Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Chinese Laser Gun For Export?

This is a discussion on Chinese Laser Gun For Export? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I couldn't find any other threads with this so I am making one. Anybody have any other information about this ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 11th, 2004   #1
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 60
Threads:
Chinese Laser Gun For Export?

I couldn't find any other threads with this so I am making one.
Anybody have any other information about this gun. I would think it would be ban by Geneva?

LINK -----> http://www.afpc.org/crm/crm163.htm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...aser-gun02.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...lindingGun.jpg


OOPS I PUT IT IN THE WRONG FORUM.. SORRY! Please MOVE Thank You
Number1azn365 is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T-98 vs Arjun dabrownguy Army & Security Forces 227 October 4th, 2004 07:08 PM
Chinese moon launch and Australian negotiations. gf0012-aust Space & Defense Technology 0 February 1st, 2004 12:11 AM
China's plane parts industry takes off: News analysis ullu Air Force & Aviation 0 January 20th, 2004 11:41 AM
Chinese longest range billistic missile "DF-5" Oqaab Missiles & WMDs 0 December 11th, 2003 06:25 AM

Old December 11th, 2004   #2
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Re: Chinese Laser Gun For Export?

I do not remember the Geneva Convention has any ban on non-lethal laser weapons. This weapon has a shor duration blinding effect if the laser it projects hits a person in the eyes.

I might be wrong, but I'm too lazy to dig through the Geneva Convention's rule for conflict. Have a look yourself if you wish.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #3
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 60
Threads:
Thanks Path, but i thought this gun could actually permantely blind the enemy. Seems like the Chinese are advancing in laser technology thanks to our freind Clinton. First they put it on their tanks (dazzler) and now guns.
Number1azn365 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #4
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
highsea's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: BFI Seattle
Posts: 1,091
Threads:
Re: Chinese Laser Gun For Export?

It is against the conventions for a "high contracting party" to employ or sell blinding laser weapons.

Quote:
Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention), 13 October 1995

Article 1
It is prohibited to employ 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.

Article 2
In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.

Article 3
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.

Article 4
For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...f?OpenDocument
highsea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #5
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number1azn365
Thanks Path, but i thought this gun could actually permantely blind the enemy. Seems like the Chinese are advancing in laser technology thanks to our freind Clinton. First they put it on their tanks (dazzler) and now guns.
Technically it could blind a person permenately, but who is dumb enough to leave their eyes open after being hit witht the laser? It is said to be able to cause blinding of the eyes for a short period and headache effects. Has somewhat the same effect as stun grenade, the difference is the flashbang makes your ears drums ring while this gun gives you a headache.
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #6
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pathfinder-X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number1azn365
Thanks Path, but i thought this gun could actually permantely blind the enemy. Seems like the Chinese are advancing in laser technology thanks to our freind Clinton. First they put it on their tanks (dazzler) and now guns.
Technically it could blind a person permenately, but who is dumb enough to leave their eyes open after being hit witht the laser? It is said to be able to cause blinding of the eyes for a short period and headache effects. Has somewhat the same effect as stun grenade, the difference is the flashbang makes your ears drums ring while this gun gives you a headache.
About 15 years a a Russian submarine was found just outside of Australian waters - an individual on that vessel used a hand held designator to paint the Orion ASW planes cockpit area. One of the crew suffered permanent damage. You don't actually get the chance to close your eyes etc... Once its done - its done.

The upshot of it was that the Russians were advised that any future similar acts would be regardded as hostile and we would attack said vessels to the maximum level. The Russians apologised and never entered Australian waters again. (This was when we were building our submarine facilities)

It is a hostile act, it is in breach of the conventions - and as per the Russian precedent, any one doing it would be considered a legitimate target of response. They would also then be subject to pursuit under the Conventions.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #7
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
About 15 years a a Russian submarine was found just outside of Australian waters - an individual on that vessel used a hand held designator to paint the Orion ASW planes cockpit area. One of the crew suffered permanent damage. You don't actually get the chance to close your eyes etc... Once its done - its done.

The upshot of it was that the Russians were advised that any future similar acts would be regardded as hostile and we would attack said vessels to the maximum level. The Russians apologised and never entered Australian waters again. (This was when we were building our submarine facilities)

It is a hostile act, it is in breach of the conventions - and as per the Russian precedent, any one doing it would be considered a legitimate target of response. They would also then be subject to pursuit under the Conventions.
Yes but from the few of defence magazines my grandpa sent me every few months from China, it said this weapon is only designed to blind and stunt a person for a short period of time. Of course prelonged eye exposure to the laser will have permanent damage effect on human eyes.

In the case you mentioned, why didn't the Orion initiate counter attack towards the Russian if they were attacked upon?
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #8
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pathfinder-X
Yes but from the few of defence magazines my grandpa sent me every few months from China, it said this weapon is only designed to blind and stunt a person for a short period of time. Of course prelonged eye exposure to the laser will have permanent damage effect on human eyes.
A laser that is of sufficient power to cause temporary blindness is causing retina damage - the eye is not like a bleeding sore where blood will coagulate and heal up - it will cause permanent degradation. And if too long (and here we are talking microseconds it will cause permanent dsamage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pathfinder-X
In the case you mentioned, why didn't the Orion initiate counter attack towards the Russian if they were attacked upon?
At the time the co-pilot only saw a flash of light and was unsure what it was. Lasers were not common then, so there was no association with the light emission and what it was. When they returned to base 30mins later he had lost sight in one eye.

Standing orders were from that point on were to respond if "attacked" similarly in future.

In actual fact, some 9 months later, a russian sub was believed to be near one of our oil wells in the Bass Strait, it was of sufficient cause for us to deploy one of our brand new Hornets with a weapons fit to investigate. The plane was so new it had not had the national markings painted on - if that sub had done the same, then that pilot would have launched a gun attack and possibly an air to surface attack - even without ASM's. Feeling was a little high and very anti-russian after what had happened.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #9
Forum Bouncer
Colonel
Red aRRow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,409
Threads:
Actually the case whether the gun can cause permanent damage or not can only be decided once the specifications are known. Not all laser powered weapons can cause permanent blindness in a matter of miliseconds.
The above said weapon could be using a low threshold power low enough to temporarily blind a person instead of really frying his/her retinas.
The end result also depends on what kind of modulation the emitting laser is employing. There are a number of variables which when known could deduce the end result of this equation. So uptil then I cannot be expected to form an opinion about the related ethical issues.

Anyways quite nice pictures and pretty cool to say the least. I haven't seen such a weapon before. Looks like the battery is onboard the gun...since I don't see any wires attached to the soldier's backpack or soemthing.
Red aRRow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #10
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red aRRow
Actually the case whether the gun can cause permanent damage or not can only be decided once the specifications are known. Not all laser powered weapons can cause permanent blindness in a matter of miliseconds.
The above said weapon could be using a low threshold power low enough to temporarily blind a person instead of really frying his/her retinas.
The end result also depends on what kind of modulation the emitting laser is employing. There are a number of variables which when known could deduce the end result of this equation. So uptil then I cannot be expected to form an opinion about the related ethical issues.
It doesn't matter what it's power rating is and the bearing that people associate with ethical issues. It's illegal under the conventions to use any laser platform as an anti-personnel weapon - period

The Russians were warned on using laser target designators - which are not anti-personnel weapons by design. If you build a laser mount into a shoulder fit weapons platform - ipso facto it's going to be perceived as an AP weapon. It's too bloody big for assisting a beam rider - you can do that with a hand held the size of a Garmin GPS unit.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #11
Forum Bouncer
Colonel
Red aRRow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,409
Threads:
Quote:
Article 1
It is prohibited to employ 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.
Only weapons causing permanent blindness are prohibited under the convention. If the above pictured weapon causes temporary loss of vision and/or headaches without causing any permanent damage to a person's eyesight then it is not illegal under any international law.
Red aRRow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2004   #12
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red aRRow
Quote:
Article 1
It is prohibited to employ 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.
Only weapons causing permanent blindness are prohibited under the convention. If the above pictured weapon causes temporary loss of vision and/or headaches without causing any permanent damage to a person's eyesight then it is not illegal under any international law.
Unless everyone is walking around with protective goggles on, they are vulnerable - have you seen any technicians working on CD players that don't - the smallest output can blind the person looking.

The issue is intent - militaries prefer not to "kill" - the intent is to hurt and maim as it causes a greater logistics burden on the forces, - that was worked out long ago - and Crimea was probably the stand out example of its effect.

I can assure you that any JAG will win a case if a soldier commits a shoulder fired laser weapon at another soldier. What argument will a defendant have "but I didn't mean to hurt him - honest, I just wanted to stop him from coming closer - I really didn't mean to make him go blind. blah blah blah.... - Yeah, lets see that stand up in court. he'd be marched off by RedCaps fatser than you can say "Good Morning Your Honour"

You don't have to be a genius to work out that it''s designed to disrupt an enemy - and unless you are going to send a note prior to battle asking the enemy whether you can get all their soldiers corrective eye results - then anyone could be vulnerable. - Imagine the effects to any soldier wearing glasses - and suffering an inverse prism compound as a result.


Intent. and I'd bet on the prosecuting JAG team before I bet my house on the defendant.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2004   #13
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Re: Chinese Laser Gun For Export?

Is China even a signatory to the Geneva conventions? Probably not, in which case it can make and sell whatever it likes without breaching said conventions. Much like us and Kyoto. We can pump as much pollutants into the atmosphere as our industry can generate!!! Cool huh? (er, that was aa joke guys). I think it's a national disgrace Australia wouldn't sign the protocol...
  Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2004   #14
Forum Bouncer
Colonel
Red aRRow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,409
Threads:
Quote:
Much like us and Kyoto. We can pump as much pollutants into the atmosphere as our industry can generate!!!
ol ol

No seriously...lasers have different classes. I have worked with a few laser transceivers and their "lethality" depends on a number of factors. The main factor is the output power. The greater the power, the greater the damage they can cause. There are different classificaiton levels depending upon modulation methods used and frequencies used.

Here you can get a general idea about laser classes.

Quote:
In 2001 the standard governing the safety of laser products in Europe (EN) and Internationally (IEC), was substantially revised and the Classification system was overhauled. This resulted in the introduction of three new laser classes (1M, 2M and 3R) and the abolition of Class 3A. Below is a brief description of each of the current laser classes.

The 60825-1 standards apply equally to lasers and LEDs. In most places we have used the word "laser", but it can be replaced by "LED". Generally speaking LEDs would be in the lower Classes (1, 1M, 2, 2M, 3R), but very exceptionally may be Class 3B. At the time of writing we are not aware of any Class 4 LEDs*.

The phrase "eye-safe" is used below. Please note that "eye-safe" is applicable to the whole optical spectrum from 180nm to 1mm wavelength, not just in the retinal hazard range of 400nm to 1400nm. Outside the retinal hazard range there is potentially a hazard to the cornea. A wavelength outside the retinal hazard range is therefore not automatically eye-safe!

Class 1

This class is eye-safe under all operating conditions.

Class 1M

This class is safe for viewing directly with the naked eye, but may be hazardous to view with the aid of optical instruments. In general, the use of magnifying glasses increases the hazard from a widely-diverging beam (eg LEDs and bare laser diodes), and binoculars or telescopes increase the hazard from a wide, collimated beam (such as those used in open-beam telecommunications systems).

Radiation in classes 1 and 1M can be visible, invisible or both.

Class 2

These are visible lasers. This class is safe for accidental viewing under all operating conditions. However, it may not be safe for a person who deliberately stares into the laser beam for longer than 0.25 s, by overcoming their natural aversion response to the very bright light.

Class 2M

These are visible lasers. This class is safe for accidental viewing with the naked eye, as long as the natural aversion response is not overcome as with Class 2, but may be hazardous (even for accidental viewing) when viewed with the aid of optical instruments, as with class 1M.

Radiation in classes 2 and 2M is visible, but can also contain an invisible element, subject to certain conditions.

Classes 1M and 2M broadly replace the old class 3A under IEC and EN classification. Prior to the 2001 amendment there were also lasers which were Class 3B but were eye-safe when viewed without optical instruments. These lasers are Class 1M or 2M under the current Classification system.

Class 3R

Radiation in this class is considered low risk, but potentially hazardous. The class limit for 3R is 5x the applicable class limit for Class 1 (for invisible radiation) or class 2 (for visible radiation). Hence CW visible lasers emitting between 1 and 5 mW are normally Class 3R.
Visible class 3R is similar to class IIIA in the US regulations.

Class 3B

Radiation in this class is very likely to be dangerous. For a continuous wave laser the maximum output into the eye must not exceed 500mW. The radiation can be a hazard to the eye or skin. However, viewing of the diffuse reflection is safe.

Class 4

This is the highest class of laser radiation. Radiation in this class is very dangerous, and viewing of the diffuse reflection may be dangerous. Class 4 laser beams are capable of setting fire to materials onto which they are projected.

Any laser product of a given Class may contain 'embedded' lasers which are greater than the Class assigned to the product, but in these cases engineering controls (protective housings and interlocks) ensure that human access to radiation in excess of product Class is not possible. Notable examples of this are CD and DVD players which are Class 1 laser products while containing Class 3R or Class 3B lasers and laser printers which are Class 1 laser products but contain Class 4 embedded lasers.

Note:- for a product to be classified correctly, it must be tested at the maximum output accessible under reasonably foreseeable single-fault conditions (eg in the drive circuitry). A non-M class product must pass both Condition 1 and Condition 2 of Table 10 in IEC/EN 60825-1, and an M-class product (which by definition has failed either Condition 1 or 2) must pass the irradiance condition in the same table.

* Generally speaking lasers are point sources while LEDs are extended sources. Extended sources have higher power limits than point sources for a given laser Class. Therefore a visible LED emitting 10 mW may be Class 2, while a visible laser pointer of the same power would be Class 3B. NB Laser pointers above Class 2 are banned for sale to the public by trading standards.

CW Continuous Wave - i.e. not pulsed
Diffuse reflection the reflection of radiation from a matt surface such as a wall
Extended source having an apparent source size with angular subtense of greater than 1.5 mradian
Optical instruments binoculars, telescopes, microscopes, magnifying glasses (but not prescription glasses)
Point source having an apparent source size with angular subtense of less than 1.5 mradian

Copyright Lasermet 2004
http://www.lasermet.com/resources/cl...-overview.html
Red aRRow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2004   #15
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Re: Chinese Laser Gun For Export?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
Is China even a signatory to the Geneva conventions? Probably not, in which case it can make and sell whatever it likes without breaching said conventions. Much like us and Kyoto. We can pump as much pollutants into the atmosphere as our industry can generate!!! Cool huh? (er, that was aa joke guys). I think it's a national disgrace Australia wouldn't sign the protocol...
Yes China did sign the Geneva Convention, so this laser weapon might be for domestic police use only. It is suppose to blind a dangerous suspect for a few seconds so a SWAT team can move in on em.

About Kyoto, Australia is already doing alot to protect its enviroment and natural habitat. Signing the accord is somewhat of a symbolic move rather than a giant leap in enviromental protection.
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 AM.