Why no laser blinding weapons?

It is a weak side inside indeed. But all these systems are already easily detectable. They use lidars to detect optical devices and lidars need to use the wavelength these optics are transparent and can focus. Usually lidar uses near IR to be invisible for naked eye but is very delectable by light intensification night vision (and any consumer camera with removed IR filter like taliban does to spot burger's laser pointers). Works one time per tube :^) though.
So using sophisticated laser attack is not an issue for detection.

Laser filters don't like that they also cut portion of spectrum around target wavelength. Also today practical widely tunable lasers exist.

1. It's not effective.
2. It's a particularly dick thing to do to someone.
3. You'd have to worry about people on both sides who would take particular offence to it, either the enemy killing you even if you surrender (Snipers and flamethrower men experience(d) this a lot) or an ally unfriendly firing you.

That's not a blinding weapon, that's an optical jammer, it fucks with other laser emitters and IR lenses upon detection.
I guess it could be used as one, but since it's heavily computerized I'm not entirely sure you can manually aim it at soldiers.


If it melts polycarbonate, it melt flesh… you're not describing a something that will simply damage the hypersensitive light receptors of the human eye…

That's why. They were in development until that happened. Before the 1990s handheld lasers weren't realistic, after 1998 blinding lasers were banned. That is the entire reason.

Attached: b33446171c592b68974d1865f2e4c7f9ddc54b43538c8a1da2b9c2318f7f6a8e.jpg (488x410, 48.42K)

hafniumisomer.org/cqeseg3.htm
Gamma lasers are the only direct energy weapon concept that can match ballistic weapons.

If they even live up to half of their hype then they're going to be pretty awesome.

I heard through the grapevine that the chinks have got or developed idk automated blinding turrets that won't friendly fire. Seems pretty easily avoided though, as says. Sorry op, hot lead is still king.

But that is exactly why. Sure we are all developing illegal shit like that but we aren't ever going to reveal or use it until the next time we go full retard killing each other.
Just wait until the playtime proxy war shit is over fam.

War crimes are a political excuse to invade you, or start a war. That's why America can break war crimes all the time and no one calls them on it. That's why NATO can launch a hundred missiles at Syria, even without an investigation, even considering its not a "war" it's a police action against terrorists. Technically Assad should be able to use hollowpoint and frangible bullets, the same way America uses them in policing.

Another reason for war crimes is, in a situation where two sides are fighting, you can accuse one of them of war crimes, to help the side you're friends with. This is why almost every war someone gets accused of war crimes, even if none take place. Example is the Yugoslav civil war… it was a civil war which doesn't fall under war crimes legislation, yet Serbs got buttfucked with war crimes nonsense so hard their country is almost erased from history.

The point of politics consists of a skilled politician picking the right time and place; to invoke the right sentence or phrase; in the correct way; to turn public opinion one way or another. The term "war crimes" is a phrase that makes the public hate the side accused of it, as is racism, corruption, regime, and so on. Positive terms would be free, open, transparent, democracy even though its the worst system of government and so on. You can also put together a sentence or a speech to invoke a more complex reaction. The more evolved form of politics involves inprinting the public with such trigger terms.

That's the spirit Stefanis Angelos.