101–110 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"[...]the service is already fielding a far more powerful, hard-mounted, laser dazzler that will have a much greater range and a better ability to blind more advanced electronic optics. Named ODIN[...]" Let's name our totally-not-intended-to-blind-people weapon after a dude who's missing an eye...
Who says that one isn’t intended to do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like it is more of a warning "you are in our way" device? "For long-distance hail and warning, especially during maritime security, the GLARE® LA-9/P combines a powerful green beam with Eye Safe® technology. The laser rapidly determines if an unintended observer is within the nominal ocular hazard distance (NOHD) and immediately shuts off the glaring output to prevent accidental eye injury. Once the bystand…
How does it do that? I mean, I know of no technology that could do what this tech claims to be able to do. EDIT: my guess is that it's actually unable of distinguishing the target and WILL blind you but the quip about being non-blinding is because of the Geneva convention, since, apparently, blinding weapons are illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
It probably doesn't know and doesn't need to know whether the target is human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it do that? I mean, I know of no technology that could do what this tech claims to be able to do. EDIT: my guess is that it's actually unable of distinguishing the target and WILL blind you but the quip about being non-blinding is because of the Geneva convention, since, apparently, blinding weapons are illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
I imagine that it has rangefinding capability, and throttles the output based on distance to the target. It probably doesn't know and doesn't need to know whether the target is human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like it is more of a warning "you are in our way" device? "For long-distance hail and warning, especially during maritime security, the GLARE® LA-9/P combines a powerful green beam with Eye Safe® technology. The laser rapidly determines if an unintended observer is within the nominal ocular hazard distance (NOHD) and immediately shuts off the glaring output to prevent accidental eye injury. Once the bystand…
How does it do that? I mean, I know of no technology that could do what this tech claims to be able to do. EDIT: my guess is that it's actually unable of distinguishing the target and WILL blind you but the quip about being non-blinding is because of the Geneva convention, since, apparently, blinding weapons are illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
The militarization of law enforcement means that such devices end up being deployed domestically under much looser (or no) terms of engagement versus a 'lethal' weapon like a gun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diffusion rates are highly dependent on a lot of environmental factors. I doubt they can predict enough of these with enough reliability to ensure they are not causing damage. Finally, there's zero evidence that laser light sufficient to blind temporarily isn't also sufficient to cause permanent damage.
That’s literally made up. Countless studies are there for the googling.
The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (yes, laser irradiance conforms to this law of physics).
As the ICRC points out, the levels to "temporarily blind" are extremely close to the levels that cause permanent eye damage. Handheld rangefinders can and do make mistakes. Safety level ratings are based on a 0.25 second blink response. If the laser misjudges range for just that short of a time because there's an obstacle, unintentional electronic interference, or even incidental atmospheric reflection, the laser output could cause permanent injury.
Corneal reflex and fatigue. Not a lot of research there, but there are indications that while blinking increases in general, corneal reflexes decline which would drastically increase effective exposure. Fatigue is definitely something associated with combat.
Finally, this is NOT theoretical. The military has admitted to injuries to their own troops from its use proving it happens. They would NEVER willingly admit if an enemy were blinded as that would open them up to an international incident and lawsuits.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok so destin works as a scientist for the us gov. He did a video a while ago where he interviewed a general about the cyber domain of warfare. In this interview they discussed that the interview itself was part of that cyber domain, and the access they provide to destin is a part of the US presence in the cyber domain. [0] The pentagon clearly sees smarter everyday as a channel to spread information to a certain audi…
marketing is not propaganda.
Wow, this explains it all! I currently live on the beach in Dakar Sénégal. About 2 weeks ago, I was up late on my balcony and saw these dazzling green lights coming from really far out in the ocean. For one I was wondering what it was, and two, I was surprised that the green lights seemed to be coming from so far out from the ocean, but yet they were lighting up the beach like someone was standing right there with a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, it’s got safeguards to ensure it’s only usable at ranges that won’t damage human eyesight.
The company's CEO could really drive this point home in a presentation video where he gets 'dazzled' repeatedly at close range.
The Red Cross still maintains that dazzlers should be banned. The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law). Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to detect the range accurately. Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences.
There's a CEO famous for shooting himself and others wearing his brand of flak vest. That doesn't mean it always stops bullets (even in premium environments). It means they're idiots. The same applies here.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
It's basically the same idea as a control tower's light gun sending the red/green "extreme caution" signal but it's laser-based to work at long range. They refuse to give much in the way of details, it's not even clear to me if it uses radar for targeting or the statements about it being radar-based just mean that the person operating it gets instructions from someone looking at ATC radar. It seems like it might just be a minor modification of this same device.
Actually I'll expand on this, because I think the article is a bit unclear but it seems like this is intended for the exact same use-case. it's not really a weapon but a signaling device. The problem with air traffic is that pilots occasionally err into restricted areas unintentionally. For various reasons (mostly bad ones, but still not too uncommon) they may not be monitoring any of the radio frequencies that a controller or the air force would try to use to communicate with them. So if the situation is severe enough, a military aircraft has to be scrambled to conduct an intercept and redirect. Even this has a failure rate because not all pilots seem to be familiar with the internationally agreed upon procedures for intercept and redirect by a military aircraft, although I'd argue it's pretty intuitive (if a fighter comes after you, act rational and follow them when they turn away).
So for the DC SFRA where this is a big ongoing problem they introduced this "visual warning system" that's just a laser that flashes red-green at the suspect aircraft. Ideally everyone who flies in that area knows about it, but they figure that even for people who don't, it's bright and conspicuous and alternating red/green means "use extreme caution" (every pilot should know that one, it's on the exam), so it ought to be enough to get people to figure out that there's something going on and they should start monitoring their radio. FAA provided a demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wAhreg9qpo
Seems like this is the exact same idea, it's bright and conspicuous and will make people realize that something is up even if they're not monitoring the radio, and so hopefully they'll either turn their radio on or head the opposite direction to avoid trouble.
Wow, this explains it all! I currently live on the beach in Dakar Sénégal. About 2 weeks ago, I was up late on my balcony and saw these dazzling green lights coming from really far out in the ocean. For one I was wondering what it was, and two, I was surprised that the green lights seemed to be coming from so far out from the ocean, but yet they were lighting up the beach like someone was standing right there with a…
What’s the danger of blindness?
The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law). Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to detect the range accurately (inverse square law again). Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences.
The US military has admitted to their own soldiers being hurt, but it would be an international incident to admit it happened to someone they were fighting, so I doubt you'll see them releasing any stats about that.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...