In my lifetime, governments have inflicted mass executions on civilians, killed them with chemicals, starved entire provinces, and run tanks over sleeping, unarmed perople. So yeah, I think if there’s a weapon it’s going to be used against civilians by someone, somewhere, at some time.
No, I don’t think blinding someone is worse than killing them, but it’s still awful, horrible, inexcusable, terrible, and unforgivable. It’s most definitely not OK.
As a laser physicist, I gotta disagree with you. Although folks have been working on this particular problem – effective blocking of a wide range of wavelengths in a compact system that’s not ludicrous complex and expensive – for a long time, there isn’t a good solution right now. Although if somebody starts fielding such a system, that might get people moving on one.
As for the two who have implied that it’s insulting to blind folks when I oppose this weapon (since blinding is better than dying), I gotta say that I find that defence particularly revolting. I don’t belittle or insult the blind, but I think that a weapon guaranteed to swell their ranks is a vile thing, indeed.
But is it more vile than a weapon guaranteed to kill them?
If I give you the choice of being blinded or being killed which would you choose?
Stupid choice – I coose neither.
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? If there’s a cliff in front of you, can you see it? You need to get food and water (eventually). Once what you’ve got on you runs out, what do you do?
A lot of people are in the same boat, so don’t count on help (careful aim isn’t needed – you can sweep a laser weapon across a wide swath and take down whoever happens to get caught. “Blinding” weapons don’t have to be pulsed.)
Yeah,. I know that soldiers are trained for adversity and to operate at night. But this is different in scale and duration. Most of the Bulgars probably died on their way back home. I’ll bet casualties were pretty grim in WWI blindness attacks, too. There’s no way I can put a positive spin on this that I believe.
Anybody got a cite where I can get more information on the Bulgers?
Curiously enough, the only places I’ve seen this story has been in two “adult” comics – Larry Gonick’s Cartoon History of the Universe, Vol. III and Paradox Press’ The Big Book of BAD. Both are “adult” in being intended for adults, not in being X rated. And both are heavily footnoted, so I don’t doubt the veracity. No doubt you can Google this on the web.
Another:
14,000 said to be blinded. Basil II of Byzantium got the title “Bulgar Slayer” for this. Not Bulger Blinder, I note. The blinding was lethal, in most cases, just not directly so.
Aha! Here’s the original account (translated from Greek) from, Ioannes Zonaras:
Here’s a photo of WWI troops blinded by chlorine gas:
Here’s an interesting Protocol from the Website International Law of War;
http://www.lawofwar.org/Protocol_laser_weapons.htm
Home Page:
Somebody posted a cite up above saying that the use of laser weapons designed to blind people was a no-no. I’m wondering about the other kind of laser weapon, probably still in development.
Back in my Cyberpunk RPG days, a gamer who believed in doing way too much research for his own good said that research at that time indicated that a laser weapon powerful enough to seriously wound somebody in a single shot would put out enough energy that, if it struck metal, would flash brightly enough to permanently blind anybody in the area. If that was the case, one of the problems stated above gets solved immediately: everybody on both sides has to use the same color of laser and the same type of eye protection, or you’re going to blind your own people in a close firefight.
That’s all based on the supposition that a laser that can be used as a lethal weapon puts out that much light as collateral damage. Does anybody (CalMeacham?) know if this is the case?
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that laser weapons intended to blind people and/or elctronics would be more horrendously impractical than anything else. Why? My reasoning is below. If a field specialist out there knows different, I’ll defer.
Fragility: Correct me if I’m wrong, but lasers on the scale we’re talking about would depend on delicately focused mirrors and lenses. Any battlefield equipment by necessity has to be pretty robust or else it won’t work.
Focus: The lasers I’m experienced with are necessarily very tight beams, meaning that you couldn’t blind more than one soldier at a time, and then only if you hit him in the eyes. Furthermore, if you’re using it against units that rely on sensors (like modern tanks), you would have to keep the beam on them continuously. Once the beam is taken off, sensors recover and they get to shoot back. You would need at 1:1 ratio of lasers to tanks, even assuming you can hit their sensors perfectly, unlkess you can permanently burn out the optics (I don’t know how feasible that is). Someone mentioned a wide beam before, but then you’re limited by range and using a lot more power.
Power: Lasers run on electricity, which necessitates either very large mobile genertors or fixed implacements hooked up to the local electricty grid. Either one is very vulnerable.
Line of sight: Lasers, by definition, must be able to see their targets. Artillery can destroy targets miles away that are completely outside of their field of vision. All they need are coordinates form either a spotter (presumably one that can still see) or triangulation and those little lasers are done.
5: Cost: Over all, a functioning laser weapon that is somehow actually practical for mass-blinding would be far more expensive than a few dozen artillery shells.
The OP questioned the ethics of mass-blinding over mass-maiming, but I would question the ethics of wasting resources on such a singularly useless weapon in the first place, especially given how relatively little fighting depends on actual eyeballs seeing a target these days. A far more practical weapon would be something that generates a bright flash that temporarily blinds enemies, even if only for a few seconds. That alone could be enough to tip a battle in your favor and consume far fewer resources. Also, ever heard of electromagnetic burst weapons? Those would be infinitely more devastating to a modern army than a stupid laser.
So is mass-blinding better than mass-killing? Hard to say. Whether we were all blind or all dead, thre woudl be a lot fewer posts to this board.
Ethics aside, a laser system could provide darned effective mob interdiction for those times when you just have to get the last guy into the evac copter.
A lot of this thread seems concerned with whether or not these weapons are humane. I submit that the military doesn’t care and the “humane” label was probably applied by some non-military commentator who misunderstood the real motivation. From a tactical and strategic standpoint, it is much better to wound your enemy than kill them. Most civilized armies expend a great deal of effort to recover and treat their wounded. If you kill a soldier, he’s dead. If you wound him, he’s still out of action, his buddies are temporarily occupied trying to help him, and the medic, evac, doctors and supply chain expends precious resources trying to care for him. Most weapons are not designed only to wound because there’s a margin for error; you shoot to kill and you drop bombs on target, but any chance a military weapon designer gets to increase casualties is going to be taken. That makes blinding lasers a tremendously effective weapon from a strategic standpoint.
I’m not commenting on the legality, humanity or morality of that, just the fact that if you’re going to wage war, non-fatal casualties are a goal, not a “near miss”.
Meh. I still don’t see how it would be as effective as plain old tear gas or, if you’re REALLY serious, a machine gun. Lasers shmasers. I they’ll ever be better than explosives or bullets. Nukes, of course, are in their own league.
This seems more like a Great Debate, but here goes:
What is more vile here than any other weapon of war? The point of a combat weapon is to neutralize an enemy combattant. A lot of weapons designed to be very lethal aren’t always, and the results often aren’t at all pretty when they fail to kill the intended target. Gee, I could get blinded, or I could get half my face shot off, or most of my body covered with 3rd-degree burns, or my legs blown to bits, a bayonette in my nuts, etc.
War is Hell, as they say.
I confess I’m having trouble, always have had trouble, understanding the argument here. If the argument is a pacifist, war-is-not-the-answer argument, then sure, I can get behind that. But if you’re just debating whether to turn daisy cutter bombs, machine guns, or blinding lasers on your enemy, I fail to see how you’re a worse person for choosing the lasers.
Daniel
I think perhaps the OP may have bee disgusted at the notion that a blinding laser was more humane than just blowing somebody up, which it is not. Whether you’re killed, burned, dismemberd, shot, stabbed, gutted, or blinded (by laser, gas, or shrapnel), it doesn’t really matter. Your life has been horribly altered in the name of a political goal probably devised by some overfed leader (whether your own or enemy’s if you’re on the defending side) who couldn’t care less about you bleeding your last in the mud. Even if you get away without physical injuries, the sight of your buddies being mutilated will likely make you nuts.
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.