Smokescreen versus Lasers

[Sea Skimmer]

But is not aiming a laser at an enemy soldiers eyes difficult at useful ranges ?

Laser beams don’t actually stay as perfectly tight beams (depends on the quality of the laser) and you can design lenses which will defuse the beam to be whatever shape you want. I have a bunch of them for my laser pointer. One can also reflect a laser off the waters surface or even the ground to create a defuse area that will still be blinding. Militaries have laser protective goggles for soldiers already, as well as coatings on optical devices, but they aren’t being wildly used at the moment. However while such coatings can prevent eye damage and at least give you a chance to close your eyes, that doesn’t mean they can defend against being effectively blinded while the laser is still active. So an 'eye safe' laser blinder could cause no damage but still be a highly useful weapon. IIRC the laser blinder treaty actually only bans lasers that cause actual long term eye damage, but politicians still killed off programs which would never have done this in the first place.

Skimmer, you'd know better than I, are lasers meant for actually killing people directly still something that weapons researchers are pursuing? Cause I'd find it interesting if weapons meant to blind people with light were illegal, but weapons meant to cause small bits of people to explode in steam clouds are kosher.

We already have lasers like THEL that could vaporize someone’s head 5km away if we wanted. You might as well ask why we ban hollow point bullets, when it’s perfectly legal to crush someone with tank tracks or drop a 2,000lb bomb on them, which are rather less survivable events. The ban on blinding lasers is really just emotions over logic, like most weapons bans are. People somehow think making weapons less horrible will make war less horrible, but most evidence points towards war being more horrible being a strong deterrent to more war. Look no further then the Naval Treaties of the 1920s and 30s. Instead of deterring war, they made it possible for Japan, a nation of 1/10th the industry of the IS, to gain a 70% ratio of strength and thus actually make a serious challenge to US power in the Pacific, killing millions of people in the process.

[Ford Prefect]

Laser beams don’t actually stay as perfectly tight beams (depends on the quality of the laser) and you can design lenses which will defuse the beam to be whatever shape you want.

Set phasers to widebeam!

Anyway, while it is certainly straightforward that anti-laser countermeasures could be devised that would diffuse the killing power of the beam (two examples given are wavelength specific clouds of metallic particles, as well as the plasma caused through usage of ablatives), but I'm somewhat curious about whether there is a point of diminsihing returns in laser output. Could ionisation of the atmosphere retard the effectiveness of something like THEL? How much effect would the weather have on its usage, such as very humid days, foggy mornings or what have you?

[Gil Hamilton]

We already have lasers like THEL that could vaporize someone’s head 5km away if we wanted. You might as well ask why we ban hollow point bullets, when it’s perfectly legal to crush someone with tank tracks or drop a 2,000lb bomb on them, which are rather less survivable events. The ban on blinding lasers is really just emotions over logic, like most weapons bans are. People somehow think making weapons less horrible will make war less horrible, but most evidence points towards war being more horrible being a strong deterrent to more war. Look no further then the Naval Treaties of the 1920s and 30s. Instead of deterring war, they made it possible for Japan, a nation of 1/10th the industry of the IS, to gain a 70% ratio of strength and thus actually make a serious challenge to US power in the Pacific, killing millions of people in the process.

I don't think THEL was ever conceived for Death Ray usage but more for plinking Katyusha rockets that some joker is lobbing over your border, though I suppose you could use it for anti-personnel. However, it's not banned for its intended usage, even though it could be used for a thing that it banned.

However, there are some sensible weapons bans. Things like nerve agents make me ashamed to be in the same species as the people who decided they were a good idea to use as a weapon.

[Norade]

We already have lasers like THEL that could vaporize someone’s head 5km away if we wanted. You might as well ask why we ban hollow point bullets, when it’s perfectly legal to crush someone with tank tracks or drop a 2,000lb bomb on them, which are rather less survivable events. The ban on blinding lasers is really just emotions over logic, like most weapons bans are. People somehow think making weapons less horrible will make war less horrible, but most evidence points towards war being more horrible being a strong deterrent to more war. Look no further then the Naval Treaties of the 1920s and 30s. Instead of deterring war, they made it possible for Japan, a nation of 1/10th the industry of the IS, to gain a 70% ratio of strength and thus actually make a serious challenge to US power in the Pacific, killing millions of people in the process.

I don't think THEL was ever conceived for Death Ray usage but more for plinking Katyusha rockets that some joker is lobbing over your border, though I suppose you could use it for anti-personnel. However, it's not banned for its intended usage, even though it could be used for a thing that it banned.

However, there are some sensible weapons bans. Things like nerve agents make me ashamed to be in the same species as the people who decided they were a good idea to use as a weapon.

Why, if your nation was attacked should it not have a weapon capable of making sure no other nation will ever attack it again? If I was in charge and my nation was attacked I'd do whatever I could to ensure my enemies died in a way that made them never want to fight me again, be that nerve gas, a blinding laser, hollow point rounds, caustic gases. Given a large enough threat I would do inhuman things t me enemies and make sure that I never have to preform such an act again.

[Sea Skimmer]

However, there are some sensible weapons bans. Things like nerve agents make me ashamed to be in the same species as the people who decided they were a good idea to use as a weapon.

The only person to ever nerve gas as a weapon was Saddam Hussein to kill a few thousand people, 50 years after they had been weaponized. He killed absurdly more with plain old rifles and machine guns. Chemical weapons are in fact the first example of deterrence at work, and working well.

[Starglider]

However, there are some sensible weapons bans. Things like nerve agents make me ashamed to be in the same species as the people who decided they were a good idea to use as a weapon.

Why? They don't cause the slow horribly painful deaths that radiation poisoning from nuclear weapons does, nor do they kill random civilians for years after the war is over the way landmines do. I don't see why nerve gas is any worse than say napalm.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why? They don't cause the slow horribly painful deaths that radiation poisoning from nuclear weapons does, nor do they kill random civilians for years after the war is over the way landmines do. I don't see why nerve gas is any worse than say napalm.

No they die somewhat fast, extremely horrible deaths, and (B) you are around about nerve gas lingering in the environment. Nerve agents like VX are extremely persistant in the environment* which is why they are considered area denial weapons; you drop nerve gas on an area and no one goes into that area for a long time without an enclosed suit. It requires extensive scrubbing of an area effected by a nerve agent attack before it is safe to live in that area again. There were people in Iraq that developed conditions from Hussein's chemical weapons years after he launched those attacks.

(*they have to be, most nerve agents started life as pesticides that people noticed killed EVERYTHING else, in addition to insects including any possible farmer using it).

The only person to ever nerve gas as a weapon was Saddam Hussein to kill a few thousand people, 50 years after they had been weaponized. He killed absurdly more with plain old rifles and machine guns. Chemical weapons are in fact the first example of deterrence at work, and working well.

They are still disgusting in the extreme as weapons, such that barely anyone would dare use them if they wanted to have a foriegn relations with anyone else. Hell, even when the Nazis had nothing to lose they opted against deploying any of the G-series nerve agents against Allied troops.

[Sea Skimmer]

No they die somewhat fast, extremely horrible deaths, and (B) you are around about nerve gas lingering in the environment. Nerve agents like VX are extremely persistant in the environment* which is why they are considered area denial weapons; you drop nerve gas on an area and no one goes into that area for a long time without an enclosed suit. It requires extensive scrubbing of an area effected by a nerve agent attack before it is safe to live in that area again.

No, while you can find trace amounts of nerve agents for decades, none of them are persistent to any remotely lethal level past about six months though it depends on the climate. Landmines and UXOs in general will last much longer. Most nerve agents are not persistent in any case, the V agents are largely alone on that count. Saddam for example used Tabun and Sarin, which are persistent only to the tune of a few hours, much less then many other chemical weapons. The most persistent agents are actually semi non lethal psychological agents like BZ.

There were people in Iraq that developed conditions from Hussein's chemical weapons years after he launched those attacks.

You can say the exact same thing about all kinds of conventional weapons related injuries, never mind psychological problems.

They are still disgusting in the extreme as weapons, such that barely anyone would dare use them if they wanted to have a foriegn relations with anyone else. Hell, even when the Nazis had nothing to lose they opted against deploying any of the G-series nerve agents against Allied troops.

The Nazis very much had a lot of lose, mainly the entire German population. The reason the Nazis never used chemical weapons other then one or two possible uses of toxic smoke in secret was that they knew the allies had better civilian preparedness for gas warfare from the onset, and by the time the war was being lost the allies also had superior delivery systems in the form of superior air and artillery power. That was deterrence at work.

Now had the British and French and Americans and Soviets all followed the treaties already banning gas (in fact gas was banned before it was ever even used in WW1), and failed to create any reserve stockpiles of chemical weapons, while the Nazis built up nerve gas in secret, then the Germans would have had absolutely no reason to hold back and surely would have used those weapons. See the problem with weapons bans? Its pointless, if a weapon makes sense to use and people have a reason to use it, they damn well will. I sure no the likes of China wont be holding back on laser blinders if it comes to war with the US, they are in fact mounting one on every single Type 98 tank they produce.

[Darth Wong]

I think the land mine ban actually has more merit than other kinds of weapon ban. I don't think anyone was ever deterred from war by the idea that the enemy might have land mines. They do seem to exact an unusual price from civilians years down the road. Having said that, I suppose it's also true that you can't put that genie back in its box, and that various enemies will continue to use them anyway.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think the land mine ban actually has more merit than other kinds of weapon ban. I don't think anyone was ever deterred from war by the idea that the enemy might have land mines. They do seem to exact an unusual price from civilians years down the road. Having said that, I suppose it's also true that you can't put that genie back in its box, and that various enemies will continue to use them anyway.

Such a ban becomes irrelevant the moment any country starts to face a tank army though, and I suspect that even the most fervent of supporters for that ban will likely break it as fast as they signed the ban, if not faster.

I don't think THEL was ever conceived for Death Ray usage but more for plinking Katyusha rockets that some joker is lobbing over your border, though I suppose you could use it for anti-personnel. However, it's not banned for its intended usage, even though it could be used for a thing that it banned.

You are kinda late. They have already long started work on putting a laser in a C-130 for the purpose of zapping stuff on the ground.

[Sarevok]

However if lasers become worthwhile as weapons would not they greatly diminish combat aviation ? Ground based lasers would be cheaper, more powerful and can hide in bunkers. They can zap planes and missiles, bombs, uavs etc with pin point accuracy. That kind of makes laser armed planes a moot point.

[phongn]

However if lasers become worthwhile as weapons would not they greatly diminish combat aviation ? Ground based lasers would be cheaper, more powerful and can hide in bunkers. They can zap planes and missiles, bombs, uavs etc with pin point accuracy. That kind of makes laser armed planes a moot point.

You still have to identify, track and engage hostile aircraft quickly - which is still no easy task. However, it will probably greatly change airpower, to the extent that something like an F-22 (fast, stealthy) becomes the minimum survivable aircraft in the future battlefield.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think the land mine ban actually has more merit than other kinds of weapon ban. I don't think anyone was ever deterred from war by the idea that the enemy might have land mines.

North Korea might disagree. Certainly the massive minefields of the Korean DMZ are a serious deterrent to a surprise attack, which is why the US and ROK agreed to mostly honor the ban (we reserve the right to use surface laid self destructing AP mines anywhere) without signing it, but only outside the Korean peninsula. Course those 60 foot thick anti tank walls also help I do admit, but then they also use the mines to defend all the necessary entrances. One should remember that North Korea was the superior economy into the early 1970s which is around the time when the Korean Barrier System was constructed.

But anyway keep in mind that the ‘mine ban’ is in fact only a ban on pressure/proximity detonated dedicated anti personal mines. Mines which are duel role, and anti vehicle mines which have anti personal anti handling devices are still perfectly legal. So if you rig a bunch of tripwires (anti handling devices which are remotely located, aka tripwires, are legal) to an anti tank mine that will kill people all the same, that’s still fine. You can drive a convoy of legless kids through that exemption alone. Course they aren’t likely to only lose one leg if they set off an AT mine. Also livestock like cows especially are able to set off AT mines, and this is a major cause of civilian mine casualties.

Since conventional militaries are way more interested in stopping vehicles and would rarely have the additional time to spend emplacing anti personal mines in a modern war, it doesn’t work out to ban that much. You can also still use any kind of anti personal mine you want as long as its command detonated too. Since most command detonated AP mines usually also have tripwire features like the Claymore mine when it comes down to fighting a war, people WILL use them like that if they have a need.

However a serious argument against banning AP mines is the simple reality that mines are absurdly easy to improvise. Improvised mines meanwhile are impossible to safely disarm; you have to blow them in place (see this endlessly in Iraq) which can be a very serious problem for postwar mine clearance. While the likes of the US and USSR did scatter hoards of tiny plastic mines from the air in the 1970s and 1980s we really don’t use weapons like that anymore, and we map our minefields too. GPS makes that a much more reliable process, and we can use computers to quickly share the maps so that the Second Lieutenant of Alpha Platoon having his body blown apart doesn’t mean the only copy of the map gets lost.

So all and all it seems to me like the land mine ban treaty is like calling a treaty a chemical weapons a ban, when in fact it only banned mustard gas sprayed from the air, while explicitly saying that throwing a canister of VX through a window is still okay. And yet even with all these loopholes, the worlds top militaries still aren’t willing to be a part of it. Its not for lack of trying for alternatives either.

I forget what the agreement was called, but the US and a bunch of other nations also did agree in the mid 1990s before Ottawa that they would only use AP mines which are detectable by magnetic sensors. In some cases this meant literally gluing on a piece of metal to existing plastic mines. This was all and all at least a slightly more honest way of reducing the mine hazard in my book, and in a manner which would NOT instantly be violated in wartime, since if you can put down fire on the minefield you don’t need to worry about people clearing it with metal detectors all that much.