Why Haven't Laser Guns been made yet?

[Hannu2]

Such handheld lasers have very well collimated beam which must be aimed straight to the eye. If large squad of enemies are moving it is practically impossible to product significant losses. Instead, the stray radiation reveals immediately laser soldier to enemy sharpshooters. Such a laser is also cheap and easy to avoid with cheap protection glasses.

Combat laser would need wide beam which needs huge amount of energy. It leads to all other problems which have been mentioned. Automatically targeted big lasers may work in special applications, like in missile defense systems, but it will not replace firearms in standard infantry weapon in foreseeable future.

[Kryten]

Laser weapons for permanent blinding are banned.

Quote

 

.

[Streetwind]

29 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Such handheld lasers have very well collimated beam which must be aimed straight to the eye. If large squad of enemies are moving it is practically impossible to product significant losses. Instead, the stray radiation reveals immediately laser soldier to enemy sharpshooters. Such a laser is also cheap and easy to avoid with cheap protection glasses.

Combat laser would need wide beam which needs huge amount of energy. It leads to all other problems which have been mentioned. Automatically targeted big lasers may work in special applications, like in missile defense systems, but it will not replace firearms in standard infantry weapon in foreseeable future.

Not true. Above a few watts in power, the beam alone is a significant danger to the naked eye. The beam actually is visible, and very bright, due to the laser ionizing the air and reflecting off of dust particles. See the video I linked: that is not enhanced at all. If anything, the camera and internet video medium with its limited dynamic range understates the brightness. You wouldn't have to be hit by that laser to go blind; looking in the general direction of the beam would already be worse than directly looking at the sun.

The reason we don't have military grade anti-personel laser weapons is, as Kryten mentioned, that everyone* agreed that this is something we shouldn't be touching with a ten-foot pole because it's just horrible.

 

(* well, 107 states, anyway. And there are loopholes.)

Edited July 24, 2017 by Streetwind

[kerbiloid]

44 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Laser weapons for permanent blinding are banned.

Banned are laser devices whose primary objective is to blind. Feel the difference.

Also the convention is about armed conflicts, while a police operation is not an armed conflict.

Edited July 24, 2017 by kerbiloid

[SinBad]

Dont underestimate infrared laser for blinding folks. They are more dangerous at lower power levels than visible lasers because they dont trigger the blink reflex, which at low power levels is often what mitigates the potential damage of visible light lasers.

 

At a tangent, i personaly think microwave lasers (masers) are the way to go. Thanks to nearly 70 years of radar research, we are rather good at converting electricity into microwaves (much more efficient than lasers) with far less heat produced. We also have a lot of experience with redirecting, lensing, pulse modulation and beam forming at tens of megawatts of power output ( for systems that transmit that power output every few seconds without extraordinary cooling). Additionally, microwaves couple with metals very well so barring widespread use of tupperware branded plastc armours, more of the produced energy can be dumped into the target.

[Racescort666]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Also the convention is about armed conflicts, while a police operation is not an armed conflict.

Which makes teargas an interesting choice for police departments considering it would be a form of chemical weapon, banned under the Geneva Protocol, but common practice to use on civilians. /offtopic

[Kryten]

11 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:

Which makes teargas an interesting choice for police departments considering it would be a form of chemical weapon, banned under the Geneva Protocol, but common practice to use on civilians. /offtopic

The Geneva convention only covers warfare. Tear gases are considered CW and banned in military contexts.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

Which makes teargas an interesting choice for police departments considering it would be a form of chemical weapon, banned under the Geneva Protocol, but common practice to use on civilians. /offtopic

As also expansive bullets, etc.

[Hannu2]

23 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Not true. Above a few watts in power, the beam alone is a significant danger to the naked eye. The beam actually is visible, and very bright, due to the laser ionizing the air and reflecting off of dust particles. See the video I linked: that is not enhanced at all. If anything, the camera and internet video medium with its limited dynamic range understates the brightness. You wouldn't have to be hit by that laser to go blind; looking in the general direction of the beam would already be worse than directly looking at the sun.

The reason we don't have military grade anti-personel laser weapons is, as Kryten mentioned, that everyone* agreed that this is something we shouldn't be touching with a ten-foot pole because it's just horrible.

 

(* well, 107 states, anyway. And there are loopholes.)

What you mean bean alone? Scattered radiation? I use visible and IR laser beams with average power up to 10 W in my work and I certainly know that they are not dangerous if beam or reflection (these are much greater danger which forces to use protective goggles) does not go directly in the eye (or ignite your clothes).

That does not sound quite credible that lasers are banned because they are horrible when we have huge stockpiles of such nice things like nuclear weapons, toxic gases, biological weapons and soon cheap attack robots and drones with crappy AI. Real reasons are technical and economical. Lasers are extremely sensitive devices which are almost impossible to build robust form for infantry use and they need energy and special service. And also, what you can do with laser which is impossible with an assault rifle?

[Bill Phil]

21 hours ago, Kryten said:

The Geneva convention only covers warfare. Tear gases are considered CW and banned in military contexts.

Well, with some police departments having tanks...

OP: Lasers are good sci-fi, but bullets are basically king, and will likely stay that way.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Real reasons are technical and economical. Lasers are extremely sensitive devices which are almost impossible to build robust form for infantry use and they need energy and special service.

This is a reason not to make them, but not to ban them. Even more, this makes the banning unnecessary, if anyway their making makes no sense.

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

And also, what you can do with laser which is impossible with an assault rifle?

Accuracy. Every shot goes into target. No need in bursts..
Unlimited ammo near a power source (say, on APC or so). In the blinding option - even without a power source due to low consumption.

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

That does not sound quite credible that lasers are banned because they are horrible when we have huge stockpiles of such nice things like nuclear weapons, toxic gases, biological weapons and soon cheap attack robots and drones with crappy AI.

Toxic gases and bioweapons (except dogs and elephants, of course) are already banned.

Nuclear weapon, robots, drones and other expensive hi-tech is available not for everybody, and thus makes no trouble for those, who have.

Banned are cheap&cheerful weapons, such as chemicals, landmines, blinding lasers, bioweapon etc, which are available to any country or non-country and can make problems for more powerful countries which are, say, moderate this.
The latter just don't need these weapons to win the local conflicts, and these things are too weak to help them in a total nuclear conflict.
So, they just eliminate unnecessary headache for themselves, as a side effect stopping others from using such weapons in their local conflicts.

In other words, they ban lasers to avoid bothering with goggles. They ban gases to avoid bothering with gas masks.
I'm sure, say, twenty years later, any weapon without a biometry lock will be getting banned and destroyed.

Edited July 25, 2017 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

On 24.7.2017 at 3:31 PM, Racescort666 said:

Which makes teargas an interesting choice for police departments considering it would be a form of chemical weapon, banned under the Geneva Protocol, but common practice to use on civilians. /offtopic

Poison gas is banned, not other gases, this include fuel air explosives however they uses dust now. 
The US does not use tear gas in war it even if it make lots of tactical sense because of political/ legalistic reasons. 
Much dating back to WW2, you could use propane and an hand grenade instead. This was more visual. 
Tear / CS gas would disable an enemy without gas masks, this would work once as the enemy would get gas masks as you can buy them in hardware stores, lots of uses for them like painting or sterilizing an closed room or working places with gases who can damage health. 
The reason why war gases has rarely been used in conversational wars is that they are pretty easy to protect against at least short term. All soldiers in reasonable advanced countries has this. 
You would end up with huge civilian casualties something none want in an limited war between rational actors. 

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

The reason why war gases has rarely been used in conversational wars is that they are pretty easy to protect against at least short term. All soldiers in reasonable advanced countries has this. 

A little off-topic, but agreed. I was in the Army a while back, and we had gas drills all the time.

FYI... tear gas is NASTY!!! Won't kill you... but trust me, getting a taste is part of basic training... and blehhh  

The bigger issue with gas weapons is they're so dependent on weather... one strong wind in the wrong direction can screw up an armies whole day... it happened in WW1 more than once to both sides!

12 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

OP: Lasers are good sci-fi, but bullets are basically king, and will likely stay that way.

Yeah, I agree with this as well... Until they can make a powerful enough laser that's also relatively cheap and rugged, and easy to maintain in a dirty, dusty, nasty wet environment, conventional bullets will still rule the battlefield.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Just Jim

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

2 hours ago, Just Jim said:

FYI... tear gas is NASTY!!! Won't kill you... but trust me, getting a taste is part of basic training... and blehhh  

 

 

[Guest]

On 7/24/2017 at 8:54 AM, SinBad said:

They are more dangerous at lower power levels than visible lasers because they dont trigger the blink reflex, which at low power levels is often what mitigates the potential damage of visible light lasers.

AFAIK infrared is also used for pain treatment (it seems to remove pain) so the victim probably wouldn't blink at any power level (no pain = no reflex?)

[KSK]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The reason why war gases has rarely been used in conversational wars is that they are pretty easy to protect against at least short term. 

I'm guessing this was an autocorrect goof but I thought it was amusing.

"So what are we supposed to use, sir? Harsh language?"

"You bet your lily-white behind, Private. You're gonna head over there and talk the enemy to death."

[Racescort666]

14 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Poison gas is banned, not other gases, this include fuel air explosives however they uses dust now. 
The US does not use tear gas in war it even if it make lots of tactical sense because of political/ legalistic reasons. 

Yes, teargas is banned for use in warfare: https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/types-of-chemical-agent/riot-control-agents/ The US us a signatory member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as are about 98% of other countries. How it applies to the police is discussed further by Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/26/facebook-posts/tear-gas-was-banned-warfare-1993-police-1997/ I was wrong on the Geneva Protocol which the US Military felt didn't apply to riot control agents (see section US Field Manual): https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75 However the Red Cross seems to think that the Geneva Protocol does apply to RCAs.

12 hours ago, Just Jim said:

A little off-topic, but agreed. I was in the Army a while back, and we had gas drills all the time.

FYI... tear gas is NASTY!!! Won't kill you... but trust me, getting a taste is part of basic training... and blehhh  

The prohibition on teargas is specific to warfare and not training. I don't have first hand experience with teargas but I'll take your word for it, it sounds pretty nasty.

Back on topic: LaWS is pretty awesome. Is it intended to replace and/or compliment CIWS?

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

The prohibition on teargas is specific to warfare and not training. I don't have first hand experience with teargas but I'll take your word for it, it sounds pretty nasty.

Still a little off-topic, so I'll keep it brief. During the final testing and certification week of basic training (FYI, this was Ft. Jackson S.C. in 1979) we had to mask up and go into this huge room full of tear gas. The part of this is just to verify the mask you've been issued works and is fitted properly... or you won't make it 3 feet inside...

Then they line you up... and tell you to take off your masks.... 

You're supposed to count to 60... long enough to make sure everyone gets at least one good lung full... but most I saw didn't make it past 10 or 20... I think I hit 15 or so... then you can run for the door and outside as fast as possible. And try to start breathing again... It is soooo nasty!!!

This is definitely learning the hard way just what that stuff is... and also gaining a healthy respect for what it actually does to a person, friend or foe.

Back on topic... I hadn't considered blinding lasers.... or really powerful sci-fi styles that could literally slice a battalion in half at the waist...

I'm looking at this from more of a writers POV, and it's an interesting question...I wonder, in the future, if and/or how these will be considered atrocities... and if certain types of lasers would be banned, while others considered acceptable?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Just Jim

[Streetwind]

15 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I'm looking at this from more of a writers POV, and it's an interesting question...I wonder, in the future, if and/or how these will be considered atrocities... and if certain types of lasers would be banned, while others considered acceptable?

I would say that the current model we have now easily holds water in most hard sci-fi settings. That is: anti-material lasers yes, anti-personel lasers no. It just makes sense from both a moral and a practical standpoint. As a soldier, you don't want to be faced with a weapon that's literally impossible to see coming (if you see the laser, you are already blind). As a civilian, the idea of a 20-year old conscript coming home from his first engagement permanently disabled for the rest of his life is just horrifying. From a government standpoint, having weapons that injure soldiers in ways that cannot be treated are bad, because you have to discharge these soldiers from the army after just one battle but pay for their livelyhood and medical costs for the rest of their lives. It would make keeping humans in the fighting force impossibly expensive.

(And then you can get into the whole "let's replace humans with combat machines, which is way more ethical, and which conveniently can be legally shot with lasers" angle. And then you get Horizon: Zero Dawn. )

 

Of course, whether or not this is faithfully observed by all warring parties is a different story... or, in fact, it can be the story.  

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Streetwind

[kerbiloid]

33 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

And then you can get into the whole "let's replace humans with combat machines

And the next logical step: "why to spend the expensive hardware, while there can be just a viruses-vs-drivers", and the battle moves into the invisible cyberspace.

[Streetwind]

20 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And the next logical step: "why to spend the expensive hardware, while there can be just a viruses-vs-drivers", and the battle moves into the invisible cyberspace.

Unfortunately, this cycles back to "a human with a hammer > a whole datacenter", so you need physical combat systems either way. If only to protect the machines running the cyberspace.

[magnemoe]

58 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

I would say that the current model we have now easily holds water in most hard sci-fi settings. That is: anti-material lasers yes, anti-personel lasers no. It just makes sense from both a moral and a practical standpoint. As a soldier, you don't want to be faced with a weapon that's literally impossible to see coming (if you see the laser, you are already blind). As a civilian, the idea of a 20-year old conscript coming home from his first engagement permanently disabled for the rest of his life is just horrifying. From a government standpoint, having weapons that injure soldiers in ways that cannot be treated are bad, because you have to discharge these soldiers from the army after just one battle but pay for their livelyhood and medical costs for the rest of their lives. It would make keeping humans in the fighting force impossibly expensive.

(And then you can get into the whole "let's replace humans with combat machines, which is way more ethical, and which conveniently can be legally shot with lasers" angle. And then you get Horizon: Zero Dawn. )

Of course, whether or not this is faithfully observed by all warring parties is a different story... or, in fact, it can be the story.  

Add that it should be possible to make glasses who give decent protection against blinding lasers. don't think lcd is fast enough however. 

 

[Streetwind]

4 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Add that it should be possible to make glasses who give decent protection against blinding lasers. don't think lcd is fast enough however. 

Keep in mind that the eyes can be damaged by non-visible lasers too. Such a (probably) helmet visor would need to be able to react to and block a wide frequency band, without its own sensor getting fried by the laser it detects.

And then there's multi-frequency lasers... some of them can be as easy as duct-taping two different types together.  

Edited July 27, 2017 by Streetwind

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Keep in mind that the eyes can be damaged by non-visible lasers too. Such a (probably) helmet visor would need to be able to react to and block a wide frequency band, without its own sensor getting fried by the laser it detects.

And then there's multi-frequency lasers... some of them can be as easy as duct-taping two different types together.  

Normal glass blocks UV well enough, you can simply block invisible light all the time. the sensor is probably the easiest to make. Dual band would also be easier to detect. An bonus if it can also pick up targeting lasers but they are far weaker. 

[Streetwind]

Alright.

Then the opponent decides to employ a microwave laser to boil you instead of blinding you.

This all boils down (hurr) to a typical arms race of better armor begets better weapons beget better armor, in the end. But I still think it would not really change much in the sense of most beam weapons being banned for anti-personel use. Now, if there was someone who'd use them anyway, then I'm sure the soldiers would be glad for any possible help they can get.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Streetwind