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."
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: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:I have a better idea (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.
... disturbing when you really think about it.
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 states which enact conceal-carry laws experience lower rates of violent crime. That is, it goes against their religion because certainly no contact with the facts would cause one to miss the point. The point is: criminals love helpless targets who can't effectively fight back. Criminals really hate facing targets that are as well armed as they are, or better armed, because at this point their instinct for self-preservation kicks in.
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 conceal-carry leads to more timid, less aggressive criminals who'd rather not end up in a gunfight, have no idea which person is armed, and cannot effectively choose vulnerable targets. The religion says that arming targeted ships would result in many more armed conflicts at sea. I believe the facts will be the same as they've proven to be for conceal-carry, only more so, since we can arm every ship that goes through dangerous areas and not just a fraction of them.
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.
It doesn't bode well for us as a society that we have such a large population of adults who are in strong denial of anything they perceive as an ugly reality. Rather than work to change an ugly reality, they pretend that the facts are just someone's perspective, like an opinion. It's
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)
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:You do realize that... (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.
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: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: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:I have a better idea (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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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: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: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: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:I have a better idea (Score:3, Insightful)