Is Shooting Enemy Soldiers With A Laser OK?

[RavVid]

Everybody knows about drones and probably knows about Lasers being the great hope in combating them. Every country is working on them. The pic is off an Australian offering.

This little beauty comes stock standard with a 100 KW laser but can be optioned up to 150 KW. It is rated at 20 drones per minute but could be 30 with the 150KW option. It's range is 3 KM for a drone kill but can dazzle sensors at 8KM

Good for paratroopers too?

I was listening to a podcast which suggested China would probably use paratroopers initially on Taiwan then use amphibious landings.

It is an obvious thought to think why not laser paratroopers as they float down? Below this laser is a flat plain. Why not pick off enemy paratroopers on the plain as well?

According to Google a 10 KW laser can kill a person and fully option this bad boy is 15 times higher. It probably doesn't pro rata but that could be 15x30 = 450 soldiers per minute. Useful.

Also according to Google, 5 mW permanently blinds people. 5mW/150KW = 30 micro seconds per shot. Your ability to disable enemy troops is only limited by how fast you can point the laser at the paratroopers eyes because it would blind them very quickly.

The key point is a purely defensive drone laser could be an extremely good offensive weapon.

I imagine if a laser is to kill an enemy combatant it will have to burn a hole into the heart, lung or brain. That could hurt. To blind probably hurts less but it leaves the enemy combatant permanently incapacitated.

I'm interested on what people think the ethics of Direct Energy Weapons fire on people are. I think if it can be done it will be done especially when it is an existential threat.

What do people think the ethics are? Multi choice can't cover it. So put it in the comments.

Both burning a hole through Chinese paratroopers and blinding is ethically OK

Burning holes through Chinese paratroopers is ethically OK. Permenent blinding is not OK.

Permanent blinding Chinese paratroopers is ethically OK. Burning holes through them is not cause it would be an agonizing death.

Why isn't Ukraine trying this out on Russians as a test case?

Updates

16 d

Was thinking more of blinding enemy soldiers. A 5 mw laser can be as small as 1/4 inch diameter and half an inch long. Definitely could mounted on a drone.

[Sevenpointfive]

ok. stick with me for this one. a popular site had a story taken down. it was supposedly the confession of a guy who worked on space lasers. in this confession he talked about how aliens have given certain countries (including china) some insane laser weapons far beyond our technology. it tells of a race that is coming to destroy us and that we'll probably lose if we don't have some way of defending ourselves. it explained a lot and i can answer if i know the answer and you're curious.

and this is the reason why we have had lots of laser talk in the last years or so. space lasers which are true, but why? why would we need a space laser? it would only be for defense right? or shooting an earth annihilating asteroid? at the very least shooting other satellites from foreign countries, creating fires and assassinations for cheaper (in the long run).

the entire confession was about as long as an article. there's something incredibly real and fake at the same time about it all. it was the most creative way i've ever heard anyone talk about heaven! the entire concept was almost like pieces of several shows and movies put together but with extra detail about the things that didn't sound familiar.

it honestly scared me. i wouldn't put it past a great writer to do this. someone even mentioned it's been done before as marketing for a project? if you want to DM me about it you can. the story was taken down within hours but people saved it.

[RavVid]

Interesting. It relates to EOS - the company whose promo I have pasted here - is they had their beginnings in tracking space junk with lasers. So they are fairly good with lasers and more critically at pointing at things. They have talked about being able to nudge space debris and alluded to satellites.

You can't take this stuff too seriously because it is really just promo; they aren't going to provide much verification and details. Even if they weren't a defence contractor. More the point is some of the stuff you are talking is looking nearer term then maybe we thought.

I'll DM you on this stuff after tonight's Christmas party.

[Sevenpointfive]

cool. i can give you more detail and possibly find it.

[OneViewpoint]

Directed energy weapons are a long way from being useful in the real world.

• So 5,000 paratroopers just jumped into battle. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to target someone's eyes from a km away with a narrow beam of light?
• Directed energy weapons are easily defeated by terrain and cover like rocks and dirt and trees or buildings.
• Directed energy weapons don't work in rain, fog, snow, or heavy cloud cover.
• Directed energy weapons are slow, bulky, heavy, complex and expensive. They can be easily taken out by low cost kinetic strikes from conventional artillery operating from 10 times the range of the directed energy weapon.

As to the morality and ethics of using a new class of weapons on the battlefield, the current rules of war are way behind the technology as they always are. But as an example, certain weapons are not supposed to be used against personnel, like a 50 cal Browning Machine Gun. They are deemed to be overkill and only supposed to be used to target "equipment". So you aim for the soldier's canteen or his pack or his radio. But it's all bullshit. Do you think that guy cares if he's maimed or killed with a 5.56 round, a 7.62 round, a 50 cal round, a grenade, a Claymore mine, or a 4 deuce mortar round, a 155 round from an artillery piece, or a 2,000 pound bomb dropped from a B52? Same outcome for that poor bastard.

[Crimsyjo]

Any weapon should be a deterrent rather than a murder machine and unfortunately anything that is supposed to be used for defense can also be used for offense. And that's how atrocities and wars begun!

Killing people invading you is not morally wrong. The hope is if they know they can't win they won't try. But how has that worked for guns and bombs, missiles and explosives?

And technology that can shield or disable lasers will be developed beyond whatever is possibly already in existence.

The problem is never how to develop more weapons bit how to create a world peace that doesn't need weapons at all. .

[RavVid]

Can't disagree with anything you say. Drones in Ukraine are brutal. There is no hiding or shelter. If a human can get into a shelter a drone can follow.

I saw a Russian who had fallen off a motor bike just wait for the drone to drop a grenade because there was nothing he could do to escape. Not that I care about invading Russians but brutal.

[Crimsyjo]

Yeah it's terrifying because of how removed it is from reality. Like the operator of the drone can just feel like he/she is doing a video game unlike pulling a trigger yourself on another human being.
I mean most leaders are so far removed from battlefield reality themselves anyways that they can order rhe slaughter of their own soldiers as much as the enemy soldiers. No accountability.

Slight difference - but like I love eating meat and I love animals and a vegetarian might say how could you? Would you kill an animal yourself? Well yeah. I don't want to and luckily don't have to but for meat which is food I would. Same with leaders. Dont command others to do what you are unable to do yourself.

Drones make even cowards feel brave!

[jshm2]

LOL, it's bullshit and unworkable in real combat - hence why no one uses it. Google and others are "developing" this shit as a tax write off, they have no intention of actually making it

It's "great" for shooting down 1 or 2 drones a day... the Russians are firing 2-3 hundred drones a day.

Lasers also use a lot of power, and require regular maintenance. The Russians have cut most power to cities and do you think soldiers are going to carry bullets or batteries?

The rest of that bullshit is just spin. aiming with lasers is also a careful process. Not something you can do on a battlefield on the fly. Battle is not a fucking video game, kiddo.

[strateguy632]

In a situation of invasion, laser death is justified same as bullets, despite pain. Star trek said set to stun, but in invasion need to kill. I predict the horror of blinding , transmit photos of the pow's... would cause enemy mutiny in sea and air. a war would end in a day... sooner than just die from laser. The few loyal battling their own ranks to avoid a life of blindness.

[genericname85]

I don't see how being burned with a lazer is any less humane than being blown up with a bomb or shot by a bullet.

[RavVid]

If death is slow and more painful? Say a hole is burnt into their guts and it takes several days to die of infection?

I was expecting inhumane objections but so far it is not a concern. Seems more think as I do that the job is to kill/disable the enemy.

[genericname85]

Did you know that in warfare you learn that you don't actually shoot to kill? You shoot to wound and maim. Cause a maimed enemy will bind more attention of enemy forces than a dead enemy. Basically you hurt the enemy force more by not killing them. So much for "humane" huh?

[genericname85]

I think it's not that nobody objects to lasers. I think that war as we know it doesn't seem less bad in comparison.

[exitseven]

In a war it is always good to have the upper hand. Do you think the enemy will hesitate to use an advantage against you?

[Jennz6]

I’m not sure because I’m a Christian girl

[RavVid]

Turning the other cheek doesn't work well. In the Tibet invasion there was a programme to impregnate Tibetan women with good Chinese babies.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Soldiers, not civilian non-combatants.

[Pterodon]

All is fair in war

[RavVid]

And primary task is to persuade your enemy to go away by killing or disabling them off the battle field.