Two side observations unrelated to the laser rifle:
1) It's surprising or kind of amusing that such a huge and complex submarine uses plain old Raytheon / Raymarine radar when operating in harbor, etc. as if were just a little sailboat. But whatever works and is effective! I wonder how it has to be dismantled and put up, taken down each time? Perhaps it's mostly for being visible to other ships/monitoring stations? I recalled hearing that a sub is never in such places without accompanying surface fleet/tugs/etc anyway.
2) Looking at the periscope mast, the amount of technological sophistication in that thing must be incredible. The amount of communications (radio, laser, metallurgy, stealth coatings, etc) gadgetry there I'm sure would boggle the mind. Yet it all goes to the theme -- here is a boat worth many billions of $ and the pinnacle of US military sophistication, being put into the hands and trust of mostly 20-something young sailors, and mostly without incident. Truly amazing that we're able to do that.
>It's surprising or kind of amusing that such a huge and complex submarine uses plain old Raytheon / Raymarine radar when operating in harbor, etc. as if were just a little sailboat.
A warship has a lot more manpower (as well as highly refined policy/procedure) to get the most out of that cheapo radar.
The truly amazing thing it to consider that this boat is an iteration of an analog design which matured over 80 years ago.
When we consider the design characteristics of those older boats we can truly appreciate how much knowledge we had to build from scratch and glean from failure in order to get where we are today.
Using a cheapo radar gives a military target better "obvious" cover from electronical intelligence. As radars use active emmissions, they can be characterized and profiled. At range a civilian grade radar will not be fired upon in war without confirmation and in peace they can be used to hide your actual wartime radar capabilities and characteristics
> It's surprising or kind of amusing that such a huge and complex submarine uses plain old Raytheon / Raymarine radar when operating in harbor
Stealth ships and aircraft won't turn on the fancy toys when they are in predictable locations to avoid adversaries being able to collect and analyze signals intelligence.
That Raymarine unit is a secondary piece of equipment, and is there primarily for its transponder capabilities, which the primary radar unit (the AN/BPS-16, which I believe is integrated into the masts) probably doesn't have. The last thing a submarine wants is an enhanced "here I am!" capability.
Submarines, in general, rely primarily on their passive sensors- passive sonar and EW receivers. A submarine's best offensive and defensive capability is stealth.
Unfortunately the US Navy has been beset by incident. Navigation of its ships is no longer a certain thing. Look for coverage on this matter which mentions the McCain and the Fitzgerald.
So the clarification (easily determined from the subtitle, as well as the article body), is that this is a dazzler meant to temporarily blind or distract.
It's not a sci fi laser rifle that cuts things. This is very different from star wars (the missile defense program), or star wars (the movie).
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 bystander has moved out of the NOHD, the laser output instantly resumes."
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.
That sounds reasonable, but the quite from OP says something completely different, it says "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" - that doesn't sound like the mechanism you describe.
Indeed. The problem with such supposed 'non-lethal' weapons as Dazzlers, Tasers, rubber bullets, etc is that they can absolutely cause permanent injury. In the case of Tasers and rubber bullets, they've both killed lots of people - they just aren't 'designed to kill' so they can arguably remain legal to use. Tasers are also convenient torture/punishment devices.
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.
FWIW: these have been reported to be in active use against the Portland protesters. It's so frustrating that HN chooses the gadget puff piece to push to the top of the front page instead of the actual deployed weapons.
Most especially because the much-lower-power pocket laser pointers have been cited by the white house directly as having "permanently blinded" federal agents. (Consumer red/green lasers are extraordinarily unlikely to cause permanent blindness, that's why they're available to consumers. You'd have to hold them on the same spot in your retina for minutes to kill cells thermally, the frequency won't do it alone.)
Edit: yes, folks, I'm talking about laser pointers. Obviously these things are poorly regulated and folks can get all kinds of crazy dangerous things online. There's zero evidence that any of them are in use by protesters in Portland. There's some shots of kids with clicky pointers.
RTFA: It’s not the same, the Navy laser has a distance control that disables it if it’s close enough to damage someone’s eyesight. It’s only usable at long distances.
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.
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.
You can easily buy class 3 and 4 lasers which can permanently damage your eyes. I have one for astrophotography alignment. So yes, the protestors are definitely using harmful lasers, as well as the police I’m sure.
If by "consumer" you mean the things sold for presentations, given away as advertising gifts (red ones), then yes. If you mean ones you can easily buy online, they can be quite scary power-wise. (And green ones are an infrared laser sent into a frequency-doubling crystal. A well-made one is well-aligned and has a filter stopping stray IR. A bad one might just pump out a bunch of IR too, without anyone knowing)
You can buy or build a laser that can cause permanent blindness. There is ample evidence of protesters using lasers. Where is your evidence of federal agents using lasers?
Fyi, lasers aren't safe/dangerous because of their power output but because they are so perfectly parallel. The human eye takes diverging light and turns in into a parallel beam to make images. The same lense takes a parallel beam and makes it focus onto a spot. Focusing to a near zero sized spot makes even very low powers blindingly bright...
The same is true for the sun (enormous distance means near parallel rays).
That's exactly the point. It's the same thing. But it's a cool weapon gadget presented here, when it's a horrifying atrocity that demands tear gas and brutality when used by the "other side".
It's this weaponization of "bothsidesism" that I'm having trouble with. We've got an almost 100% peaceful protest of hippies going on every night for two months, but what posters here want to talk about is the fancy anti-riot gear being used against them.
What's your estimate then? I mean... I'm here in Portland. I can drive right by downtown (drove straight through Ground Zero at main and 3rd just this morning). I see the hippies. I don't see violence. Show me the violence. Tell me why I need to support tear gassing these kids every night for two months.
No one will. But I see people vote up these posts about "yay lasers!" instead. I'm out of patience here. I can see with my own eyes who the bad guys are, so can you, and yet... "look! lasers!"
Well, "no violence that I have personally seen during the day" doesn't really have any relevance to "is there violence during the night" - and all the police brutality / protester violence / arson etc videos I've seen from Portland have been at night.
You know what I meant. There's plenty of video evidence of brutality on one side (again: literally tear gas, impact munitions and billy clubs every night for two months!) and a flood of highly spun "well, it's sorta like violence" on the other (laser pointers, fireworks, cutting fences, "they're holding shields"). I can see what I see. You can too. So why the insistence that "we don't know"? We know.
I can't speak for Portland, but I have seen the SPD instigate violence on numerous occasions, against peaceful protests. In those instances, including in the time leading up to the violence - nobody was throwing anything at the police lines, nobody was destroying property - until the police started chucking flash and gas grenades and firing less-lethal bullets into crowds. (Which have all, by the way, been outlawed by city council - yet the police department is still using them.)
That is not how every Seattle protest has gone, but that's how many of them have - many during the day (Although a few turned that way at night, as well).
Well, one of the two has safety features installed to make sure that the laser doesn't blind anyone, and the other doesn't.
So yeah, the military version is actually a fair bit safer and less damaging than the would-actually-be-a-war-crime blinding weapons that protestors seem to be using.
From friends on the ground in Portland I will say it's largely still aggravated by police presence and the DHS/federal agents. If authorities did not step in with tear gas and kidnapping protests would have continue to be mostly nonviolent. Turns out that when you meet protests against police brutality with police brutality and disappearing citizens, nothing improves.
There are small groups and agitators causing issues not out of self defense but they are few and far between if not turned over by protesters when identified. Portland isn't on fire, civil rights are.
What other protests have anywhere near this much violence? Gay rights movements have had large protests/marches for decades. Same with anti-abortion activists (and pro-choice activists). Hell, even literal neo-nazis have protests that don't get this violent.
This is a protest against the police. So of course the cops are going to get violent. What's horrifying is the extent to which people refuse to see that and just figure "well, the protesters have to have done something to deserve it".
The Stonewall riots (also referred to as the Stonewall uprising or the Stonewall rebellion) were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the gay (LGBT) community[note 1] in response to a police raid that began in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City. Patrons of the Stonewall, other Village lesbian and gay bars, and neighborhood street people fought back when the police became violent. The riots are widely considered to constitute one of the most important events leading to the gay liberation movement[2][3] and the modern fight for LGBT rights in the United States.[4]
Going further back, there's the history of police (and military) response to labour organisation, the reason many larger US cities have military armouries:
The proliferation of urban armories—dedicated buildings for National Guard unit training and community functions—dates to the 19th century, according to Army National Guard Lt. Col. Don McFadden, chief of the Strategic Plans and Education Branch. “The Civil War draft riots and labor riots of the 19th century spurred construction,” he says
As Jeremy Brecher wrote in his labor history Strike! state governments built armories as fortresses in American cities “not against invasion from abroad but against popular revolt at home.”
There are more recent examples, I'm sure you could find several on a few minutes' search.
A common element to many is protest not simply of some policy or political issue, but where the aggrieved group is seen by The System as non-persons, and the protest is aimed at the system itself. Most especially at how The System exerts its will, which is to say, through police forces, courts, and corrections. When the institutions of law and order themselves are questioned, common ground is thin, and dialogue gives way to protest, suppression, and violence.
The wave of George Floyd protests in 2020 is a continuation of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013, itself evolving from the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, with its own history of violent outbursts in every decade since, many provoked by police brutality against minorities.
The principle distinguishing characteristic of the current protests in Portland, Seattle, New York, Chicago, and elsewhere is that the movement has general support well outside specific oppressed populations.
I'm not aware of any recent protests (e.g. last 10 years) in the US having the level of violence of these protests[0]. You don't seem to be aware of any either, since you haven't provided any examples, despite telling me how easily they could be found.
There are 35 incidents listed from 2010--2020, inclusive. Another 25 dating to 1990, which for some of us is still recent history. Damages for numerous events (in 2020 dollars) is in at least the $1s to $10s of millions of dollars range.
Even the quiescent 1980s sees 8 entries, down from 35 in the 1970s and over 65 listed for the 1960s, suggesting relatively little presentism bias.
Going back further, one finds the behaviour throughout US history, though with some decades standing out especially. The 1860s & 1870s, 1910s & 1920s (often white-on-black violence, including but scarcely limited to the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, but also other immigrant and anti-union violence).
The majority of the events from the 20th century onwards, but especially since 1990, are tied either to racial protest or incidents of police brutality or killing, Numerous others to white-nationalist or similar majority-induced violence.
I've already seen that list. Here's the question I posed.
> What other protests have anywhere near this much violence?
The recent protests/riots have caused at least $500m dollars in damage per Minnesota's own claims. And substantially more if you include everything across the nation. There have also been at least 15 deaths as a result of the riots.
So I pose the question again, what other recent protests have caused anywhere near this amount of violence? From what you have provided, none. Almost no deaths and about a 100th of the property damages. Nothing you provided comes close.
These conventions don't matter unless they're actually enforced. For example, gas shells were banned 16 years before their use in WW1 by the very countries using them. Lots of victims lived horrible lives of suffering or killed themselves as a result of their use.
And yet, the US military has admitted that their own troops have had permanent eye damage done with this weapon. It would be legal suicide to every say that something similar had happened to enemy combatants even if it happened frequently.
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.
That would imply the use of class 1 lasers, but those lasers wouldn't have the required range. The laser in that picture is definitely capable of much, much higher power output then a few milliwatts of low frequencies light.
It's much more likely that the US simply refused to sign that treaty just like they refused to sign treaties about other horrors like land mines or chemical weapons.
The article and the manufacturer's literature explains that the laser, while capable of fairly high output, automatically reduces power using rangefinders and some sort of smart detection so that it is eye-safe at all ranges.
It seems like you're just choosing to ignore the parts of the article that specifically address the protective measures built in to the device in order to make sensationalist claims about US policy.
I couldn’t help but think Star Trek when they talked about the laser modulating it’s power based on range of target and shutting down if someone accidentally crosses it’s path. They are not allowed to intentionally permanently blind people. Set phasers to stun is what I thought of. It would be nice if we could have a world without lethal weapons.
I didn't knew it's possible to link to timestamps on Netflix. Is there a way to get the link from the UI, or do you have to compute the seconds yourself?
Makes sense. The 10/22 is indestructible and proven. I've had one since I was 10 and put at least 20000 rounds through it and cleaned it once. It almost never jams.
Do note that blinding an enemy soldier is considered a really serious war crime by international law. You can kill them outright, not a crime. But you cannot blind them, including using a laser in this manner.
This seems to be accounted for, according to the article:
> The main idea behind the system is that it modulates its output based its range to the target via using an internal laser range-finder. Thus the maximum eye-safe setting can be used throughout the engagement. This is also important because international law prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
A Navy fact sheet on what it calls 'non-lethal optical distractors' reads:
Non-lethal optical distracters are visible laser devices that have reversible optical effects on human targets. These types of non-blinding laser devices use highly directional optical energy to support several non-lethal capabilities, including:
The youtube channel smarter every day is doing a series about live aboard a nuclear attack sub (different class than the one in the article, Los Angeles class IIRC) during an exercise where they navigate under ice, called ICEX. which might be of interest if you like this article. It's obviously propaganda but it is very interesting nonetheless.
It's not. The guy lives and works in Huntsville. The primary revenue of the city is weapon and propulsion research for the government. I'd imagine that perspective is the norm in that area (even more than the South in general).
He works for the military. He’s more open about it recently. I used to watched his videos but now its just advertisement for the military. He seems very happy designing efficient killing machines. He mentioned works on rocket propelled munitions research.
I think the smarter every day guy is or was military. I remember a video he did with his boss (some kind of general or so). That just as a fact, not judging on the propaganda part.
Destin, the person behind Smarter Every Day was ex-military and he interviewed his old commanding officer. It was clearly mentioned that the military is doing this to reach out to potential recruits while sharing interesting knowledge. I believe the actual episode is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE
It is important to note that things can be more than one thing at once. The general in the video says that Destin created a weapon (of information), which would be propaganda. But the video is also highly informative and educational. Destin is in it for the education and cool factor. The military is in it for the education, cool factor (potential recruits), and show of power (to potential recruits, civilians, and foreign civilians). From my understanding, Destin has pretty free reign in what he can show (military does have to approve but he is free to speak his mind).
The fact that this is also propaganda just means that the military has a motive to show this other than for purely educational purposes. That's all propaganda means here.
(Note: I'm not arguing with the parent, I'm expanding on because of sibling comments that do not seem to understand the nuance)
It's fairly un-nuanced: get special exclusive access to military resources, and call the military resources cool in a way that the military approves of.
That's propaganda. Whether you think that's bad or good or there is nuance is still for each person to decide for themselves but nevertheless that's pretty much textbook propaganda.
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 audience, to show off US capability and serve as a recruitment material.
I respect Destin a lot and I think the video is very cool, but I feel that I should add a sort of disclaimer because I'm actively aiding the US gov by spreading this video? they obviously don't care about you knowing it's propaganda, but it cant hurt to emphasize it. Tbh my thinking about this isn't that crystallized yet but I thought it might spark an interesting side discussion.
how then would propaganda be defined? It is the attempt to sway a targets opinion in your favor. Propaganda is "the formation of peoples attitudes"[1] as is marketing.
The line is very blurry. Political marketing could easily be called propaganda.
First google definition is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
It's very easy to see how in a period of naval troubles (various collisions in the pacific, Bon Homme Richard, China in the South Sea), this could be considered advancing the US political position of the navy.
I really like Destin and think this isn't propaganda, but it is a recruiting tool for the Navy. If you're not constantly looking out for possible sources of bias in your information, there are a lot of people/organizations out there that will gladly lead you to conclusions that aren't 100% accurate.
“Propaganda" comes from the former name of the Roman Catholic central body tasked with marketing the faith, currently known as the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, but from 1622-1967 it was the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, or, in Latin Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide.
Marketing is exactly propaganda, the deliberate propagation of particular beliefs to motivate desired action.
And government promotion of it's military is pretty much at the core of the common understanding of propaganda, not some obscure connection.
I don't remember the video, but Destin talked about how this stuff is clearly propaganda related but he'd have no chance to do the videos otherwise. I think it was the rocket factory one.
I like Destin a lot, but he's no journalist holding feet to fire and I think he's clear enough about that. He's more 'pop-sci' YouTube like Veritasium or Tom Scott.
That said, yeah, the angle is pro US and very empathizing with people/warfighters. He's also very pro Alabama. State pride, I guess.
I'm glad I don't have to walk the line that he is and I am grateful for the look he gives. But as always, you'll need more info than just Destin to make informed decisions.
I am assuming the idea that approval/invitation of a video from the subject is by definition propaganda of the subject. Just like sponsored product reviews or manufacturing tours. If you understand that he will not say much of anything negative then it is fine.
I upvoted your child comment re: propaganda and I agree with it. I just also want to say to folks who might be turned off by that, his channel is super interesting!
Laminar flow, the physics of weed whackers and lawn mowers, rocket-powered golf clubs, eliminating poop splash, VR gloves and treadmills, touring a rocket factory and seeing a launch...he’s got a lot for geeks to like in there!
I’m not helping my case here, but he also has a good talk about being a science guy who is also a Christian in a field where that’s often dismissed reflexively as irrational. Probably only worth watching after you explore the channel and wonder about the Bible reference displayed briefly at the end of them.
I assume that the scope has a 532 nm bandstop filter to prevent that issue.
Also, the eyesafe feature probably triggers on retroreflection from a target's eyes, so a retroreflector would likely trigger the laser to reduce it's beam power.
I don't necessarily get the sense this is made for "adversaries". More for unknowns. E.g. if voice commands and the laser fail (say, because it is a real adversary wearing safety glasses), next up is lots and lots of bullets.
Laser pointers for Sphinx scale cats. Very informative article too. The quoted "it won't blind people, really" verbiage smells a lot like bullshit, doesn't it?
The bit about "unequivocal, cross-cultural warning" tho, that i buy. A more pointed way of saying "I see you" than launching a flare.
"[...]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...
It's probably less about deterring Cole-style bombings and more about being a cheap way to tell inattentive captains that they need to change course and fuck off. There's been plenty of embarrassing news about harbor collisions with billion dollar ships, and submarines are way harder to see even when above the water.
Yikes, sucks to get permanently blinded. I wonder whether citizens will just flee the cities and let them collapse into crime. It would be a repeat of pretty recent history.
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 flash light. And I'm talking super far!
I had a hunch that it might be military related. It was fascinating to see how powerful the green lights were after they bounced off the water and hit the sand.
I'm so glad I caught this article here. I was going nuts for a while there lol
The Red Cross still considers them to be dangerous.
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.
Not trying to nitpick but I had trouble following some of your wording. What would the international incident be over if it happened during a fight? I get that blinding civilians by accident during a training exercise could blow up but blinding targets with a high powered laser doesn't seem that different from using flash grenades when storming a building. I was also unsure because you mentioned it happening during a fight and it seems like if you can already lock onto a target to fire a laser into their eyes it'd be more efficient to skip blinding them and just shoot or bombard them.
I didn't know! Thanks! But is permanent blindness actually a moral hazard if you're using that blindness to create an immediate opportunity to shoot the subject? I'm not a soldier so I might be way off but I'm assuming being totally blind for even a few seconds is a massive handicap in an engagement.
Permanently blinding someone is a uniquely terrible form of maiming them. Blinding thousands of troops in an instant is thus so horrific that it fits under the "too horrific for 'legal' war" agreements that countries use. It's like shooting shipwreck survivors or using chemical weapons.
Depending on the philosopher or politician, soldier or commander you ask, it's purpose is fairly varied. Resource burn, attrition, making the other poor bastard die for his country... However, in general, the international community has tended to favor diplomacy favoring modalities of war. By diplomacy friendly, of course, it's still lethal, and loved ones are not at all guaranteed to come back home, but it should result in "a warrior's death". It's frankly stupid, but psychologically, to the political classes, and to the civilian classes there is just some grim acceptance of the necessity of conventional warfare and conflict. Conflicts constrained by laws of war seems to be considered somehow "cleaner", and overall more preferable to the industrial scale manufacture of blind, blistered, or diseased cripples out of the young men and women of both sides.
There are, of course, dissenters to this type of thinking, one of which was Lincoln's War Secretary Edwin Stanton if I recall, Douglas MacArthur and Sherman may also have been counted amongst the numbers of those that advocate the practice of no holds barred, total war, where anything and everything goes, since the only moral outcome of an armed conflict is to end it as quickly, brutally, and decisively as possible. To that end, any restraint in application of force is seen as a sin or needless cruelty in prolonging the conflict.
It was and remains a rather controversial view, especially given the destructive potential most first world nations are now sitting on has led to somewhat of a retirement of the philosophy; at least as long as MAD holds out.
Ask a soldier if they'd rather be dead or blind and they'll often choose blindness; however, can society handle a million corpses or a million blind dependents they feel obligated to take care of? That's a much harder question to answer, but the purely pragmatic perspective will choose the former.
It's sad to say, but many families taking care of gas attack survivors after WW1 grew to resent or even hate the victims because taking care of the victim cost the families the ability to live their lives. What is the quality of life for a victim stuck in a long-term care facility for the rest of their life to be alone and miserable for the next 50-60 years praying for an end they know is far off?
Experiencing the horror of war and seeing the sanitized depiction in Hollywood or games must be very different. After two world wars within 25 years, EVERYONE knew people crippled and ruined by war, so they set out with the idea to ensure it wouldn't happen to their children as well. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren growing up in many places today seem to not really understand.
We need to accept that they knew what they were talking about else we run the risk of bringing those monsters back to life.
Seems very similar to the DC special flight rules area warning device, which was introduced to cut down the number of incidents of aircraft unintentionally erring into the DC SFRA resulting in expensive things like fighters being scrambled.
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.
This same technique is being used by the peaceful protesters in Portland, who have blinded half a dozen police officers in the last few days while peacefully burning down federal buildings.
149 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] thread1) It's surprising or kind of amusing that such a huge and complex submarine uses plain old Raytheon / Raymarine radar when operating in harbor, etc. as if were just a little sailboat. But whatever works and is effective! I wonder how it has to be dismantled and put up, taken down each time? Perhaps it's mostly for being visible to other ships/monitoring stations? I recalled hearing that a sub is never in such places without accompanying surface fleet/tugs/etc anyway.
2) Looking at the periscope mast, the amount of technological sophistication in that thing must be incredible. The amount of communications (radio, laser, metallurgy, stealth coatings, etc) gadgetry there I'm sure would boggle the mind. Yet it all goes to the theme -- here is a boat worth many billions of $ and the pinnacle of US military sophistication, being put into the hands and trust of mostly 20-something young sailors, and mostly without incident. Truly amazing that we're able to do that.
A warship has a lot more manpower (as well as highly refined policy/procedure) to get the most out of that cheapo radar.
When we consider the design characteristics of those older boats we can truly appreciate how much knowledge we had to build from scratch and glean from failure in order to get where we are today.
Stealth ships and aircraft won't turn on the fancy toys when they are in predictable locations to avoid adversaries being able to collect and analyze signals intelligence.
Submarines, in general, rely primarily on their passive sensors- passive sonar and EW receivers. A submarine's best offensive and defensive capability is stealth.
It's not a sci fi laser rifle that cuts things. This is very different from star wars (the missile defense program), or star wars (the movie).
The US Navy does have things closer to that:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a326766...
But they're huge, and still don't really do much.
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.
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.
Most especially because the much-lower-power pocket laser pointers have been cited by the white house directly as having "permanently blinded" federal agents. (Consumer red/green lasers are extraordinarily unlikely to cause permanent blindness, that's why they're available to consumers. You'd have to hold them on the same spot in your retina for minutes to kill cells thermally, the frequency won't do it alone.)
Edit: yes, folks, I'm talking about laser pointers. Obviously these things are poorly regulated and folks can get all kinds of crazy dangerous things online. There's zero evidence that any of them are in use by protesters in Portland. There's some shots of kids with clicky pointers.
Finally, there's zero evidence that laser light sufficient to blind temporarily isn't also sufficient to cause permanent damage.
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...
https://www.laserpointerpro.com/attribute/class_class-iiib-l...
The same is true for the sun (enormous distance means near parallel rays).
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1286914458032332800
It's this weaponization of "bothsidesism" that I'm having trouble with. We've got an almost 100% peaceful protest of hippies going on every night for two months, but what posters here want to talk about is the fancy anti-riot gear being used against them.
No one will. But I see people vote up these posts about "yay lasers!" instead. I'm out of patience here. I can see with my own eyes who the bad guys are, so can you, and yet... "look! lasers!"
That is not how every Seattle protest has gone, but that's how many of them have - many during the day (Although a few turned that way at night, as well).
How about shooting commercial-grade incendiaries at an occupied structure and causing injuries? https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/portland-riots-july-4/inde...
"The fireworks injured several officers when they exploded on or near them, the statement said."
Or the 6 officers injured Friday night: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/26/portla...
So yeah, the military version is actually a fair bit safer and less damaging than the would-actually-be-a-war-crime blinding weapons that protestors seem to be using.
There are small groups and agitators causing issues not out of self defense but they are few and far between if not turned over by protesters when identified. Portland isn't on fire, civil rights are.
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/the-stonewall-riot...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
The 1970s generally were rather more violent than is commonly remembered:
https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
Going further back, there's the history of police (and military) response to labour organisation, the reason many larger US cities have military armouries:
The proliferation of urban armories—dedicated buildings for National Guard unit training and community functions—dates to the 19th century, according to Army National Guard Lt. Col. Don McFadden, chief of the Strategic Plans and Education Branch. “The Civil War draft riots and labor riots of the 19th century spurred construction,” he says
https://savingplaces.org/stories/a-salute-to-us-armories
As Jeremy Brecher wrote in his labor history Strike! state governments built armories as fortresses in American cities “not against invasion from abroad but against popular revolt at home.”
https://shoeleatherhistoryproject.com/2020/03/12/storm-cente...
A common element to many is protest not simply of some policy or political issue, but where the aggrieved group is seen by The System as non-persons, and the protest is aimed at the system itself. Most especially at how The System exerts its will, which is to say, through police forces, courts, and corrections. When the institutions of law and order themselves are questioned, common ground is thin, and dialogue gives way to protest, suppression, and violence.
The wave of George Floyd protests in 2020 is a continuation of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013, itself evolving from the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, with its own history of violent outbursts in every decade since, many provoked by police brutality against minorities.
The principle distinguishing characteristic of the current protests in Portland, Seattle, New York, Chicago, and elsewhere is that the movement has general support well outside specific oppressed populations.
[0]: Which include over $500m in damages: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/11/federal-government-..., and that is just in one state. So the total is likely billions across the entire US.
There are 35 incidents listed from 2010--2020, inclusive. Another 25 dating to 1990, which for some of us is still recent history. Damages for numerous events (in 2020 dollars) is in at least the $1s to $10s of millions of dollars range.
Even the quiescent 1980s sees 8 entries, down from 35 in the 1970s and over 65 listed for the 1960s, suggesting relatively little presentism bias.
Going back further, one finds the behaviour throughout US history, though with some decades standing out especially. The 1860s & 1870s, 1910s & 1920s (often white-on-black violence, including but scarcely limited to the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, but also other immigrant and anti-union violence).
The majority of the events from the 20th century onwards, but especially since 1990, are tied either to racial protest or incidents of police brutality or killing, Numerous others to white-nationalist or similar majority-induced violence.
Sufficiently aware?
> What other protests have anywhere near this much violence?
The recent protests/riots have caused at least $500m dollars in damage per Minnesota's own claims. And substantially more if you include everything across the nation. There have also been at least 15 deaths as a result of the riots.
So I pose the question again, what other recent protests have caused anywhere near this amount of violence? From what you have provided, none. Almost no deaths and about a 100th of the property damages. Nothing you provided comes close.
It's a Sarah Jeong tweet, even, making it topical to HN and will no doubt get me double the downvotes!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conven...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...
These conventions don't matter unless they're actually enforced. For example, gas shells were banned 16 years before their use in WW1 by the very countries using them. Lots of victims lived horrible lives of suffering or killed themselves as a result of their use.
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 much more likely that the US simply refused to sign that treaty just like they refused to sign treaties about other horrors like land mines or chemical weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)#Legislation
I'll guarantee you there has NEVER been a ruling about this and it's just an assertion added by someone who has a vested interest in the idea.
They should make killing against the rules and only allow blindness-based weapons.
https://bemeyers.com/glare-mout-plus
I was sure this was a typo for "mount", but MOUT is military operations in urban terrain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare
RIKER: Lasers???
PICARD: Lasers???
https://www.netflix.com/watch/70177892?t=1160
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1006745523
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...
article mentions it as well. the lasers used in this article follow int'l law
> The main idea behind the system is that it modulates its output based its range to the target via using an internal laser range-finder. Thus the maximum eye-safe setting can be used throughout the engagement. This is also important because international law prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
actual submarine part: https://youtu.be/RXXMJAU6vY8
the leadup and context surrounding the exercise: https://youtu.be/5d6SEQQbwtU
Sorry, how is this video obviously propaganda?
Or at least that's what I think he's implying.
I believe it would be accurate to state that Destin has a healthy respect for the people of, technology within, and the very idea of the US Military.
The fact that this is also propaganda just means that the military has a motive to show this other than for purely educational purposes. That's all propaganda means here.
(Note: I'm not arguing with the parent, I'm expanding on because of sibling comments that do not seem to understand the nuance)
That's propaganda. Whether you think that's bad or good or there is nuance is still for each person to decide for themselves but nevertheless that's pretty much textbook propaganda.
In my experience, most such people prefer the term former military.
The pentagon clearly sees smarter everyday as a channel to spread information to a certain audience, to show off US capability and serve as a recruitment material.
I respect Destin a lot and I think the video is very cool, but I feel that I should add a sort of disclaimer because I'm actively aiding the US gov by spreading this video? they obviously don't care about you knowing it's propaganda, but it cant hurt to emphasize it. Tbh my thinking about this isn't that crystallized yet but I thought it might spark an interesting side discussion.
0: https://youtu.be/qOTYgcdNrXE see 21:00+ for cyberdomain talk
[1] Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M...
First google definition is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
It's very easy to see how in a period of naval troubles (various collisions in the pacific, Bon Homme Richard, China in the South Sea), this could be considered advancing the US political position of the navy.
I really like Destin and think this isn't propaganda, but it is a recruiting tool for the Navy. If you're not constantly looking out for possible sources of bias in your information, there are a lot of people/organizations out there that will gladly lead you to conclusions that aren't 100% accurate.
Marketing is exactly propaganda, the deliberate propagation of particular beliefs to motivate desired action.
And government promotion of it's military is pretty much at the core of the common understanding of propaganda, not some obscure connection.
(The pejorative state sense came out of German First World War influence campaigns.)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/propaganda
The state/marketing usage is predominant today though:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/propaganda
https://archive.org/details/bernays-edward-l.-propaganda-192...
Which term you use reveals your political leanings about a topic.
I like Destin a lot, but he's no journalist holding feet to fire and I think he's clear enough about that. He's more 'pop-sci' YouTube like Veritasium or Tom Scott.
That said, yeah, the angle is pro US and very empathizing with people/warfighters. He's also very pro Alabama. State pride, I guess.
I'm glad I don't have to walk the line that he is and I am grateful for the look he gives. But as always, you'll need more info than just Destin to make informed decisions.
Laminar flow, the physics of weed whackers and lawn mowers, rocket-powered golf clubs, eliminating poop splash, VR gloves and treadmills, touring a rocket factory and seeing a launch...he’s got a lot for geeks to like in there!
I’m not helping my case here, but he also has a good talk about being a science guy who is also a Christian in a field where that’s often dismissed reflexively as irrational. Probably only worth watching after you explore the channel and wonder about the Bible reference displayed briefly at the end of them.
https://youtu.be/WDu2ldAxHyc
Also, the eyesafe feature probably triggers on retroreflection from a target's eyes, so a retroreflector would likely trigger the laser to reduce it's beam power.
(Provided the claims about automatic power limit are true)
The bit about "unequivocal, cross-cultural warning" tho, that i buy. A more pointed way of saying "I see you" than launching a flare.
Let's name our totally-not-intended-to-blind-people weapon after a dude who's missing an eye...
Especially given that Federal enforcement agents are now being utilized, and likely have access to this equipment.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/3-fed-agents-likely-blinded-by...
Despite that, federal agents were dispatched to quell them.
So "Moms" came out in support to protect the protestors.
Followed by "Dads."
And now US Military Veterans.
Wonder what the long-term adoption and use will be. And if they really cause no damage to the target.
I had a hunch that it might be military related. It was fascinating to see how powerful the green lights were after they bounced off the water and hit the sand.
I'm so glad I caught this article here. I was going nuts for a while there lol
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...
> international law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea... prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
Depending on the philosopher or politician, soldier or commander you ask, it's purpose is fairly varied. Resource burn, attrition, making the other poor bastard die for his country... However, in general, the international community has tended to favor diplomacy favoring modalities of war. By diplomacy friendly, of course, it's still lethal, and loved ones are not at all guaranteed to come back home, but it should result in "a warrior's death". It's frankly stupid, but psychologically, to the political classes, and to the civilian classes there is just some grim acceptance of the necessity of conventional warfare and conflict. Conflicts constrained by laws of war seems to be considered somehow "cleaner", and overall more preferable to the industrial scale manufacture of blind, blistered, or diseased cripples out of the young men and women of both sides.
There are, of course, dissenters to this type of thinking, one of which was Lincoln's War Secretary Edwin Stanton if I recall, Douglas MacArthur and Sherman may also have been counted amongst the numbers of those that advocate the practice of no holds barred, total war, where anything and everything goes, since the only moral outcome of an armed conflict is to end it as quickly, brutally, and decisively as possible. To that end, any restraint in application of force is seen as a sin or needless cruelty in prolonging the conflict.
It was and remains a rather controversial view, especially given the destructive potential most first world nations are now sitting on has led to somewhat of a retirement of the philosophy; at least as long as MAD holds out.
It's sad to say, but many families taking care of gas attack survivors after WW1 grew to resent or even hate the victims because taking care of the victim cost the families the ability to live their lives. What is the quality of life for a victim stuck in a long-term care facility for the rest of their life to be alone and miserable for the next 50-60 years praying for an end they know is far off?
Experiencing the horror of war and seeing the sanitized depiction in Hollywood or games must be very different. After two world wars within 25 years, EVERYONE knew people crippled and ruined by war, so they set out with the idea to ensure it wouldn't happen to their children as well. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren growing up in many places today seem to not really understand.
We need to accept that they knew what they were talking about else we run the risk of bringing those monsters back to life.
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=12...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_banner