Why Haven't Laser Guns been made yet?

[mikegarrison]

8 hours ago, Streetwind said:

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.

Well, that's why we build robot terminators to protect the datacenters. And then I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

[kerbiloid]

I welcome them even more! Ku! (_{From a satiric fiction movie})

A sign on all datacenter doors: "No dogs or humans allowed".

 

[kurja]

23 hours 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.

 

Not sure how it's better, morally or otherwise, to get hit with supersonic bullets & missiles & shrapnel, it's not like you can see them coming any more than a laser beam and you'll be just as effed or worse coming home from your first engagement if you get hit.

[mikegarrison]

37 minutes ago, kurja said:

Not sure how it's better, morally or otherwise, to get hit with supersonic bullets & missiles & shrapnel, it's not like you can see them coming any more than a laser beam and you'll be just as effed or worse coming home from your first engagement if you get hit.

There are international treaties specifically outlawing deliberate attempts to cause permanent blindness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

[magnemoe]

51 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

There are international treaties specifically outlawing deliberate attempts to cause permanent blindness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

This, and its done as its not an practical weapon either. unlike a normal gun you require to hit them in the front, someone wearing night vision would be immune but you would might destroy the camera. In short its just trolling. 
Much the same about expanding bullets, you don't want to use it as they deform if hitting concealment, even twigs and have less penetration of cover.