
Sailor pictured with laser rifle on board USS Minnesota nuclear sub - samizdis
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35106/check-out-this-sailor-holding-a-laser-dazzler-rifle-aboard-nuclear-submarine-uss-minnesota
======
fode
Wow, this explains it all! I currently live on the beach in Dakar Sénégal.
About 2 weeks ago, I was up late on my balcony and saw these dazzling green
lights coming from really far out in the ocean. For one I was wondering what
it was, and two, I was surprised that the green lights seemed to be coming
from so far out from the ocean, but yet they were lighting up the beach like
someone was standing right there with a flash light. And I'm talking super
far!

I had a hunch that it might be military related. It was fascinating to see how
powerful the green lights were after they bounced off the water and hit the
sand.

I'm so glad I caught this article here. I was going nuts for a while there lol

~~~
t-writescode
What’s the danger of blindness?

~~~
hajile
The Red Cross still considers them to be dangerous.

The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times.
The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have
large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law).
Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to
detect the range accurately (inverse square law again). Laser damage happens
in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic
consequences.

The US military has admitted to their own soldiers being hurt, but it would be
an international incident to admit it happened to someone they were fighting,
so I doubt you'll see them releasing any stats about that.

[https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz.htm)

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-
police-and-coastguards-use-laser-dazzlers/)

[https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-
cau...](https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-caused-by-
presumed-laser-dazzler-2161-1076-4-191.pdf)

~~~
udue73uru
Not trying to nitpick but I had trouble following some of your wording. What
would the international incident be over if it happened during a fight? I get
that blinding civilians by accident during a training exercise could blow up
but blinding targets with a high powered laser doesn't seem that different
from using flash grenades when storming a building. I was also unsure because
you mentioned it happening during a fight and it seems like if you can already
lock onto a target to fire a laser into their eyes it'd be more efficient to
skip blinding them and just shoot or bombard them.

~~~
bmn__
A grenade blinds temporarily, a laser blinds permanently. FTA:

> international law
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons)
> prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to
> cause permanent blindness.

~~~
udue73uru
I didn't know! Thanks! But is permanent blindness actually a moral hazard if
you're using that blindness to create an immediate opportunity to shoot the
subject? I'm not a soldier so I might be way off but I'm assuming being
totally blind for even a few seconds is a massive handicap in an engagement.

~~~
salawat
War is complicated.

Depending on the philosopher or politician, soldier or commander you ask, it's
purpose is fairly varied. Resource burn, attrition, making the other poor
bastard die for his country... However, in general, the international
community has tended to favor diplomacy favoring modalities of war. By
diplomacy friendly, of course, it's still lethal, and loved ones are not at
all guaranteed to come back home, but it should result in "a warrior's death".
It's frankly stupid, but psychologically, to the political classes, and to the
civilian classes there is just some grim acceptance of the necessity of
conventional warfare and conflict. Conflicts constrained by laws of war seems
to be considered somehow "cleaner", and overall more preferable to the
industrial scale manufacture of blind, blistered, or diseased cripples out of
the young men and women of both sides.

There are, of course, dissenters to this type of thinking, one of which was
Lincoln's War Secretary Edwin Stanton if I recall, Douglas MacArthur and
Sherman may also have been counted amongst the numbers of those that advocate
the practice of no holds barred, total war, where anything and everything
goes, since the only moral outcome of an armed conflict is to end it as
quickly, brutally, and decisively as possible. To that end, any restraint in
application of force is seen as a sin or needless cruelty in prolonging the
conflict.

It was and remains a rather controversial view, especially given the
destructive potential most first world nations are now sitting on has led to
somewhat of a retirement of the philosophy; at least as long as MAD holds out.

~~~
hajile
Ask a soldier if they'd rather be dead or blind and they'll often choose
blindness; however, can society handle a million corpses or a million blind
dependents they feel obligated to take care of? That's a much harder question
to answer, but the purely pragmatic perspective will choose the former.

It's sad to say, but many families taking care of gas attack survivors after
WW1 grew to resent or even hate the victims because taking care of the victim
cost the families the ability to live their lives. What is the quality of life
for a victim stuck in a long-term care facility for the rest of their life to
be alone and miserable for the next 50-60 years praying for an end they know
is far off?

Experiencing the horror of war and seeing the sanitized depiction in Hollywood
or games must be very different. After two world wars within 25 years,
EVERYONE knew people crippled and ruined by war, so they set out with the idea
to ensure it wouldn't happen to their children as well. Their grandchildren
and great-grandchildren growing up in many places today seem to not really
understand.

We need to accept that they knew what they were talking about else we run the
risk of bringing those monsters back to life.

------
polytely
The youtube channel smarter every day is doing a series about live aboard a
nuclear attack sub (different class than the one in the article, Los Angeles
class IIRC) during an exercise where they navigate under ice, called ICEX.
which might be of interest if you like this article. It's obviously propaganda
but it is very interesting nonetheless.

actual submarine part:
[https://youtu.be/RXXMJAU6vY8](https://youtu.be/RXXMJAU6vY8)

the leadup and context surrounding the exercise:
[https://youtu.be/5d6SEQQbwtU](https://youtu.be/5d6SEQQbwtU)

~~~
hylian
>It's obviously propaganda but it is very interesting nonetheless.

Sorry, how is this video obviously propaganda?

~~~
polytely
Ok so destin works as a scientist for the us gov. He did a video a while ago
where he interviewed a general about the cyber domain of warfare. In this
interview they discussed that the interview itself was part of that cyber
domain, and the access they provide to destin is a part of the US presence in
the cyber domain. [0]

The pentagon clearly sees smarter everyday as a channel to spread information
to a certain audience, to show off US capability and serve as a recruitment
material.

I respect Destin a lot and I think the video is very cool, but I feel that I
should add a sort of disclaimer because I'm actively aiding the US gov by
spreading this video? they obviously don't care about you knowing it's
propaganda, but it cant hurt to emphasize it. Tbh my thinking about this isn't
that crystallized yet but I thought it might spark an interesting side
discussion.

0: [https://youtu.be/qOTYgcdNrXE](https://youtu.be/qOTYgcdNrXE) see 21:00+ for
cyberdomain talk

~~~
barnesto
marketing is not propaganda.

~~~
coldtea
State marketing is the literal definition of propaganda...

~~~
dredmorbius
Actually _church_ marketing, originally.

(The pejorative state sense came out of German First World War influence
campaigns.)

[https://www.etymonline.com/word/propaganda](https://www.etymonline.com/word/propaganda)

The state/marketing usage is predominant today though:

[https://www.thefreedictionary.com/propaganda](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/propaganda)

------
supernova87a
Two side observations unrelated to the laser rifle:

1) It's surprising or kind of amusing that such a huge and complex submarine
uses plain old Raytheon / Raymarine radar when operating in harbor, etc. as if
were just a little sailboat. But whatever works and is effective! I wonder how
it has to be dismantled and put up, taken down each time? Perhaps it's mostly
for being visible to other ships/monitoring stations? I recalled hearing that
a sub is never in such places without accompanying surface fleet/tugs/etc
anyway.

2) Looking at the periscope mast, the amount of technological sophistication
in that thing must be incredible. The amount of communications (radio, laser,
metallurgy, stealth coatings, etc) gadgetry there I'm sure would boggle the
mind. Yet it all goes to the theme -- here is a boat worth many billions of $
and the pinnacle of US military sophistication, being put into the hands and
trust of mostly 20-something young sailors, and mostly without incident. Truly
amazing that we're able to do that.

~~~
Cocktail
Using a cheapo radar gives a military target better "obvious" cover from
electronical intelligence. As radars use active emmissions, they can be
characterized and profiled. At range a civilian grade radar will not be fired
upon in war without confirmation and in peace they can be used to hide your
actual wartime radar capabilities and characteristics

------
dmoy
So the clarification (easily determined from the subtitle, as well as the
article body), is that this is a dazzler meant to temporarily blind or
distract.

It's not a sci fi laser rifle that cuts things. This is very different from
star wars (the missile defense program), or star wars (the movie).

The US Navy does have things closer to that:

[https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-
ships/a326766...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-
ships/a32676643/navy-laser-weapon-system-demonstrator-test/)

But they're huge, and still don't really do much.

~~~
jacksonpollock
It sounds like it is more of a warning "you are in our way" device? "For long-
distance hail and warning, especially during maritime security, the GLARE®
LA-9/P combines a powerful green beam with Eye Safe® technology. The laser
rapidly determines if an unintended observer is within the nominal ocular
hazard distance (NOHD) and immediately shuts off the glaring output to prevent
accidental eye injury. Once the bystander has moved out of the NOHD, the laser
output instantly resumes."

~~~
RealityVoid
How does it do that? I mean, I know of no technology that could do what this
tech claims to be able to do.

EDIT: my guess is that it's actually unable of distinguishing the target and
WILL blind you but the quip about being non-blinding is because of the Geneva
convention, since, apparently, blinding weapons are illegal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons)

~~~
wtracy
I imagine that it has rangefinding capability, and throttles the output based
on distance to the target.

It probably doesn't know and doesn't need to know whether the target is human.

~~~
RealityVoid
That sounds reasonable, but the quite from OP says something completely
different, it says "The laser rapidly determines if an unintended observer is
within the nominal ocular hazard distance (NOHD) and immediately shuts off the
glaring output to prevent accidental eye injury" \- that doesn't sound like
the mechanism you describe.

~~~
Misdicorl
Sure it does once you run the original through a PR committee or two.

------
robgibbons
Looks like a slightly modified Ruger 10-22 folding stock with some optics & a
laser mounted.

[https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1006745523](https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1006745523)

~~~
kyleblarson
Makes sense. The 10/22 is indestructible and proven. I've had one since I was
10 and put at least 20000 rounds through it and cleaned it once. It almost
never jams.

------
jcrawfordor
Seems very similar to the DC special flight rules area warning device, which
was introduced to cut down the number of incidents of aircraft unintentionally
erring into the DC SFRA resulting in expensive things like fighters being
scrambled.

It's basically the same idea as a control tower's light gun sending the
red/green "extreme caution" signal but it's laser-based to work at long range.
They refuse to give much in the way of details, it's not even clear to me if
it uses radar for targeting or the statements about it being radar-based just
mean that the person operating it gets instructions from someone looking at
ATC radar. It seems like it might just be a minor modification of this same
device.

Actually I'll expand on this, because I think the article is a bit unclear but
it seems like this is intended for the exact same use-case. it's not really a
_weapon_ but a _signaling device._ The problem with air traffic is that pilots
occasionally err into restricted areas unintentionally. For various reasons
(mostly bad ones, but still not too uncommon) they may not be monitoring any
of the radio frequencies that a controller or the air force would try to use
to communicate with them. So if the situation is severe enough, a military
aircraft has to be scrambled to conduct an intercept and redirect. Even this
has a failure rate because not all pilots seem to be familiar with the
internationally agreed upon procedures for intercept and redirect by a
military aircraft, although I'd argue it's pretty intuitive (if a fighter
comes after you, act rational and follow them when they turn away).

So for the DC SFRA where this is a big ongoing problem they introduced this
"visual warning system" that's just a laser that flashes red-green at the
suspect aircraft. Ideally everyone who flies in that area knows about it, but
they figure that even for people who don't, it's bright and conspicuous and
alternating red/green means "use extreme caution" ( _every_ pilot should know
that one, it's on the exam), so it ought to be enough to get people to figure
out that there's something going on and they should start monitoring their
radio. FAA provided a demo video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wAhreg9qpo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wAhreg9qpo)

Seems like this is the exact same idea, it's bright and conspicuous and will
make people realize that something is up even if they're not monitoring the
radio, and so hopefully they'll either turn their radio on or head the
opposite direction to avoid trouble.

------
h2odragon
Laser pointers for Sphinx scale cats. Very informative article too. The quoted
"it won't blind people, really" verbiage smells a lot like bullshit, doesn't
it?

The bit about "unequivocal, cross-cultural warning" tho, that i buy. A more
pointed way of saying "I see you" than launching a flare.

~~~
sdenton4
"[...]the service is already fielding a far more powerful, hard-mounted, laser
dazzler that will have a much greater range and a better ability to blind more
advanced electronic optics. Named ODIN[...]"

Let's name our totally-not-intended-to-blind-people weapon after a dude who's
missing an eye...

~~~
andrewnicolalde
Who says that one isn’t intended to do that?

~~~
EForEndeavour
International Law?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons)

~~~
huonpine
The US has the 'Hague Invasion Act' if any US person is detained at the Hague
so not sure if international law is a problem.

------
tantalor
"GLARE MOUT Plus"

[https://bemeyers.com/glare-mout-plus](https://bemeyers.com/glare-mout-plus)

I was sure this was a typo for "mount", but MOUT is _military operations in
urban terrain_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare)

------
tgb
What would a retroreflector on the target do to the dazzler's operator?

~~~
jbay808
I assume that the scope has a 532 nm bandstop filter to prevent that issue.

Also, the eyesafe feature probably triggers on retroreflection from a target's
eyes, so a retroreflector would likely trigger the laser to reduce it's beam
power.

~~~
chongli
So then the adversaries could wear laser safety glasses with the same 532 nm
bandstop filter? Seems like a simple fix for them.

~~~
cdubzzz
I don't necessarily get the sense this is made for "adversaries". More for
unknowns. E.g. if voice commands and the laser fail (say, because it is a real
adversary wearing safety glasses), next up is lots and lots of bullets.

------
pjc50
This seems to be an upgraded, directional version of a signal lamp, and
describing it as a weapon has caused confusion and outrage.

(Provided the claims about automatic power limit are true)

------
canada_dry
I wonder if/when this device will make its way into responding to the recent
civil unrest around the US?

Especially given that Federal enforcement agents are now being utilized, and
likely have access to this equipment.

~~~
balls187
The opposite actually, Lasers are being used against federal agents.

[https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/3-fed-agents-likely-blinded-
by...](https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/3-fed-agents-likely-blinded-by-lasers-
pointed-at-them-in-portland-wh/)

~~~
mensetmanusman
Yikes, sucks to get permanently blinded. I wonder whether citizens will just
flee the cities and let them collapse into crime. It would be a repeat of
pretty recent history.

~~~
balls187
The PDX protests have been relatively peaceful.

Despite that, federal agents were dispatched to quell them.

So "Moms" came out in support to protect the protestors.

Followed by "Dads."

And now US Military Veterans.

~~~
mensetmanusman
If the violence is non-zero, citizens may still vote with their feet.

~~~
balls187
They are voting with their feet, at first by showing up in droves to protest,
and now more citizens showing up to support the protestors.

~~~
DuskStar
And other people are voting the opposite way by leaving.

------
balsam
Btw, thats a Viking raven ensign the soldiers are flying

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_banner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_banner)

------
tomcam
This same technique is being used by the peaceful protesters in Portland, who
have blinded half a dozen police officers in the last few days while
peacefully burning down federal buildings.

------
phjesusthatguy3
Can a laser rifle fired from a submarine damage targets across the water-level
barrier?

~~~
SamReidHughes
If there's a mirage happening with the atmosphere refracting light downward,
sure.

------
jeffrallen
War is a racket.

------
newacct583
FWIW: these have been reported to be in active use against the Portland
protesters. It's so frustrating that HN chooses the gadget puff piece to push
to the top of the front page instead of the actual deployed weapons.

Most especially because the much-lower-power pocket laser pointers have been
cited by the white house directly as having "permanently blinded" federal
agents. (Consumer red/green lasers are extraordinarily unlikely to cause
permanent blindness, that's why they're available to consumers. You'd have to
hold them on the same spot in your retina for minutes to kill cells thermally,
the frequency won't do it alone.)

Edit: yes, folks, I'm talking about laser pointers. Obviously these things are
poorly regulated and folks can get all kinds of crazy dangerous things online.
There's zero evidence that any of them are in use by protesters in Portland.
There's some shots of kids with clicky pointers.

~~~
refurb
Used against Portland protestors? From the videos I've seen, it's the
"protestors" using them against the police.

[https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1286914458032332800](https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1286914458032332800)

~~~
newacct583
That's exactly the point. It's the same thing. But it's a cool weapon gadget
presented here, when it's a horrifying atrocity that demands tear gas and
brutality when used by the "other side".

It's this weaponization of "bothsidesism" that I'm having trouble with. We've
got an almost 100% peaceful protest of hippies going on every night for two
months, but what posters here want to talk about is the fancy anti-riot gear
being used against them.

~~~
rimjongun
I think to call it almost 100% peaceful is not meeting us in good faith.
That’s simply nowhere approaching the truth.

~~~
newacct583
What's your estimate then? I mean... I'm here in Portland. I can drive right
by downtown (drove straight through Ground Zero at main and 3rd just this
morning). I see the hippies. I don't see violence. Show me the violence. Tell
me why I need to support tear gassing these kids every night for two months.

No one will. But I see people vote up these posts about "yay lasers!" instead.
I'm out of patience here. I can see with my own eyes who the bad guys are, so
can you, and yet... "look! lasers!"

~~~
DuskStar
Well, "no violence that I have personally seen during the day" doesn't really
have any relevance to "is there violence during the night" \- and all the
police brutality / protester violence / arson etc videos I've seen from
Portland have been at night.

~~~
vkou
I can't speak for Portland, but I have seen the SPD instigate violence on
numerous occasions, against peaceful protests. In those instances, including
in the time leading up to the violence - nobody was throwing anything at the
police lines, nobody was destroying property - until the police started
chucking flash and gas grenades and firing less-lethal bullets into crowds.
(Which have all, by the way, been outlawed by city council - yet the police
department is still using them.)

That is not how _every_ Seattle protest has gone, but that's how many of them
have - many during the day (Although a few turned that way at night, as well).

------
14
I couldn’t help but think Star Trek when they talked about the laser
modulating it’s power based on range of target and shutting down if someone
accidentally crosses it’s path. They are not allowed to intentionally
permanently blind people. Set phasers to stun is what I thought of. It would
be nice if we could have a world without lethal weapons.

~~~
ravenstine
WORF: Captain, they are now locking _lasers_ on us.

RIKER: _Lasers_???

PICARD: _Lasers_???

~~~
tantalor
Season 2, Episode 4 "The Outrageous Okona" ~19:20

[https://www.netflix.com/watch/70177892?t=1160](https://www.netflix.com/watch/70177892?t=1160)

~~~
yreg
I didn't knew it's possible to link to timestamps on Netflix. Is there a way
to get the link from the UI, or do you have to compute the seconds yourself?

~~~
dceddia
Scrub to any point in the video, and click the share/link button. There's a
checkbox to include the timestamp in the URL.

------
IgorPartola
Do note that blinding an enemy soldier is considered a really serious war
crime by international law. You can kill them outright, not a crime. But you
cannot blind them, including using a laser in this manner.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons)

~~~
wyxuan
*permanent blindness

article mentions it as well. the lasers used in this article follow int'l law

------
hajile
There's a reason this kind of thing is against the rules of war.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conven...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons)

These conventions don't matter unless they're actually enforced. For example,
gas shells were banned 16 years before their use in WW1 by the very countries
using them. Lots of victims lived horrible lives of suffering or killed
themselves as a result of their use.

~~~
tomashubelbauer
Based on my reading of the article this laser weapon doesn't (maybe even is
not capable of without modification?) cause permanent blindness.

~~~
valuearb
Correct, it’s got safeguards to ensure it’s only usable at ranges that won’t
damage human eyesight.

~~~
beenBoutIT
The company's CEO could really drive this point home in a presentation video
where he gets 'dazzled' repeatedly at close range.

~~~
hajile
And yet, the US military has admitted that their own troops have had permanent
eye damage done with this weapon. It would be legal suicide to every say that
something similar had happened to enemy combatants even if it happened
frequently.

The Red Cross still maintains that dazzlers should be banned. The human eye
(depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse
square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large
differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law).
Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to
detect the range accurately. Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so
even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

There's a CEO famous for shooting himself and others wearing his brand of flak
vest. That doesn't mean it always stops bullets (even in premium
environments). It means they're idiots. The same applies here.

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-
police-and-coastguards-use-laser-dazzlers/)

[https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-
cau...](https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-caused-by-
presumed-laser-dazzler-2161-1076-4-191.pdf)

[https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz.htm)

