This thread shows why they never need to attack us again
Look what we’ve become.
In the eyes of our government we are all terrorists unless we can prove we aren’t.
It’s so very sad.
All I have to say is…“Clancy did it! Clancy did it!”
That just proves you’re not a pilot.
Several militaries around the world have look into this as a potential weapon, and there was one report of two US helicopter pilots receiving permanent eye damage (enough to end their flying careers) in the vicinity of a USSR naval vessel. Commerical airline pilots have reported dozens of instances of ground-based laser-light shows in connection with large venue concerts or holiday celebrations interfering with their vision, although I’m not aware of any reports of serious damage to anyone as a result of these incidents.
Even non-laser light sources can be distracting to a pilot. Such as sunlight reflecting off the roof of a car - the resulting intense flash of light can be quite annoying.
Presumably, the lasers you are using for these purposes are relatively low-power, as those sold for use in presentations in indoor conference rooms. Such lasers, even if aimed directly into someone’s eyes at close range, are very unlikely to cause damage with brief exposure. Meaning, the person goes “Ow! That’s bright” and looks away before damage is done. Your lasers are also, I assume, pointed more or less straight up… meaning it is likely that lower part of the airplane fuselage would block the light from ever reaching the pilot, and even if it didn’t, the exposure would be extremely brief.
In other words, YOU are not a threat.
The potential threat comes from higher powered lasers that are powerful enough to cause damage in the brief interval before a person reflexively blinks or looks away, and are delibrately aimed at the crews of airplanes. Such lasers are available and used in industry and medicine. THOSE are the problem devices, if they land in the wrong hands.
No, they would not need to be on the runway.
Just off the top of my head I can think of two plausible alternatives to the “stand-on-the-runway” requirement.
No, I am not going to explain further.
On the flip side - no, we shouldn’t get too worked up over this either. I mean, we still sell boxcutters in hardware stores, right? And household bleach mixed with cleanser can be lethal if you do it quantity, but folks still clean house with those chemicals, right? There’s lots of ways to maim and kill using ordinary, everyday objects and substances, and at a certain point you just have to accept there is a certain level of hazard inherent in being alive and mortal.
…or leading into a cliff face with a tunnel painted on it. Only when the plane reaches the cliff it actually disappears into the tunnel, and when the astounded terrorists try to follow after, they slam into the painted cliff.
It’s customary to read the articles you cite.
Are you claiming that this is all pure malicious fabrication? If not, then you seem advocating ignoring credible intelligence, in which case I expect you to cease criticism of Bush for doing the same.
Again, it’s already happened. A bigger laser, better aimed, and a pilot is blinded instantly. Are you suggesting this be ignored?
If you were in charge, what exactly would you do? I bet you won’t answer that (constructive engagement affording much less opportunity for looking superior than just carping), so I’ll guess: You’d investigate. And as part of that investigation, you’d send out a heads-up to everyone involved in Airport Security. This is because you are intelligent.
If, however, A Republican-controlled government does this, this is evidence that they are evil and stupid.
So what exactly is ‘credible intelligence’ coming from BushCo? I seem to remember something about credible intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.