Sailor pictured with laser rifle on board USS Minnesota nuclear sub

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35106/check-out-this-sailor-holding-a-laser-dazzler-rifle-aboard-nuclear-submarine-uss-minnesota

by samizdis • 6 years ago

147 138 6 years ago

thedrive.com

supernova87a• 6 years ago

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.

throwaway0a5e• 6 years ago

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.

A warship has a lot more manpower (as well as highly refined policy/procedure) to get the most out of that cheapo radar.

zelon88• 6 years ago

The truly amazing thing it to consider that this boat is an iteration of an analog design which matured over 80 years ago.

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.

Cocktail• 6 years ago

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

mike_d• 6 years ago

It's surprising or kind of amusing that such a huge and complex submarine uses plain old Raytheon / Raymarine radar when operating in harbor

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.

nwallin• 6 years ago

That Raymarine unit is a secondary piece of equipment, and is there primarily for its transponder capabilities, which the primary radar unit (the AN/BPS-16, which I believe is integrated into the masts) probably doesn't have. The last thing a submarine wants is an enhanced "here I am!" capability.

Submarines, in general, rely primarily on their passive sensors- passive sonar and EW receivers. A submarine's best offensive and defensive capability is stealth.

fennecfoxen• 6 years ago

Unfortunately the US Navy has been beset by incident. Navigation of its ships is no longer a certain thing. Look for coverage on this matter which mentions the McCain and the Fitzgerald.

dmoy• 6 years ago

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:

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

jacksonpollock• 6 years ago

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."

ceejayoz2• 6 years ago

That, and an "if you were intending to shoot at us, good luck aiming now" one.

afandian• 6 years ago

And TASERs aren't meant to be killing weapons.

RealityVoid2• 6 years ago

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...

newacct5836• 6 years ago

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.

hprotagonist• 6 years ago

see also LRADs :(

valuearb2• 6 years ago

RTFA: It’s not the same, the Navy laser has a distance control that disables it if it’s close enough to damage someone’s eyesight. It’s only usable at long distances.

hajile7• 6 years ago

Diffusion rates are highly dependent on a lot of environmental factors. I doubt they can predict enough of these with enough reliability to ensure they are not causing damage.

Finally, there's zero evidence that laser light sufficient to blind temporarily isn't also sufficient to cause permanent damage.

xendo• 6 years ago

Any sources on either of the claims? I know nothing about portland, but you can buy 5W lasers which can easily burn through stuff.

tozeur• 6 years ago

You can easily buy class 3 and 4 lasers which can permanently damage your eyes. I have one for astrophotography alignment. So yes, the protestors are definitely using harmful lasers, as well as the police I’m sure.

https://www.laserpointerpro.com/attribute/class_class-iiib-l...

Loughla• 6 years ago

Good Christ, some of those lasers are just amazingly strong.

detaro• 6 years ago

If by "consumer" you mean the things sold for presentations, given away as advertising gifts (red ones), then yes. If you mean ones you can easily buy online, they can be quite scary power-wise. (And green ones are an infrared laser sent into a frequency-doubling crystal. A well-made one is well-aligned and has a filter stopping stray IR. A bad one might just pump out a bunch of IR too, without anyone knowing)

cwhiz2• 6 years ago

You can buy or build a laser that can cause permanent blindness. There is ample evidence of protesters using lasers. Where is your evidence of federal agents using lasers?

LatteLazy• 6 years ago

Fyi, lasers aren't safe/dangerous because of their power output but because they are so perfectly parallel. The human eye takes diverging light and turns in into a parallel beam to make images. The same lense takes a parallel beam and makes it focus onto a spot. Focusing to a near zero sized spot makes even very low powers blindingly bright...

The same is true for the sun (enormous distance means near parallel rays).

refurb• 6 years ago

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

newacct5836• 6 years ago

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.

charwalker2• 6 years ago

From friends on the ground in Portland I will say it's largely still aggravated by police presence and the DHS/federal agents. If authorities did not step in with tear gas and kidnapping protests would have continue to be mostly nonviolent. Turns out that when you meet protests against police brutality with police brutality and disappearing citizens, nothing improves.

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.

newacct5836• 6 years ago

Found a link to a clear shot of one in use: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1287911503408988160

It's a Sarah Jeong tweet, even, making it topical to HN and will no doubt get me double the downvotes!

hajile7• 6 years ago

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/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.

tomashubelbauer• 6 years ago

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

valuearb2• 6 years ago

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

mtnGoat• 6 years ago

im going to assume you did not read the article or understand the device in the photos.

dmh2000• 6 years ago

apparently the difference is between temporary and permanent blindness.

tantalor4• 6 years ago

"The dazzler is a non-lethal weapon intended to cause temporary blindness or disorientation and therefore falls outside this protocol."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)#Legislation

mensetmanusman5• 6 years ago

Based on our more modern understandings of blindness, it would definitely not be worse than death.

They should make killing against the rules and only allow blindness-based weapons.

tantalor4• 6 years ago

"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

14• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

WORF: Captain, they are now locking lasers on us.

RIKER: Lasers???

PICARD: Lasers???

tantalor4• 6 years ago

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

https://www.netflix.com/watch/70177892?t=1160

robgibbons• 6 years ago

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

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1006745523

kyleblarson• 6 years ago

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.

IgorPartola• 6 years ago

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...

wyxuan• 6 years ago

*permanent blindness

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

blackfawn• 6 years ago

This seems to be accounted for, according to the article:

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.

jngreenlee• 6 years ago

A Navy fact sheet on what it calls 'non-lethal optical distractors' reads:

    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:

cwhiz2• 6 years ago

It's only a war crime if it is intentional and the weapon has no other function except to cause blindness.

polytely2• 6 years ago

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

the leadup and context surrounding the exercise: https://youtu.be/5d6SEQQbwtU

hylian• 6 years ago

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

Sorry, how is this video obviously propaganda?

hajile7• 6 years ago

It's not. The guy lives and works in Huntsville. The primary revenue of the city is weapon and propulsion research for the government. I'd imagine that perspective is the norm in that area (even more than the South in general).

coopsmgoops• 6 years ago

The US military isn't just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They want you to become a submariner!

Or at least that's what I think he's implying.

s9w• 6 years ago

I think the smarter every day guy is or was military. I remember a video he did with his boss (some kind of general or so). That just as a fact, not judging on the propaganda part.

vaidhy• 6 years ago

Destin, the person behind Smarter Every Day was ex-military and he interviewed his old commanding officer. It was clearly mentioned that the military is doing this to reach out to potential recruits while sharing interesting knowledge. I believe the actual episode is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE

charwalker2• 6 years ago

Potentially sponsored/edited by military personnel or at least done with their OK.

polytely2• 6 years ago

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 see 21:00+ for cyberdomain talk

brixon• 6 years ago

I am assuming the idea that approval/invitation of a video from the subject is by definition propaganda of the subject. Just like sponsored product reviews or manufacturing tours. If you understand that he will not say much of anything negative then it is fine.

filoeleven• 6 years ago

I upvoted your child comment re: propaganda and I agree with it. I just also want to say to folks who might be turned off by that, his channel is super interesting!

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.

https://youtu.be/WDu2ldAxHyc

tgb• 6 years ago

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

jbay808• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

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

slowhand09• 6 years ago

One photo had a Trijicon RMR red dot optic. Doubtful it has 532nm protection. Mine doesn't.

pjc50• 6 years ago

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)

phjesusthatguy3• 6 years ago

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

SamReidHughes• 6 years ago

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

h2odragon• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

"[...]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• 6 years ago

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

canada_dry• 6 years ago

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.

balls1873• 6 years ago

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

https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/3-fed-agents-likely-blinded-by...

mensetmanusman5• 6 years ago

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.

pottertheotter• 6 years ago

The YouTube video in the article says there is a law enforcement version approved for use in the US by law enforcement and private security.

Wonder what the long-term adoption and use will be. And if they really cause no damage to the target.

jeffrallen• 6 years ago

War is a racket.

fode• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

What’s the danger of blindness?

hajile7• 6 years ago

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.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p...

https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau...

mohaine• 6 years ago

This is pretty much what the article is about.

massaman• 6 years ago

The only known countermeasure is a Bedazzler vest.

Balgair3• 6 years ago

Retro(reflective) man!

https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=12...

jcrawfordor• 6 years ago

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

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.

balsam• 6 years ago

Btw, thats a Viking raven ensign the soldiers are flying

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_banner

tomcam• 6 years ago

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.

Sailor pictured with laser rifle on board USS Minnesota nuclear sub

Related Stories