# Something truly vile--laser weapon real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 1, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082 "2004-07-01T17:19:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![brane\_damaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a587f6/32.png) [@brane\_damaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brane_damaj)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/41 "2004-07-02T19:17:28Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Gas disperses. Machine guns use up ammunition really fast. With a laser you could scan every square foot of a hundred yard circle 10 times a second, and keep it up for hours with minimal drain on your Humvee generator. Even with a dwell time too short to actually blind anyone, you can induce the bad guys to either leave the area, or try to hold a chunk of plywood over their heads while trying to aim their weapons. Nope, not buying it. Personally, I’d be FAR less afraid of a laser light show than I would a .50 calibre machine gun chattering away at me. What possible inducement is there for me to leave an area if someone is buzzing through an area with a laser? Even if it could instantly blind anyone who looked right into it, the laser itself would cover a vanishingly small area, and you still have to hit the guys in the eyes. With multiple targets rushing at you in combat conditions that is basically impossible. Tear gas, although it does indeed eventually disperse, will effectively incapacitate any individual without a gasmask for up to a half hour. Very nasty, very effective stuff. A machine gun kills everything and it’s loud, which has a psychological impact But a laser? No sound, no pain, no way. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/42 "2004-07-02T19:19:26Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > **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. 🙂 Ah, so they’re 1920s-style “Mod Rays.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/43 "2004-07-02T22:09:51Z")
Heck, I’m just waiting for the laser that can be tuned to only affect people who have a certain range of skin colour. Actually, that’s what I thought the thread was about, just from reading the title. Such (fictional) lasers were referenced in the British sci-fi series _Starcops_, as being the latest thing, circa 2017. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/44 "2004-07-02T22:35:04Z")
[Joint Laser Interoperability, Tomorrow’s Answer to Precision Engagement](http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/neuenswander.html) > [@](#): > > Most of the laser range finders in table 2-1 use either a yttrium-aluminum garnet (YAG) or a glass laser. These lasers operate at a wavelength of 1.06 micrometers (microns) and are extremely hazardous to the human eye. Shining this laser in an unprotected eye for just a split second will result in permanent eye damage or blinding.13 This eye hazard limits laser training to closed rifle or artillery ranges under strict safety guidelines similar to those used for direct fire weapons.14 Currently, the DOD is researching ways to capture the benefits of a 1.06 micron laser range finder with a 1.54 micron laser range finder in the eye-safe range. How about that Saddam?: > [@](#): > > It Is Highly Probable That Laser Eye Injuries Occurred In The Iran/iraq War, Based On Numerous Reports Of Such Injuries And The Known Purchase Of Lasers For The Implied Purpose Of Weaponization. > The Types Of Lasers Purchased Are Amenable To Antipersonnel Or Antisensor Applications. The Injuries, Described As Retinal Burns And Hemorrhages, Reportedly Were Caused By A Laser Device Associated With Iraqi > Tanks.the Reported Injuries Could Have Been Inflicted By A Visible Or Near- > Infrared Laser, Most Likely A Tank-mounted Ruby Or Neodymium/glass Laser Rangefinder. > Our Overall Assessment Is That Laser Eye Injuries Probably Occurred As A Result Of The Use Of Tank-mounted Laser Rangefinders Or Other Laser Systems. These Systems Possibly Were Used In Anoffensive, Antipersonnel Mode, With The Explicit Purpose Of Blinding Troops. [AFMIC](http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/bw_ii/bw_refs/n23en129/970613_ww32_90c_D_txt_0001.html) [DOD Rejects Blinding Lasers](http://www.army.mil/soldiers/feb96/p6.html) > [@](#): > > ALTHOUGH lasers will continue to provide a technological edge to U.S. forces, Defense Secretary William J. Perry said the Defense Department will not design lasers to cause blindness. Of course blinding lasers are illegal by international treaty now. However that hasn’t stopped DARPA from looking into them: > [@](#): > > A secondary objective of the program is to detect incoming mortars and rocket propelled grenades and take appropriate action. Responses after sniper detection can range from non-lethal options such as high resolution, judicial quality photography, paint balls or dyes, blinding laser flash, or rubber bullets to lethal options. The Concept of Operations is to provide a HUMMWV mounted detection and response system while on the move and a lightweight portable freestanding low power unit for platoon or squadrons while stationary. [Oct 2003](http://www.darpa.mil/baa/sn03-31.htm) All this seems like a lot of fuss over a weapon with no battlefield potential doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![BoringDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ad7895/32.png) [@BoringDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BoringDad)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/45 "2004-07-03T03:24:03Z")
> [@neurotic](#): > > If I give you the choice of being blinded or being killed which would you choose? > [@CalMeacham](#): > > Stupid choice – I choose neither. Stupid choice? Aren’t we arguing whether a blinding laser is more vile than conventional weapons? so we should compare the effecrts of lasers vs conventional weapons, shouldn’t we? On a battlefield you are not given the option of “I’ll just go home safely please.” > [@CalMeacham](#): > > You people lack imagination. We’re not talking about taking away people’s sight in a clean and clinical operation, with plenty of support. We’re talking about taking away the sight from people unprepared for this _on a battlefield_ Suddenly you can’t see. Which way do you go? Did you get here via motor transport? It’s a long walk back, and you probably don’t know the direction. > > People are shooting at you. You can’t shoot back. > If you dropped your weapon, where is it? So if you are blinded on a battlefield, you can’t defend yourself and can’t find your way home. Well, umm, if you have your head shot off with a rifle, you also can’t defend yourself or find your way home. So where is the vileness? Are you concerned that it could affect more people more easily? More easily than an artillery strike? When a 155 mm howitzer shell hits, you don’t have to be looking at it to get killed. ---
**Author:** ![caligynephobia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@caligynephobia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligynephobia)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/46 "2004-07-03T04:16:19Z")
The big laser weapon on the horizon: [Boeing’s Airborne Laser (ABL)](http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/flash.html) The govt and Boeing indicate that this is only for theater missile defense. It is certainly not intended for use in blinding enemy combatants. It is imaginable however that an unscrupulous individual or organization with a big 747-mounted laser weapon could imagine up unintended uses against ground or airborne targets. As I recall, the ABL is a small (but still expensive) part of the current administration’s proposed integrated missile defense system. It’s not powerful enough to blow anything up per se, just to weaken a missile’s external structure enough during its boost phase that it disintegrates. To account for the effects of atmospheric abberation, it uses (tah dah) a laser for targeting. It takes a great deal of electricity and has a limited number of “shots” per sortie. I believe Aviation Week has reported that another proposed application of some of this technology is to replace a lift fan on the F-35 with another generator to power a laser weapon. Regarding the use of lasers for blinding, I’m trying to find the article about a NATO helicopter crew who was exposed to surface-based laser energy several years ago and as I recall the effects were more long-term; eyesight problems and headaches. I think it might have been an Aviation Week article, but I don’t have a subscription any more. On preview, [here’s](http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/ap036.htm) the best I could do. If you google something like “Laser Eye Protection” the results include some of the devices aircrew are or may eventually be issued to protect against this threat. Some of the newer ones look like fashion sunglasses popular in the early '90s. ---
**Author:** ![lokij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@lokij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lokij)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/47 "2004-07-03T05:39:25Z")
[QUOTE=caligynephobia] The big laser weapon on the horizon: [Boeing’s Airborne Laser (ABL)](http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/flash.html) The govt and Boeing indicate that this is only for theater missile defense. It is certainly not intended for use in blinding enemy combatants. It is imaginable however that an unscrupulous individual or organization with a big 747-mounted laser weapon could imagine up unintended uses against ground or airborne targets. As I recall, the ABL is a small (but still expensive) part of the current administration’s proposed integrated missile defense system. It’s not powerful enough to blow anything up per se, just to weaken a missile’s external structure enough during its boost phase that it disintegrates. To account for the effects of atmospheric abberation, it uses (tah dah) a laser for targeting. It takes a great deal of electricity and has a limited number of “shots” per sortie. I believe Aviation Week has reported that another proposed application of some of this technology is to replace a lift fan on the F-35 with another generator to power a laser weapon. QUOTE] Yep, the ABL is a chemical laser… the laser they’re looking into for the JSF is a solid state in the range of 100+kilowatts. The stumbling block there had been heat dispersal, to get 100 kilowatt laser you have to pump in about 1 megawatt of power, which produces of course 900 kilowatts of heat. They figured out the best place to put that heat was the fuel :\> that much energy distributed might raise the internal temperature of the fuel by a degree… and it’ll get burned up anway, pretty ingenious. And elsewhere in the world of directed energy weapons, look for our new DX class frigates to have the our first generation rail guns. :\> ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/48 "2004-07-03T15:21:20Z")
As a bit of an aside, check out [this site](http://home.insightbb.com/~jmengel4/rail/rail-intro.html) on the basics of rail guns. Very nice, and easy to digest because it’s mostly high school physics. The rest is engineering and materials science issues, which the site deals with less, and which I care about less as well, as luck would have it. Looks as if rail guns, while a great idea, have a lot of practical issues to overcome, with a current top muzzle velocity of about 4km/s. Lasers and particle beams…the wave [cough] of the future… ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/49 "2004-07-03T15:38:18Z")
I find it difficult to believe that any army which would seriously contemplate neutralizing enemy combatants with lasers would then fail to follow up with the rockets, bombs and bayonets of conventional warfare. It’s not that I believe being blind is somehow “vile,” but I doubt, I very much doubt that lasers would _end_ the battle. It would only be beginning. ---
**Author:** ![hyjyljyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/0ea827/32.png) [@hyjyljyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hyjyljyj)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082/50 "2004-07-03T17:15:18Z")
While we wish battle could be waged without one single person ever being injured, the fact is that war is intentional cruelty, and little else. It also is sometimes essential, if you don’t want to kowtow to the oppression under which some other group has decided it wants you to live (or die). Someone toward the top mentioned that he found himself in a meeting with “tech types and military types” where the assumption was we (the US) were going to use this laser blinding weapon. We’d need more specific data before we could reliably assess the credibility/threat level based on that assertion, but let’s assume it’s accurate. It having been established that in general it’s better and more humane to blind someone than to kill them, if we have weapons so unbelievably horrific and vile that the belief we would use them strikes abject terror into the hearts of the other side, then they will be more reluctant to fight and FEWER people will have to be hurt. That would be a good thing, which a compassionate and freedom-loving people would want. This is in line with the principle of overwhelming superiority of weaponry. It works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-truly-vile-laser-weapon-real/253082.md?page=2)