Sailor pictured with laser rifle on board USS Minnesota nuclear sub
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
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
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=12...
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.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...
> international law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea... prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
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.
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.
actual submarine part: https://youtu.be/RXXMJAU6vY8
the leadup and context surrounding the exercise: https://youtu.be/5d6SEQQbwtU
Laminar flow, the physics of weed whackers and lawn mowers, rocket-powered golf clubs, eliminating poop splash, VR gloves and treadmills, touring a rocket factory and seeing a launch...he’s got a lot for geeks to like in there!
I’m not helping my case here, but he also has a good talk about being a science guy who is also a Christian in a field where that’s often dismissed reflexively as irrational. Probably only worth watching after you explore the channel and wonder about the Bible reference displayed briefly at the end of them.
Sorry, how is this video obviously propaganda?
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 see 21:00+ for cyberdomain talk
I like Destin a lot, but he's no journalist holding feet to fire and I think he's clear enough about that. He's more 'pop-sci' YouTube like Veritasium or Tom Scott.
That said, yeah, the angle is pro US and very empathizing with people/warfighters. He's also very pro Alabama. State pride, I guess.
I'm glad I don't have to walk the line that he is and I am grateful for the look he gives. But as always, you'll need more info than just Destin to make informed decisions.
Which term you use reveals your political leanings about a topic.
Marketing is exactly propaganda, the deliberate propagation of particular beliefs to motivate desired action.
And government promotion of it's military is pretty much at the core of the common understanding of propaganda, not some obscure connection.
(The pejorative state sense came out of German First World War influence campaigns.)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/propaganda
The state/marketing usage is predominant today though:
First google definition is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
It's very easy to see how in a period of naval troubles (various collisions in the pacific, Bon Homme Richard, China in the South Sea), this could be considered advancing the US political position of the navy.
I really like Destin and think this isn't propaganda, but it is a recruiting tool for the Navy. If you're not constantly looking out for possible sources of bias in your information, there are a lot of people/organizations out there that will gladly lead you to conclusions that aren't 100% accurate.
[1] Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M...
https://archive.org/details/bernays-edward-l.-propaganda-192...
The fact that this is also propaganda just means that the military has a motive to show this other than for purely educational purposes. That's all propaganda means here.
(Note: I'm not arguing with the parent, I'm expanding on because of sibling comments that do not seem to understand the nuance)
That's propaganda. Whether you think that's bad or good or there is nuance is still for each person to decide for themselves but nevertheless that's pretty much textbook propaganda.
In my experience, most such people prefer the term former military.
Or at least that's what I think he's implying.
I believe it would be accurate to state that Destin has a healthy respect for the people of, technology within, and the very idea of the US Military.
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.
Stealth ships and aircraft won't turn on the fancy toys when they are in predictable locations to avoid adversaries being able to collect and analyze signals intelligence.
A warship has a lot more manpower (as well as highly refined policy/procedure) to get the most out of that cheapo radar.
When we consider the design characteristics of those older boats we can truly appreciate how much knowledge we had to build from scratch and glean from failure in order to get where we are today.
Submarines, in general, rely primarily on their passive sensors- passive sonar and EW receivers. A submarine's best offensive and defensive capability is stealth.
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...
But they're huge, and still don't really do much.
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...
The militarization of law enforcement means that such devices end up being deployed domestically under much looser (or no) terms of engagement versus a 'lethal' weapon like a gun.
It probably doesn't know and doesn't need to know whether the target is human.
The bit about "unequivocal, cross-cultural warning" tho, that i buy. A more pointed way of saying "I see you" than launching a flare.
Let's name our totally-not-intended-to-blind-people weapon after a dude who's missing an eye...
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
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.
https://bemeyers.com/glare-mout-plus
I was sure this was a typo for "mount", but MOUT is military operations in urban terrain.
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.
(Provided the claims about automatic power limit are true)
Especially given that Federal enforcement agents are now being utilized, and likely have access to this equipment.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/3-fed-agents-likely-blinded-by...
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.
Wonder what the long-term adoption and use will be. And if they really cause no damage to the target.
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.
It's a Sarah Jeong tweet, even, making it topical to HN and will no doubt get me double the downvotes!
There are small groups and agitators causing issues not out of self defense but they are few and far between if not turned over by protesters when identified. Portland isn't on fire, civil rights are.
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/the-stonewall-riot...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
The 1970s generally were rather more violent than is commonly remembered:
https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
Going further back, there's the history of police (and military) response to labour organisation, the reason many larger US cities have military armouries:
The proliferation of urban armories—dedicated buildings for National Guard unit training and community functions—dates to the 19th century, according to Army National Guard Lt. Col. Don McFadden, chief of the Strategic Plans and Education Branch. “The Civil War draft riots and labor riots of the 19th century spurred construction,” he says
https://savingplaces.org/stories/a-salute-to-us-armories
As Jeremy Brecher wrote in his labor history Strike! state governments built armories as fortresses in American cities “not against invasion from abroad but against popular revolt at home.”
https://shoeleatherhistoryproject.com/2020/03/12/storm-cente...
A common element to many is protest not simply of some policy or political issue, but where the aggrieved group is seen by The System as non-persons, and the protest is aimed at the system itself. Most especially at how The System exerts its will, which is to say, through police forces, courts, and corrections. When the institutions of law and order themselves are questioned, common ground is thin, and dialogue gives way to protest, suppression, and violence.
The wave of George Floyd protests in 2020 is a continuation of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013, itself evolving from the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, with its own history of violent outbursts in every decade since, many provoked by police brutality against minorities.
The principle distinguishing characteristic of the current protests in Portland, Seattle, New York, Chicago, and elsewhere is that the movement has general support well outside specific oppressed populations.
[0]: Which include over $500m in damages: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/11/federal-government-..., and that is just in one state. So the total is likely billions across the entire US.
There are 35 incidents listed from 2010--2020, inclusive. Another 25 dating to 1990, which for some of us is still recent history. Damages for numerous events (in 2020 dollars) is in at least the $1s to $10s of millions of dollars range.
Even the quiescent 1980s sees 8 entries, down from 35 in the 1970s and over 65 listed for the 1960s, suggesting relatively little presentism bias.
Going back further, one finds the behaviour throughout US history, though with some decades standing out especially. The 1860s & 1870s, 1910s & 1920s (often white-on-black violence, including but scarcely limited to the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, but also other immigrant and anti-union violence).
The majority of the events from the 20th century onwards, but especially since 1990, are tied either to racial protest or incidents of police brutality or killing, Numerous others to white-nationalist or similar majority-induced violence.
Sufficiently aware?
> What other protests have anywhere near this much violence?
The recent protests/riots have caused at least $500m dollars in damage per Minnesota's own claims. And substantially more if you include everything across the nation. There have also been at least 15 deaths as a result of the riots.
So I pose the question again, what other recent protests have caused anywhere near this amount of violence? From what you have provided, none. Almost no deaths and about a 100th of the property damages. Nothing you provided comes close.
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.
So yeah, the military version is actually a fair bit safer and less damaging than the would-actually-be-a-war-crime blinding weapons that protestors seem to be using.
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!"
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).
How about shooting commercial-grade incendiaries at an occupied structure and causing injuries? https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/portland-riots-july-4/inde...
"The fireworks injured several officers when they exploded on or near them, the statement said."
Or the 6 officers injured Friday night: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/26/portla...
https://www.laserpointerpro.com/attribute/class_class-iiib-l...
The same is true for the sun (enormous distance means near parallel rays).
Finally, there's zero evidence that laser light sufficient to blind temporarily isn't also sufficient to cause permanent damage.
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 (yes, laser irradiance conforms to this law of physics).
As the ICRC points out, the levels to "temporarily blind" are extremely close to the levels that cause permanent eye damage. Handheld rangefinders can and do make mistakes. Safety level ratings are based on a 0.25 second blink response. If the laser misjudges range for just that short of a time because there's an obstacle, unintentional electronic interference, or even incidental atmospheric reflection, the laser output could cause permanent injury.
Corneal reflex and fatigue. Not a lot of research there, but there are indications that while blinking increases in general, corneal reflexes decline which would drastically increase effective exposure. Fatigue is definitely something associated with combat.
Finally, this is NOT theoretical. The military has admitted to injuries to their own troops from its use proving it happens. They would NEVER willingly admit if an enemy were blinded as that would open them up to an international incident and lawsuits.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...
RIKER: Lasers???
PICARD: Lasers???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...
article mentions it as well. the lasers used in this article follow int'l law
> The main idea behind the system is that it modulates its output based its range to the target via using an internal laser range-finder. Thus the maximum eye-safe setting can be used throughout the engagement. This is also important because international law prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
Non-lethal optical distracters are visible laser devices that have reversible optical effects on human targets. These types of non-blinding laser devices use highly directional optical energy to support several non-lethal capabilities, including:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conven...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...
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.
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.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
They should make killing against the rules and only allow blindness-based weapons.