New Laser Makes Pirates Wish They Wore Eye-Patches 645
vieux schnock writes "The New Scientist has an article about a new laser developed by a company in Farnborough, UK, that aims to deter modern high-seas pirates. Devised as a 'warning shot' to 'distract suspected pirates rather than harm them,' the meter-wide beam can scan the pirates' 6-metre skiffs and make it difficult for them to aim their AK-47 or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship."
Cue something about sharks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cue something about sharks (Score:5, Funny)
Sharks
Re: (Score:2)
World of Warcraft has an Undead guy riding with a mounted laser gun mounted on a flying shark. I think they have insiders...
Re: (Score:3)
World of Warcraft has an Undead guy riding with a mounted laser gun mounted on a flying shark. I think they have insiders...
Yeah, WoW does have a flying shark with a frikken laser beam. [procrastin...cation.com] We are so screwed... THE END IS NIGH!!!!
I have a better idea (Score:3)
Why don't they just put a sniper or two as look out on these cargo ships? Any small boat that approaches without radio, and they have arms, you start picking them off. I'm pretty sure that my idea will be more effective at preventing piracy on the high seas. Lots of ex-military guys who would be qualified.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
That's non-sense. These pirate boats are six meters per TFA. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, just no. Rocket launchers may not have the same recoil as a piece of artillery, but there is still quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
That's non-sense. These pirate boats are six meters per TFA. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.
Wow unsubstantiated teenage boasting! Someone get this guy a squadron of x-wings!
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
If by "ship" you mean "6 foot inflatable dingy", then yeah, it is. If, on the other hand, by "ship" you mean "cargo-hauler the size of several football fields" then no, it's not.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.
If by "ship" you mean "6 foot inflatable dingy", then yeah, it is. If, on the other hand, by "ship" you mean "cargo-hauler the size of several football fields" then no, it's not.
Agreed. Remember the incident where the captain was held hostage by 3 pirates in a covered life raft, only to be saved by 3 simultaneous sniper shots from Navy Seals on a ship?
Re: (Score:3)
And who cares about sniping anyway? "Oh, no! I was aiming for the first pirate, but accidentally drilled a hole in the guy next to him. We are doomed!" If they haven't actually boarded your ship and taken hostages yet, I see no moral or logistical problem in opening up a chain gun on them.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Armed ships are forbidden by treaty unless the weapons are controlled by a countries military who happens to be in good standing with the rest of the world community, i.e. they don't commit piracy.
There are weapons systems where it would be trivial to turn that boat to scrap from 1000 yards and it's cheap to run. It's not person to person sniping but it's close enough. I would prefer a system such as the one mentioned as it temporarily blinds them but I'd want the lethal system run by a competent military to back it up when the thieves figure out that device won't aim to more than one place at a time.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You're forgetting that arms arent generally welcomed in commercial ports.
Re:Pussyfication (Score:4, Insightful)
Yknow what? Enough of this "disproportionate force" bullshit. When someone wants you dead its not disproportionate to fucking curbstomp them before they have a chance to kill you.
How do you think wars are won? Do you think that we keep careful records of how many casualties we inflict so we can go and execute some of our own guys to even it up if we do to well?
We're not nuking cities to take out a single bread thief, we're dealing only with people who are explicitly combatants. Blowing them straight to whatever god they worship right off the bat instead of making sure that the violence is "proportional" is not only perfectly acceptable but in fact generally the whole freaking idea of combat.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to train someone to use them or have it remoted to an ops team over satellite. Both cost more money than the average cheapskate who has deliberately chosen a Liberian flag to avoid taxes and bypass labour and safety regs would like to spend.
In fact, the problem would have been long solved by now if navies did what they are allowed to do by law - protect their _OWN_ country ships and make a special point that ships with flags from Liberia, Panama and their ilk get no protection.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you generally leave killing as a last resort. If you use the laser and they keep coming with hostile intent, then you break out the sniper rifle.
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
Why not start at the "last resort" when you may never reach the "last resort" if you do incremental aggressive resposnes? Especially in light of the fact that you may end up "dead" yourself taking that approach.
You see, the difference between a good guy and a bad guy is fairly simple, a bad guy has bad intentions the whole time, a good guy does not. After that, it doesn't matter. If anyone means me ill will, they better be sure of it, because I'm not incrementally going to kick their ass, I'm gonna do i
Will not work (Score:5, Informative)
Bottom line: I suggest before coming up with idiotic suggestions, you actually google a bit of naval history. (And yes, I did do a feasibility study on missile attack defenses based on cannon, not rifles, and even they are not a very good defense.)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
That's why you forget sniping and just install a few 7.62mm miniguns or .50-caliber machineguns.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get a phalanx system installed. End of problem.
Re:Will not work (Score:5, Funny)
I'm fairly sure that that sound I hear in the distance is the actuaries at Lloyds laughing through their stiff upper lips...
Re: (Score:3)
1.5 million is about what a big ship spends on fuel per journey.
Re: (Score:3)
While the pirate attacks really push the "They are attacking Us" buttons, and the outcomes are oc
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of a friend has a .50 caliber machinegun on his yacht, which apparently has proven effective in discouraging pirates while sailing around Asia. He says it's not an issue where his friend travels so long as it's locked away while in port.
And considering that most countries allow friendly navy ships in ports, there's no reason at all why they should be unable to deal with visiting cargo ships with far less dangerous weaponry.
Re: (Score:3)
Some years back I read about a guy cruising around the world, and the hassle of gun regulations discouraged him from carrying arms.
So he built an imitation rocket launcher out of tubing and other plumbing equipment. Whenever a suspicious looking speedboat seemed to be heading his way, he'd haul it out and stand there in his cockpit with it on his shoulder.
On more than one occasion the speedboat in question would do a U-turn and leave...
Re:Will not work (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Cargo ships are large stable platforms.
Sniper rounds have much better range then 7.52x39 (AK rounds).
Moving targets are a challenge but not an insurmountable one.
The main problem with putting snipers on cargo ships is lack of snipers.
I suggest machine guns instead.
They still have the range to reach out and touch someone before they can shoot back effectively.
Plus they can take out the whole boat full of pirates, or at least leave them to die in a disabled boat..
Regarding your suggestion: Iron
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point that is being missed (although I thought it was obvious) is that the moment you put a bullet in one of the guys on the boat, they are going to turn away. They will have no idea how many people have guns on the cargo ship, they will only know that they are now vulnerable. Pirates are cowards, they aren't wanting to get in a gun fight, they want to be the only ones with the guns during the fight. These Somalian pirates are not military trained, hell, most are likely not even literate, and
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship?
Yes I have, it would be quite easy to crank off shots. We aren't talking about a crab boat, these are huge, stable platforms that don't pitch and sway nearly as much as you might think.
So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
And they won't be accurate, because their TINY craft will be pitching back and forth. Particularly if they are stupid enough to
Re: (Score:2)
So your sniper is asleep when they take the boat. Finding an armed man, they kill everyone onboard, and take the high quality rifle to replace their 40 year old barely functional AK knockoffs.
So now you need 24/7 snipers. Say 8 hour shifts, and now you have three more crew than you used to. That's roughly doubling the compliment. That ain't cheap.
I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but that's the logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Cost and international treaties are why no weapons (Score:5, Informative)
Cost and international treaties are two big reasons why merchant ships aren't armed. If you want military on board with weapons, well a 24/7 hour crew is going to cost a fair bit of money. Merchant shipping tries to cut costs as much as possible.And you aren't just going to put a crate of machine guns and sniper rifles on board and hope that the ship's cook or the 18 year trainee engineer on a cruise ship are going to know how to operate them correctly in an emergency situation, probably more likely to end up hurting themselves or the passengers than anybody else.
Plus international treaties come into play. It's all well and good suggesting you're going to mount miniguns etc or even just AK47s on your ship but a lot of countries aren't too happy about armed merchant ships turning up in their harbours. Can't imagine American authorities would be too happy about accepting an Iranian ship sailing into New York with a crew of marines on board manning deck mounted rapid fire machine guns.
Re:Cost and international treaties are why no weap (Score:4, Interesting)
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
Thank you for saying what he should have already known. It won't take crates of weapons to start with, and the only time you need to have anyone armed is in KNOWN dangerous waters. The route between NY and UK? Um, probably don't need it for that route. Going around Somalia? Good time for weapons. You don't need the snipers on guard for the entire journey, or even most of it.
Personally, I say you take a fake cargo ship and roam around the area with a full compliment of trainees and give them some real world experience. I have no moral problem with taking out people who are armed and dangerous and whose only goal is to harm others.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.
If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others.
What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing that's moral about putting offenders in jail for a while instead of killing them, despite the probabilities of backsliding.
So you're proposing that cargo ship crews are going to board a boat full of pirates with assault rifles and perform a citizen's arrest so they can take them to jail?
Somehow that sounds rather less likely to work than just shooting them with a minigun from a safe distance.
Re: (Score:3)
As it is, it's just too profitable for pirates to voluntarily stop.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
There are all kinds of international laws and regulations that prevent civilian ships from being armed.
I mean, you could arm them properly, they'd just be denied entry into most ports on the planet.
@nomadic (Score:3)
I believe the ORIGINAL suggestion was to hire x military. NOT have the people from here do the sniping.
And the military DOES have a PROVEN history of being able to take out pirates from a moving ship.
Navy SEALs' Simultaneous Headshots on Somali Pirates Were Procedure [go.com]
Taking this a step further, following the original suggestion of x military personnel being the snipers.
\
Let's carry this further shall we? How many troops have served in Afghanistan and Iraq? Collation troops, not just American. Snipers are
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
We have different ideas of necessity. Wanting to put killer criminals in jail time vs. execution is fine if you can apprehend them. The apprehension is a very key difference here. If you can't apprehend them, and the people that you don't want to kill are out there, still with weapons, still killing other people, then what? These criminals clearly don't have the scruples that you do, and these scruples can end in even more unnecessary deaths, this kind of criminal is probably more likely to be willing to kill many people rather than allow themselves to be captured.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only other option is to capitulate. It's not the fault of the people defending themselves that criminals decide to attack more viciously. The moral responsibility still lies with the pirates not to be criminals in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for a textbook example of unprincipled utilitarian thinking. Perhaps we should send some offerings to the pirates too in the form of a few ships with some free booty and toss in a few virgins too if that would maybe cause them to be less violent? If the result is less violence overall, then sacrificing a few people is justified on utilitarian grounds, right?
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
There wouldn't be pirates if it wasn't profitable. Right now you can make a million dollars for 3-6 months worth of work, and you get to shoot a gun off without having to kill someone. Insurance companies are paying 100's of millions of dollars annually into the pirates coffers.
Also the pirates have had to go far from home in order to get around the naval vessels in the area. They are getting violent also because they are having to work harder. The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade, and then pay them top dollar for it for several years. It would be cheaper in the long run, and they would become stabilized at the same time.
Of course because it is the smart thing it is the one thing that no one will do.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, the grunt pirate is not making millions of dollars. He's lucky if he can come home with enough money to feed his family without getting maimed or killed. As always, the warlords are making lots of money without getting in harms way.
It's not like the poor chaps can't fish, the fact of the matter is that it is not profitable enough anymore for them to fish thanks to some of OUR companies depleting all THEIR fish reserves so we can get a $1 can of tuna at our local Wal-Mart.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem with your line of thinking, is that to get the subsidized "fish farming education" you speak of, they would have to be pirates in the first place. Anyone not getting the subsidy would begin piracy just to tap that new source of funds. Increasing piracy in the end.
And people not fond of fish farming would probably go towards piracy because criminals are basically lazy. Your proposal cannot solve this part of that problem. This is the problem with most left wing style "let's help them" approaches. They don't want help or it screws the hard working people who've played by the rules.
In other words, DON'T FEED THE BEARS, it just makes them lazy and viscous.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.
Only some people. Why are we even paying our taxes to the RIAA if they're not upholding their end of the bargain and keeping the seas free of pirate scum and villainy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.
If by "unnecessarily" you mean "when they decide to become a violent, unprovoked aggressor" then sure.
Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try. This is as simple as it gets: 1) pirates leave the mainland and they don't come back 2) other would-be pirates decide that robbery isn't the best way to improve their situation 3) piracy declines.
Many people fail to understand that for the same reason they fail to understand that state
Re: (Score:3)
That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, Venezuela allowing armed U.S. aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
The U.S. allowing armed Venezuelan aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
Being able to use a proper knife and fork on a plane instead of the flimsy plastic crap... priceless.
Countries trusting international agreements to punish errant vessels? Who will enforce it? The UN?
In all seriousness, it would be great if the ships could defend them selves but I can't see any way that countries will accept this. This could be used as a cover to smuggle arms to other countries. If any of the major powers are involved there is no way to police it (veto powers, back room coercion etc).
There are a couple of hot spots that could in theory be properly watched by navies and swiftly dealt with, this requires money and resources that will ultimately come out of our pockets and the amount of money required will be a lot greater than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Arming ships will end up costing more than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Collectively we are not a people that puts principles above profit so I suspect the current status quo will continue.
Re: (Score:3)
"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "
The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "
The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.
Well no. It was a heavily armed society and therefore it tended to be a polite society. Most people didn't want to end up in a duel, so most people minded their own business and didn't flagrantly disrespect others for no reason. Those who were belligerent assholes tended to eventually pick the wrong person to screw with, and so long as it was a fair fight, the law left that person alone. That is, in most places two men could fight a duel without the survivor being immediately arrested and imprisoned. If you didn't like that possibility then you didn't own/carry a gun, for it was dishonorable and illegal in the extreme to shoot an unarmed man.
Overall I'd say most people were kinder and more decent than they are now. What you didn't have back then were so many bleeding-heart types who think that all violence is always wrong even when it's against a bully or other aggressor. I don't think that's a coincidence.
In summary, you're nitpicking one metaphor I used while deciding not to respond to my overall point. We can talk about the good old days some more, or you could further tempt me to follow every single metaphor with a line saying "the previous sentence was just a saying, an expression, meant to illustrate a point and not intended as literal historical commentary about the Wild West or other object of metaphor, get over it". I find both to be unnecessary. That latter option definitely should be unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try.
It's not that we refuse to try it. It's that we look at the times when there weren't any restrictions on what you brought into port, and we see how that turned out. You know, it's the whole not-forgetting-history thing. We already did try it.
Would arming commercial ships decrease piracy? Obviously. The reason we haven't isn't because of an unwillingness to try something new, it's because we look back at why those laws were made in the first place. Maybe it's time to revisit those laws, maybe our advan
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's correlation but not causation.
The fact of the matter is, precisely what causes a human being to want to bring unprovoked (keyword: unprovoked) violence upon another human being is an age-old question. I'm not aware of any final answer on the subject. Poverty, a culture which glorifies violence, poor parenting, childhood abuse, etc. are a
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. The facts say
that this would be awesome. Also there would be dinosaurs and space ships and ghost wizards who all shoot bullets from their nose when they roar.
Whether it's on foot in the streets or on ships in the sea, the basic predator-prey nature of violent criminals and their victims remains unchanged.
Because as we all know, the human species is genetically split into two completely non-inter-breeding subraces, the Victims and the Criminals, so all comparisons based on the Discovery Channel are completely valid.
And that, gentlemen and ladies of the Institute, is why we must arm the gazelles immediately. Because do we want an African veldt where only the lions have surgically implanted Uzis?
I know I don't, and that's why I created the hoof-held Stinger.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
So I am "stubborn" when I believe people should have the ability to defend themselves against an unprovoked violent aggressor? Please elaborate. Tell me how else you deal with someone who, by initiating violence, has already demonstrated that they cannot be reasoned with. Do you intend to send them a strongly-worded letter?
WIth that line you suggest that I am unable to think for myself and need an organization to tell me how I should feel about a subject. How nice. I get the idea you'd be disappointed to learn that I am a free-thinking individual who is unaffiliated with the NRA. My suspicion is that you'd be disappointed because that's a much tougher target for rhetoric than a list of talking points.
Speaking of facts, what I don't see you doing is telling me why my facts are mistaken. I don't suppose you're about to do that, are you? That should be easy since I've "got no clue what's going on" to borrow your words. Except it's not really so easy, is it, or you would have done it already.
There are literally millions of people who have had some kind of military, police, or private security training in the USA alone. Especially if you are talking about military experience, they have already faced far worse than a few rag-tag pirates with shoulder-mounted weapons and small arms. People with this kind of experience are not hard to find. Make the price right and they'll be quite easy to find.
I agree with you that the untrained should generally not be handling weaponry, except maybe as a last resort. Because you argue from emotion, you think that's a reason for no one on any of the ships to have weaponry. Because I argue from reason, I think that means we should recruit people who have the necessary training. See the difference?
We seem to have no problems killing many more Iraqis and Afghans than either have killed of ours. This is a non-issue.
For pirates, I say fire a couple of warning shots at them. Give them an opportunity to reconsider their attack. If they keep coming, give other would-be pirates something to think about. That would be more than fair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kennesaw, Georgia [wikimedia.org]
From that link [wikimedia.org]: "Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw." so it's more a viral meme than a fact. Forcing people to own a weapon would imo lead to more weapons nobody will miss and that end up in the wrong hands; kids or burglars (hey, every house has to have at least a gun to steal).
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.
No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.
No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.
The idea of being able to effectively defend oneself against a violent, unprovoked aggressor really seems to bother the hell out of a lot of people. I can't be the only one to notice that. All kinds of people will come out of the woodwork with arguments amounting to "you should have sympathy for the devil" and/or "criminals somehow don't choose to disregard their own safety when they violently attack others". Both are bullshit.
If you're so worried about your own safety then don't become a criminal who violently attacks others. If you become a criminal who violently attacks others, understand that you have voluntarily chosen a dangerous lifestyle and will have to accept the consequences.
That's particularly true for the home-invasion scenario you bring up. I want breaking into the homes of strangers while they are at home to be as risky (to the perpetrator) as possible. The world is a better place that way. Why would you want to make that easier to do, or safer to do in the form of laws stating that a homeowner would ever face any kind of civil/criminal liability for anything that happens to those who do this? Anyone else notice that if you oppose things like warrantless wiretapping, then "you want the terrorists to win" but if you support bad laws no one accuses you of "wanting the home-invading criminals who threaten your family to win"?
Anyone see how one-sided that is, or how clear the message is? State power good; personal initiative and independence bad; know your role; submit. It extends to the point that they don't even want ships to be able to defend themselves but wouldn't dream of opposing the efforts of the Navy to rescue the hostages of said pirates.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I deal with that by not hanging out with shady people who have homocidal tendencies. I'm also going to guess that the forensics labs are a lot more clever than the average homeowner and can identify manufactured evidence effectively enough that it's still an incredibly risky thing to try. That and .. believe it or not, most homeowners with regular jobs who are not career criminals have no desire to murder the innocent, nor to put their families through all of the trauma caused by doing it where they live.
If you really think you have a point here, reserach states like Texas which have Castle Doctrine. See if they have rates of in-home shootings far higher than states which throw homeowners in prison for not trying hard enough to turn tail when an armed assailant threatens their families.
Things like capable vessels and military hardware cost money. That would certainly destroy the currently accepted theory that the Somalis are resorting to piracy because they are destitute and desperate. If that theory is found invalid, it would be grounds for using more of a military solution against a hostile nation that targets our vessels. I'm guessing that their improved cargo vessels wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. Navy. Think about it: it's in the pirates' interests not to escalate this conflict.
Do you seriously think a USA ship in waters near Somalia has travelled all that distance in order to pirate a few ragtag Somalian skiffs? Do you know anything about Somalia? I doubt they'd find enough plunder to even recover the cost of going back home. You talk like this is a law-enforcement issue where we have no clue which side is likely to be the perpetrator. That just isn't the case.
To a pirate, it doesn't serve any purpose to risk sinking a ship before it can be plundered. It would mean they risked their lives in a firefight for absolutely nothing. Again I believe you haven't thought this through.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a a valid analogy. Prior to 9/11 hijackings were operating under an informal agreement between the hijacker and the passengers. Namely that if they agreed to cooperate, the hijackers would leave them completely unharmed, albeit usually in Cuba or Libya. What you're proposing is changing the deal so that there isn't any sort of assurance that the pirates will let the crew go unharmed. And that's stupid, especially when there are lesser alternatives available. As it stands now, pirates expect that the crew won't be packing huge amounts of weaponry that would make a "hunting" trip with the Terminator and Rambo look piddly in comparison.
These pirates have a lot more in common with regular street thugs than the sort of organized criminals who can pull off something like an airplane hijacking.
Let's face it. There's another reason that past hijackers did not harm the passengers: they're extremely outnumbered. I don't care what kind of gun a hijacker has, if 200 people close by all decide to rush him at once, he might take a couple of them but he is definitely going down. The incentive not to try that is simple: you might be one of the c
Foiled (Score:2, Interesting)
This is then foiled when pirates spend $10-20 on a pair of tinted glasses that filter out red light.
I've always thought lasers, while useful, are a very bad countermeasure to human eyesight, being as they are very narrow spectrum.
Next!
Re: (Score:2)
This is then foiled when pirates spend $10-20 on a pair of tinted glasses that filter out red light.
Except that it's a green laser. If they can find a pair of sunglasses that filters out the right frequency of green light without filtering out the rest of the light they'll still need to see and operate, then that could be a countermeasure. At the least it would force them to change their mode of operations somewhat.
Actually... green light. (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
"Sunglasses wouldn't help," he says – in fact, wearing them would only exacerbate the effect. That's because the glasses would not affect the green laser light – chosen because that colour is particularly irritating – but the laser would appear even brighter contrasted against the darkened background.
I'm guessing they think that people who can put their hands on automatic weapons and RPGs, sales and purchasing of which is regulated/prohibited in most of the world - won't be able to put their hands on some $25 protective glasses [dragonlasers.com] sales and purchasing of which is not regulated/prohibited anywhere in the world.
Re:Actually... green light. (Score:4, Informative)
Since dealing with pirates is not considered "war", the fact that using weapons designed for blinding is a war crime probably won't be an issue(in the same way that cops can use chemical weapons, even though soldiers can't); but any laser powerful enough to discourage all but serious n00b pirates is really not a nice device. Blinding, burns, the whole deal. If you are willing to blind and burn, you might as well skip the pricey, unproven wiz-bang shit and just use lethal weapons.
Re:Actually... green light. (Score:5, Informative)
To throw some numbers in: The glasses that the GP linked to are OD 4 for 532nm light (i.e. green Nd:YAG lasers, which are basically guaranteed to be the type used by this weapon). That means they block 99.99% of the beam at that wavelength. That's quickly going to turn any beam designed to be borderline non-permanently-damaging into barely a bother.
In fact, I just ran a quick test. I have a 30mW green pointer, which is definitely unsafe for direct eye exposure. I expanded the beam with a lens to about a 20cm radius, which is eye-safe at this power level. Looked at it thought my glasses (I actually have that same model), and it was just a very slight orange glow, about on par with an indicator LED. Took the goggles off and it was very annoying (I had an afterimage for a few minutes). I imagine the laser weapon will be closer to the damage threshold than my quick test, but still, the glasses will totally destroy any effect unless the laser runs at power levels much higher than eye-safe ones.
Or, testing with the (definitely eye unsafe) collimated 30mW, through the glasses, onto a wall: the green dot is barely visible. I'm going going to try pointing it into my eye (see below), but that mount of light is not going to bother anyone.
Note for anyone wanting to try this: don't unless you really know what you're doing. In particular, looking into the bare beam with glasses on is a very bad idea. You probably won't damage your eyes with the green light, but these cheap chinese pointers tend to lack IR filters, and that can screw you since the glasses won't block IR (worse, your blink response won't trigger and you'll slowly cook your retina). In fact, I can see a slight deep red glow around the projected green dot going through the glasses, which indicates there's a considerable amount of leaked IR, probably well above the damage threshold (if you can see IR, there's a lot of it).
Re:Actually... green light. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, looking into a laser as part of an experiment for a post definitely deserves a Slashdot achievement!
Re: (Score:2)
This is then foiled when pirates spend $10-20 on a pair of tinted glasses that filter out red light.
The red [or green] light from a military-grade laser weapon? That just might cost you more than $20.
Don't look at approaching ship (Score:5, Funny)
with remaining eye.
Being a pirate is all fun and games (Score:3)
As the song says, being a pirate is all fun and games till somebody loses an eye...
Wouldn't a machine gun do the job better? (Score:2)
Seriously.
Shoot them and they will not bother anybody again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse? WTF. I don't need an excuse.
Self defense is justification.
You think that after I kill a boatload of Somalian pirates in international waters I'm going to submit myself to Somali justice?
I'm just going to go on sailing and pick up another thousand rounds at my next port of call.
Killing a pirate is morally different from killing a random person.
One is morally required. I'll leave it to you to figure out which.
related? (Score:5, Funny)
Import of mirrors and mirror related paraphernalia spiked sharply in Somalia, leaving traders baffled.
meter-wide bean? (Score:5, Funny)
> meter-wide bean
That's a huge bean!
Re: (Score:3)
meter-wide bean
That's a huge bean!
This UK company's plans must be to combat pirates with the Creature from the Black Legume.
Aren't lasers intended to blind "illegal"? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the article, thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects [un.org]
Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this applies only to lasers with intent to permanently blind. If it just forces the enemy to not look/aim at you but without injuring them, I think it should be in the same group as smoke screen, flash bangs and other "less lethal" weapons. Also maybe this would allow this laser to be mounted on mercant ships without violating international laws.
Counter Measures (Score:2)
It will not be long before pirates will implement their own counter measures. In related news, the price of mirrors has gone up in the last 2 months...
Re: (Score:2)
Root cause of the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Simpler solution would be to have a ship or a platform offshore, just on the international waters as close to the port as possible to act as an armory. Cargo ships check in their weapons into the armory, sail into the port, unload, reload, return, pick up their weapons and go their way. Between the armory and the port, a distance of about 10 or 20 miles, the Navy or the Coast Guard of the country should provide escort and patrol services with destroyers and cutters.
That would be a sane and cheap solution understandable to one and all. All the news reports about gizmos like laser beams really have an entirely different purpose. Some company somewhere making a key component of such a system is looking for investment or begging to be sold out. The PR firms step in, come up with such "news" stories and create some media interest. Once the company got bought out or got its investment goals met, these news reports also would melt away like fog.
Re:Root cause of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree - the solution to pirates isn't lasers/etc, but to make merchant ships something other than sitting ducks.
There are also other options. Most piracy occurs in certain regions - just charge a tariff for safe passage through those regions, and patrol them with naval vessels. Or, just organize convoys. We're not dealing with serious adversaries here - one coast guard cutter or destroyer will be more than adequate to escort 50 merchant ships/etc. You just need to price the protective services so that they're self-funding, plus/minus whatever incentives/penalties you want to impose on the route. Plus, it is probably good practice for the escorts anyway - it isn't like they just sit in dock all year when there isn't a war going on.
Re:Root cause of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Simpler solution would be to have a ship or a platform offshore, just on the international waters as close to the port as possible to act as an armory.
I don't claim to be an expert, but it's my understanding that most merchant shipping runs on pretty thin margins, and port fees are already a major expense. Who would pay for this undoubtedly expensive setup?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm at a total loss here... (Score:2)
Deep waters (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately most of those fishing boats are technically legal, having purchased licenses from the UN-recognized government (which controls no territory outside a few blocks in Mogadishu). The previous Islamic Courts government had the piracy problem under control, but the US and the EU hired the Ethiopians to knock it over, replacing it with the current mess.
MA-DEUCE (Score:3)
Why are we talking about non-lethal defensive measures? These people aren't peaceful protesters who are getting a little out of hand. They are predatory, blood-thirsty profiteers.
What's wrong with .50 BMG M2 machine guns? Effective range, 2000 M.
Need Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Score:4, Funny)
Are you listening Obama? Do you care about jobs?
Then authorize Blackwater (Xe) and Dynacorp to go after these scallywags in exchange for bounties put up by shipping companies. Pay out $100,000 an ear.
It will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and provide gainful employment for ex-military facing challenges reintegrating into the domestic laborforce. I see no downsides. It will cost the taxpayers nothing.
Then the next time these pirates approach a merchant vessel, they'll see a gunboat coming around the stern of the ship flying a US flag and ready to kick ass and take names.
It will be the economic gift that keeps giving. Just wait until the movies start to come out. "Pirate Hunter", "Pirate Hunter 2: With a Vengeance", "Rambo V: Arrrr!". America could become known worldwide as the finest mercenary exporting nation since the middle ages.
Re: (Score:3)
I gather you know nothing about the Somali pirates or letters of marque.
Letters of marque were issued not because people were enemies but because their ships and cargo were so valuable. Governments issued letters of Marque on pirates and nations they were at war with precisely because building a new ship was so expensive, they could get a privateer to do the dirty work and get a sh
Re: (Score:2)
I can just imagine a meter wide bean scanning pirates.
They feed these beans to sharks and get the most awesome gas lasers [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, this laser is operated by Mr. Bean?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure hitting someone with a meter-wide bean is really "not harming" them... those've got to be heavy!
Re: (Score:3)
Pirates only do what they do because they are poor and are just trying to feed their families.
I'm assuming you're a serious lefty bleeding-heart and not just a troll. Apologies if you were just trying to satirise said bleeding-hearts.
The pirates do what they do because they know the good guys won't shoot back, so it's an easy to way to get rich; there was a news story a while back about some Somali businessman who had invested his money in piracy because it was so profitable. He sure wasn't doing to 'feed his family'.