U.S. Uses Laser 'Dazzler' to Stop Iraqis

[warpedskydiver 0]

U.S. Uses Laser 'Dazzler' to Stop Iraqis
By Associated Press
6 hours ago

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military in Iraq has begun using a laser device mounted on soldiers' M-4 rifles to "dazzle" Iraqi drivers who fail to heed warnings to stop at checkpoints, a Pentagon spokesman said Thursday.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable said the laser device should not be called a weapon because it is not intended to injure.

"They are a warning device. They are intended to minimize unnecessary casualties," particularly among Iraqi civilians, Venable said.

The spokesman said he did not know how recently the military began using the devices. He said they are being used in limited numbers and have proven useful in avoiding incidents in which soldiers are compelled to use deadly force against vehicle drivers.

"The intent is to provide another non-lethal option as a warning device to troops as they come into contact with Iraqi civilians, primarily at checkpoints," Venable said. If used properly, the laser is not blinding, he said.

Use of the device, which Venable said was adapted from a laser used as a target designator, was first reported Thursday by the Los Angeles Times.

Quote

I guess there are some that will not like this, I guess they would rather we just shoot them

• Quote

[n23x 0]

Potential side-effects of permanent blindness aren't a big deal!

Quote

I guess they would rather we just shoot them

Certainly there is no other option than a foolish occupation of a country that is not wholly interested in our company.

Futher, I just noticed this tidbit, "used as a warning device against Iraqi civilians". Cute.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[jjiimmyyt 0]

Protocol 4 of the Geneva Convention prohibits using lasers to cause blindness. But hey, the US has been wiping its arse with the Geneva Convention recently.

"This isn't an iron lung, people. You can actually disconnect and not die." -Dave

[Trent 0]

Quote

Protocol 4 of the Geneva Convention prohibits using lasers to cause blindness. But hey, the US has been wiping its arse with the Geneva Convention recently.

Funny how using a laser to temporarily blind them is verboten, but filling the car with lead if it is behaving in a threatening manner is okay. It's about time some of the bleeding hearts get away from the "shoot to wound" mentality!

Oh, hello again!

[n23x 0]

You know, some of us don't condone either action.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Lindsey 0]

Of course not killing people is a good thing. And as long as this is only used when deadly force would otherwise be used, then it's the least bad. My concern would be that this laser would be used too frequently, in situations that weren't life-threatening.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jjiimmyyt 0]

I dont deny it is a little strange that according to the Convention you can kill someone but not blind them.

"This isn't an iron lung, people. You can actually disconnect and not die." -Dave

[Misternatural 0]

This device is certainly a better alternative to the standard trigger pull and If you are on the front line you do what you have to do to survive.
But imagine for a second that you are driving down your street in America- a street you have driven down hundreds of times, then a political situation changes and you are confronted by a check point manned by oh lets say for example Russian soldiers. ...in our country.They shine a laser in your face.
Now judging by the zeal that is demonstrated here I would say that over time temperance would be lost and a large percentage of us would be inclined to step on the gas and toss a grenade out the window. Yes? be honest.

note to NSA; this is a hypothesis.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Trent 0]

You guys crack me up.

2 questions:

1. Should suspicious vehicles be shot up with real bullets or have their drivers temporarily blinded by a frikken laser beam?

2. Ever shot yourself with a laser pointer in the eye?

Now, I know it will be hard... but try to keep responses in the framework of the questions. Although we all know someone will post the standard "the US shouldn't even BE there..." drivel.

Oh, hello again!

[n23x 0]

1.) Neither.

2.) Yes, and it was foolish.

Now for you.

1.) What are the differences between a class I laser, and class IIIb laser and above? What potential side effects do each pose.

2.) Do you think that, based on the dazzler's non-lethality, it is more likely or less likely to be used indiscriminatly and more frequently than necessary.

3.) Someone posed a reasonable question above that you didn't answer. If anybody came into the US and attacked you with such a device (because lets be honest, that's what you are doing with it, you are not just "disabling" them) under the guise of their own personal safety, what would be your opinion of that device?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[shropshire 0]

So a Dazzler Laser is a non-leathal weapon..... Unless you [temporarily] blind the driver of a car so that he crashes and possibly kills the occupants or the innocent by-stander that is run over... but hey that wasn't the intention so it's O.K

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You guys crack me up.

2 questions:

1. Should suspicious vehicles be shot up with real bullets or have their drivers temporarily blinded by a frikken laser beam?

2. Ever shot yourself with a laser pointer in the eye?

Now, I know it will be hard... but try to keep responses in the framework of the questions. Although we all know someone will post the standard "the US shouldn't even BE there..." drivel.

You can't argue with the 26%ers logic. We shouldn't do anything at all about suspicious vehicles approaching our troops or Iraqi Military because after all, we shouldn't be in their country in the first place and since we are, we deserve to be killed.

There is apparently no justification for defending ourselves even if it's non-lethal.

[shropshire 0]

<> - Now, no one ever said that, did they?

So, hypothetical question...... if someone set up a road block in your town... would you just roll over and let it happen?


Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

You can't argue with the 26%ers logic. We shouldn't do anything at all about suspicious vehicles approaching our troops or Iraqi Military . . .

Well, maybe we should offer them a frosty cold glass of iced tea this time of year.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

<> - Now, no one ever said that, did they?

I won't post the thread where someone said exactly that.

Quote

So, hypothetical question...... if someone set up a road block in your town... would you just roll over and let it happen?


Regards,

Heck yeah. Especially if they were looking for someone intent on setting off an IED that could kill my family and friends. Who do you think the idiots are killing? If creating a little eye pain or blindness stopped an attack, I think it's an enormous step forward that we are using passive means to apprehend murderers and at the same time going out of our way to limit collateral deaths.

[shropshire 0]

If it was only terrorists that didn't stop at check points, I may agree with you more... but people run red lights and check points for loads of different reasons... Kids, too scared, drunks (not so many of those there...) people who think that they have a right to drive how they want around their own country.

Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

If it was only terrorists that didn't stop at check points, I may agree with you more... but people run red lights and check points for loads of different reasons... Kids, too scared, drunks (not so many of those there...) people who think that they have a right to drive how they want around their own country.

Regards,

Since you don't like either suggestion, why don't you tell us what you think should be done?

Imagine you have been up all nigh and you have seen dozens of your friends die at checkpoints in the past. Now a carload of males are driving towards you a high rate od speed. You order them to stop but they don't even slow down. They are 200' away and closing fast. You have less than 10 seconds to make a life or death decision. Tell us what you would do?

[shropshire 0]

I see what the problem is, but it's one of our own making.

Better designed checkpoints would do the job (if you have enough room... funnel them in though chicanes (sp)... around oil barrels full of water or sand... Cut their speed down and keep them away from the armoured sanger where the lads are.


Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I see what the problem is, but it's one of our own making.

Better designed checkpoints would do the job (if you have enough room... funnel them in though chicanes (sp)... around oil barrels full of water or sand... Cut their speed down and keep them away from the armoured sanger where the lads are.


Regards,

Oh, good. So now they slow down until they get right up to the checkpoint and then blow themselves up taking out you, 6 buddies and 10 innocent civilians.

[Trent 0]

1. Class 1 lasers are used in CD players and stuff. Class 2/3a's are used in laser pointer devices, with which you have shot yourself in the eye and are not permanently damaged. Class 3b lasers are 5-500mW and probably are not the ones being used in this case. I haven't seen in any articles that it's a 3b laser device. Even if it were, there's quite a range between 5 and 500 mW.

2. I would say it's probably more likely to get used when the checkpoint troops have a bad feeling. I don't think it will cause permanent damage, and I DO think it's better than shooting up the cars that are acting a little strange.

Why do you assume that they'll be using lasers that will bore holes in peoples' heads? I'm sure it's cheaper to use the kind of lasers in pointers or at most, in light shows... which really haven't blinded me much.

3. This is the "We shouldn't be there!!" drivel that I mentioned in my previous post.

Oh, hello again!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

the kind of lasers in pointers or at most, in light shows... which really haven't blinded me much.

I worked at a light show in when I was a teenage. We used a 500mw KrAr laser that could burn wood. It didn't bore an instantaneous hole or anything but 10 seconds focussed on pine board would generate smoke and a 1/2" inch diameter spot of charcoal.

We didn't try it on skin or eyes. I don't think we'd have liked the results.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[n23x 0]

Quote

Why do you assume that they'll be using lasers that will bore holes in peoples' heads?

Go ahead and point me to where I suggested that the dazzler would cause death.

What I did say is that many (uneducated perhaps?) people here have the misconception that a dazzler cannot produce permenant vision damage.

Sure, perhaps it is less likely that it will cause permenant vision damage if it is used exactly in the manor intended. However, when those soldiers are stuck in that (sometimes un-accountable) "heat of the moment", what makes you think that they will operate the dazzler according to specific methods. Just to clarify here, I'm talking about repeat over-exposure, not imagining that they can "bump up the power to super blindify".

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Trent 0]

Quote

I worked at a light show in when I was a teenage. We used a 500mw KrAr laser that could burn wood. It didn't bore an instantaneous hole or anything but 10 seconds focussed on pine board would generate smoke and a 1/2" inch diameter spot of charcoal.

We didn't try it on skin or eyes. I don't think we'd have liked the results.

While they try to avoid shooting the crowd... I've been to light shows where the lasers have hit the crowd in a passing motion, or when making a design over the crowd. Pretty sure no one was burned or blinded. Now if we spent a good 10 seconds directly in front of the laser lens... might not be good.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

Go ahead and point me to where I suggested that the dazzler would cause death.

That's me using hyperbole... sorry you didn't catch that. BUT, you do SEEM to think that using these lasers is not a good alternative to shooting up suspicious cars. Why are you so against it?

Quote

I'm sure a class 2 laser could cause vision damage if you stared directly into it for a while. The types of "dazzlers" I've seen throw out a web of laser patterns so that the user doesn't have to get his tiny laser beam right on the eye of the bad guy. I'm assuming that the lasers they'll use in the military would be similar. In this case, no direct beam is on the eyes constantly. Sure, I bet 20 minutes under the "dazzler" would cause some damage, but I seriously doubt it'd be used that long.

Then again, maybe I'm one of the uneducated ones that you refer to that actually thinks that it's a good alternative. After all, all the "victim" has to do is STOP THE CAR, and COVER HIS EYES (sounds like that THAT is what it's meant to do, no??).

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,120]

>After all, all the "victim" has to do is STOP THE CAR, and COVER HIS EYES . . .

He would actually do those things in the opposite order, which is one of the drawbacks of this particular type of weapon. (Or perhaps he'd floor it to try to get past the weapon quickly; would that benefit the US troops in front of him?)

I have no moral qualms against using a weapon like this (at least if it's not going to blind people 99% of the time) but it sounds like yet another case of a do-it-first think-later solution. I think we've had enough of those sorts of solutions.