or carry mirrors?

  134. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being, you dumb fuck

  135. Re:Lasers are dumb. by morethanapapercert · · Score: 5, Informative

    Military units around the world are already equipped with a decent laser defence mechanism. It's called a smoke grenade. It even comes in bigger sizes, from mortars all the way up to the bigger cannons. The US army at least now has smoke screen rounds engineered to also block out IR so as to defeat thermal and IR sighting systems. (and therefore would also be a good defence against IR up through the visual range laser wavelengths.)

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  136. Laser Tracers, Mechs, and Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's assume bad ass laser rifles become the military's standard issue rifles.

    So we gonna use laser tracers to make em visible (ha), or will soldiers need to wear special goggles to see the lasers?

    Or will an intelligence source analyze the battlefield and relay info to the soldiers?

    Will next-gen soldier armor rely on cutting edge insulation w/ crazy high r-values? Maybe we'll go back to full suits of armor. And if we're there, we might as well integrate powered exoskeletons. Maybe we'll just move onto mechs.

    And if we have mechs, and we can develop secure quantum data transmission, we have take pilots out of the mechs.

    Of course battery tech will have to advance by crazy leaps and bounds, too. (and hyper-capacity batteries will have a transformative effect on society)

    This gonna be cool.

  137. Re:Perhaps we are missing the purpose of these las by hey! · · Score: 1

    The supposed use will be as a less-than-lethal weapon for applications like crowd control.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  138. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lethal lasers will heat up and char mirror surfaces so quickly mirrors won't work.

  139. Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me that you just wanted to make a veiled racist comment about how the Chinese do nothing but steal IP. Guess they're too stupid to make up thier own inventions, amirite?

    #notallchanks

  140. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, disco ball armour and glitter-based battlefield dress then?

    My, aren't your war preparations special!

  141. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit! Go to damned near any truck stop (I work for and suggest Love's) and you'll find all the lot lizards you want. You're either intentionally lying(because you are one) or not even fucking trying....GAH!

  142. Popular science, ugh by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I'm so sick of that site, for over 5 years they've done Geo IP redirection, ensuring if I click their links, I'll be just redirected to the front page of their Aussie web site.

    It's some antique internet rubbish. I've even emailed them, it's moronic.

    Can I put a hit out on their site here? Can someone please take them out?

  143. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perfect mirrors turn this weapon back on its user.

  144. Did they really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or are they just pretending they did? Kind of like the guy who tried to patent an engine for faster than light travel.

  145. Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "But the Chinese will borrow a leaf from their Russian friends and will retort, "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."

    And this is exactly why -- or one reason why anyway -- trade sanctions are being imposed.

    "Free" trade only works if both sides respect the other's laws. China does not.

    In fact they very sneakily impose trade sanctions in almost invisible ways... like not putting a tariff on imports of Product X but then issuing a government mandate that anyone in China who needs a Product X must buy it from a Chinese supplier.

    The screams that Trump is starting a "trade war" are ridiculous. China has been conducting trade war against the US for decades, and past Presidents just bent over for it.

    No more.

  146. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sequins and camo don't really mix...

  147. Re:Lasers are dumb. by swillden · · Score: 1

    All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.

    Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.

    OTOH, you could have reflective gear with an ablative camouflage coating over it. The laser would burn off the camo, then get reflected from the reflective layer.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  148. What happened to the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In honour?

  149. Armageddon 2419 A.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is coming true

  150. What happened to the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In honour ?

  151. Re:The anglophone world invented stealing with "IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how Oriental racism towards white people is so much nicer and civilized than white people's racism towards Orientals. It's refreshing. I'm serious.

  152. Re:You don't know the first things about laser rif by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHA +100000 funny

  153. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Agripa · · Score: 1

    Weapons designed to operate through blinding are prohibited. If the weapon happens to blind as a side effect, that is fine.

  154. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Agripa · · Score: 1

    If you just have a little contamination on a mirror, a laser will destroy it.

    I think part of the idea here is that like soft body armor works against low power firearms like handguns but not rifles, a mirror layer inside of clothing will protect against laser weapons which are only marginally powerful enough to be lethal which will be the man portable ones for an extended time.

  155. Finally i can go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pew pew pew

  156. Re: Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.
    People chose him over the rabid Clinton.

  157. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't make fun of Bill. Just because you are not already one of the millions of people he has said he would not hire for his amazing, yet unnamed, business, which desperately tells of how there are no suitable candidates for the many open positions at unspecified salaries in unspecified locations for non specific duties, doesn't make him a child molester.

    Also, anyone know where i can find a cardio-thorasic specialist with twenty years experience using a no.7 blade obsidian scalpel to perform ventral bypasses on obese patients of Inuit descent, using Johnson and Johnson military grade gauze and 100ml vials of benedyne? Note using 250ml of 50ml vials is not an acceptable equivalent.

    Compensation depends on experience, but I'm willing to go up to $15/hr for surgical time. No commute, training or other costs covered. Surgeon must own own tools. This is for an at will, zero minimum hour weekly contract, with a 30 minute response time for 24/7 on call needs. Must be local, own own vehicle and able to lift heavy objects.

  158. Re: Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I always buy a complimenting set of infinite mass when I get my incompressible, massless, frictionless pulleys and rope for physics experiments. Just knot up some rope, toss the infinite mass pulley on top and let it absorb the finite energy of the laser.

  159. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retroreflector ftw?

  160. Re:Lasers are dumb. by RobinH · · Score: 1

    If I have a laser of that color, then I can have a sensor that can detect that wavelength too.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  161. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a glitter grenade.

  162. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The smoke grenade should take good care of both.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  163. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    In other words, pretty much any army that could matter in any foreseeable conflict.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  164. Re:You don't know the first things about laser rif by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Yeah, there's some spin on this, all right, but I don't think it's the photons.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  165. CFCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we found out who is using all that efficient coolant.

  166. Re:Lasers are dumb. by torkus · · Score: 1

    Mirror camo won't do much.

    For one, you need a CLEAN mirror - otherwise dirt on the face of it will absorb energy, heat up, etc. and be quickly defeat the mirror...and clean (as in spotless) on the battlefield doesn't happen

    Then you need a highly efficient mirror. Even if you reflect most of the energy, what's left will heat up and distort the mirror which greatly reduces it's selectivity...and then you don't have a mirror anymore.

    And then...you need it to be flexible enough to WEAR which doesn't generally go with high efficiency.

    So pretty much nope nope nope. Any laser powerful enough to for use for the battle field will defeat mirror 'armor' quickly.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  167. "Rifle"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are rifles, how do they get the laser to spin? Are the barrels really rifled? I guess it sounds better than "laser gun"

  168. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you obviously have never been in a battle.

  169. Re:Lasers are dumb. by Immerman · · Score: 1

    That'd be tricky though - the big advantage of lasers is that they're largely point-and-hit. Any deposit-leaving weapon is going to be back to trying to hit the target with a chunk of matter moving a million times slower - if you can do that, then why use the laser at all?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.