A particularly revolting weapon of warfare I’ve heard about is a laser specifically designed to blind enemy combatants: something whose vileness I’d rate roughly on par with that of landmines designed to maim horribly rather than actually kill. (Unbelievably, however, I once stumbled upon a magazine article on “non-lethal weapons” (which seemed to be quite the rage for a time) which considered permanently-blinding lasers “humane” simply because they didn’t kill; by that rather stupid logic, the aforementioned landmines would be considered “humane” as well.) Does anyone know whether lasers like this were actually developed (and even used), or was the whole idea little more than some very sick sci-fi-style fantasy on the part of weapons designers? If they have been developed, are they allowed by the Geneva Convention or are they banned? How would a laser weapon actually work, and would its actions be painful for the unfortunate victim?
Any laser is potentially dangerous. Even the little ‘toy’ jobs you see children playing with. Continued exposure close up to the eye will certainly lead to eye problems.
Mostly depends on the intensity or power level and to some extent on frequency.
All lasers should be considered dangerous to tyour eyesight.
Intentionally blinding combatants (and I suppose non-combattants) with lasers or anything else is generally considered “Bad Form.” The US, and NATO as far as I know, do not have such weapons in their arsenals (officially at least, talk to the foil hatters for the other truth) for such purposes.
From here.
The laser dazzler is designed to blind/disorient only temporarily. And something like it may have been used effectively to jam US military satelites by Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There are reports of pilots being temporarily blinded, and the cause is alleged use of such weapons. That sentence right there puts the likelihood of their existence right there with the Soviet Woodpecker radio beacon mind-control weapons.
I, too, find this truly vile. So I was all the more surprised and disgusted when I found myself at a meeting (of tech types and military types) where they were seriously discussing these weapons. Not debating them, mind. It was taken as a given that these would be used. By our side. The justifications are the same as you give above – It’s “humane” because it doesn’t kill the soldiers.
To me, it brings up images of those lines of soldiers, each with a hand on the shoulder of the one in front, blinded by gas attacks back in WWI. Or of all those Bulgars, all deliberately blinded (except for one in every hundred, who was allowed to keep one eye so he could act as a guide, as with the WWI soldiers). Horrifying. When the King of the Bulgars saw what was left of his army returning, he’s said to have wept openly.
Ironically, this is one of the easiest types of laser weapons to build – blinding human eyes and electronic sensors is orders of magnitude easier than building something to shoot down a plane or a rocket. And building wavelength-agile eye protection (when you don’t know the wavelength the opponent will be using) is very tough.
It scares and disgusts me. If such folks bring this to reality, it’d be like Day of the Triffids without the triffids.
Has there ever been a confirmed use of a ground-based laser used as an effectve countermeasure to a reconnaissance satellite?
What kind of laser power would be necessary to accomplish such a feat? What kind of common laser technology could be deployed with that much power… HeNe? YAG?
I would expect that you don’t actually have to damage the satellite, just send enough photons at it that they “wash out” the electronic detectors.
I would also expect forward scattering in the atmosphere to work in favor of the countermeasure.
Personally, I would rather be blinded than blown the fuck up, but that’s just me. I assume what makes your skin crawl is that there may not be an effective counter an this may be easy to do to large numbers of troops with little effort. Because I can’t see how blinding a man is worse than killing him and I suspect that a few blind people would back me up on this.
Says who? Most lasers are monochromatic, and blocking them out only requires a filter with the right sort of optical properties. I can see goggles, or even contact lenses, with a narrow range of wavelength transparency being a fairly effective countermeasure.
There’s nothing really complicated about building a laser that’ll blind people. There have been several incidents:
The Pentagon ain’t commenting for obvious reasons. (wish I had another cite :rolleyes: ) My bad on the previous post–it was a commercial communication satelite, not military. But given the likely technique of ‘flood jamming’ I would expect the same vulnerability should a military sat be located. As for what kind would be needed, unless I’m sorely lacking in satelite communications technology (and I am), I would suggest all you need is the same of what the satelite is supposed to receive anyway. If it’s receiving a certain wavelength of light, all you need to do is put up a strong signal in that wavelength and basically scream in its face. The real signal will be lost in the noise. With that technique you really don’t need anything more special than the normal transmitter…“turned up to 11.”
Well, yes, if the enemy is kind enough to tell you what frequency he’ll be using. But there are lasers that can be tuned over a pretty broad range of frequencies (e.g., see here), so you’d have to block the whole visible range (as well as the IR and UV that can do damage).
I think of other things, such as liquid crystal shutters or maybe tunable filters, or what have you. Weaponry and defenses evolve together: the enemy comes up with a new weapon, we develop a countermeasure, they refine their weapon to bypass the countermeasure, etc. Not to make light of war, but in some ways, the battlefield is a big technological test bench.
Yeah, there are countermeasures (theoretically-possible; I don’t know of any in existence), but they’re a lot more expensive than fixed-frequency notch filters. They have to have deep nulls and very fast response (liquid crystal, with ~ms response times, probably won’t cut it against lasers with <1ps pulses and ~us tuning rates).
Cissy Pimp. I edited your thread title with my special “Mod-laser.” We just got them last week and I wanted to try it out. 
Actually, the more descriptive you make your title, the more people read it(and respond).
samclem GQ moderator
I can’t see (no pun intended) how those blinding lasers are going to work. The laser will have to be aimed with great precision.
Increasing the beam width might help, but then that would need too much power to be practical.
Toy laser pointers have an output of about 5mW, which is extremely small, but they can damage the retina because the beam is very narrow.
Imagine this:
Commercial airliner, two standard-issue pilots up front. As they’re coming in for a landing
!FLASH!
Now you have two blind pilots.
We have tall pilots, short pilots, pilots of various shades and genders, pilots missing limbs - but the one thing we *do not have * are BLIND PILOTS.
They are going to crash. There’s no way to repogram the flight computers because the system is set up for sighted operators, so no chance for an autolanding to save the day. Everybody will, most likely, die.
But it’s OK - because it’s a “humane” weapon that doesn’t kill.
Heck - imagine an F-whatever charging along at Mach 1 and then some when the pilot goes blind. Where is it going to land, and how much damage is it going to cause? Ditto for helicoptors.
But it’s OK - because it’s a “humane” weapon that doesn’t kill.
If the blinding is permanent, and assuming the person survives the experience, they will NEVER be able to work as a pilot again. Ever. Have to be completely retrained. HUGE psychological blow - and guaranteed to strike fear into the heart of anyone in a cockpit.
But it’s OK - because it’s a “humane” weapon that doesn’t kill.
You are correct - most blind people, once rehabilitated, will say that blindness is compatible with meaningful life and preferable to death. That doesn’t make it OK to gouge out peoples’ eyeballs. So to speak
I’m wondering if you folks know that the military lasers used for laser guided wepaons (bombs, missiles, etc.) are not eyesafe. I have been in labs where laser designators were used, and the safety precautions are elaborate.
And there are anti-missile laser systems that are designed to “blind” the infrared seekers in anti-aircraft missiles.
These are, of course, not designed to be used on people, but are going to get pointed at the enemy.
And, Broomstick, did you know that your scenario was used in a Tom Clancy novel?
Well, Broomstick, I hardly think anyone is going to use a blinding weapon against pilots in the expectation that they will survive the experience. And besides, it’s probably easier to use a humane Stinger missile anyways…
What’s the proverb? “War is warm and fuzzy”? No… that ain’t right… 
Yeah it was… in Debt of honor (I think), but they didn’t use a laser as I recall… just a high intensity regular old light designed to blind the pilots temporarily and cause them to crash in Tokyo.
Well, according to the IVth protocol of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, the use of use of “laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision . . .” is prohibited. So…that much, at least.
I have to agree with Hammer. The choice here is not between blind or safe and happy. The choice is between blind or dead. How is blind more vile than dead? My blind friends might disagree with you.
Do you think it is more vile because it seems easier to blind people with a laser than to shoot them? I’d disagree. If you could aim well enough to blind some pilots on landing, you could just as easily hit them with a sniper rifle instead.
Or are you making an unstated assumption that the blinding weapon would be used on peaceful crowds since it is non-lethal?