ZKZM-500 Chinas new laser gun

RedCowboy said:

Seriously wounding enemy troops can be more effective than killing, you kill the enemy and that's easy for them to ignore for the moment as they keep pressing forward, but wound the enemy and they devote manpower and resource to his immediate medical care slowing down their advance.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why weapons that are mostly intended to maim rather than kill are not permitted under the rules of warfare.

Traditionally this was mostly allied to anti-personnel landmines and chemical weapons, but lasers that are mainly intended to blind enemy soldiers also fall into this category.

If the main reason for using the laser is to set things on fire this would be different though, and something like a powerful CO2 laser would fit that bill: It's not specifically dangerous to the eyes, though it will burn your cornea's just as badly as it would skin (like a flamethrower).

Also you should realistically consider that some armies will not play by the rules if push comes to shove. In proxy wars in the middle east the rules of engagement are usually respected by western powers, but once attacks hit home soil you can count on those going out of the window and countries using any weapon, however vicious, to defend their last stance in their homeland.

Benm said:

Which is exactly why weapons that are mostly intended to maim rather than kill are not permitted under the rules of warfare.

Traditionally this was mostly allied to anti-personnel landmines and chemical weapons, but lasers that are mainly intended to blind enemy soldiers also fall into this category.

If the main reason for using the laser is to set things on fire this would be different though, and something like a powerful CO2 laser would fit that bill: It's not specifically dangerous to the eyes, though it will burn your cornea's just as badly as it would skin (like a flamethrower).

Also you should realistically consider that some armies will not play by the rules if push comes to shove. In proxy wars in the middle east the rules of engagement are usually respected by western powers, but once attacks hit home soil you can count on those going out of the window and countries using any weapon, however vicious, to defend their last stance in their homeland.

Click to expand...

That is a good point as what country that was being invaded would not resort to whatever means to defend their home land. If the United States were invaded, would we not resort to what we consider as terrorists methods to defend ourselves. It is all relative and political when it comes down to defending against invaders.

Governments want to have a monopoly on the use of violence as they send us to do it, also being able to strike with gloved hands allows a measured deterrent/persuasion without it being an all out declaration of war.

We are conditioned to it with words like " troops " because when you hear 300 troops were lost today in a skirmish...well that's not like people were killed by a madman at the grocery, it's just troops and we all know troops will be lost fighting to protect our interests.

If every fight was going to be nuclear there wouldn't be any fights, so a fight with rules is just a way to exert control and still be alive and in power to defend interests again and again, it's all about power and control, not about the humane killing of people, just the perception of it.

p.s. Yes I know a lot is necessary, and I also don't trust the government to hold all the guns.

Did Thomas Jefferson say something like that ? I don't trust government to hold all the guns ?

I would not be surprised if he did, but that was off the top of my head, I am curious just what Jefferson said if you know.....I'm going to search for Jefferson quotes now. LOL


----EDIT----

Here's a link > Thomas Jefferson Quotes - The Quotations Page

I love this quote, it's right on the money. > When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Yea, people are greedy liars and people in positions of power are empowered greedy liars, for the most part anyway, yes good people do exist although in politics they are hard to find because they are so few.

Jefferson was right about newspapers, they were liars back then too, although CNN has taken deception to a new level and Soros has pushed his influence to the edge of criminality, and lets not forget Barry using the IRS to target Tea Party activist, Barry killed off a lot of that good ole Republican money yet Soros and Bloomberg are free to push influence, good thing the American people have been waking up, not a minute too soon either because if that horrible witch had won we would have not seen just how entrenched the corrupt deep state really is, and the swamp is still not drained, however I amthrilled that Trump is about to announce a SCOTUS judge, now if Ginsburg ( she's 85 years old ) would go ahead and ........retire/go away/trot off to the happy hunting grounds ...... then we could wrap the SCOTUS up with a big bow. Hey it's a big step in the right direction.


----EDIT----

Some more gems of wisdom from Jefferson :

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.


If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.


Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.

I don't recall Obama ever calling Jefferson a radical. If you have a quote I'd like to see it. Jefferson was a political man of his time and was speaking out against Tory Newspapers who held the view that the colonists needed to remain loyal to the crown. I doubt Jefferson would have any problems with the fact checkers who have shown the incredible numbers of lies Trump has said since announcing his candidacy up to today as they continue with vigor. The only news organization Trump seems to like is Fox News. The rest are all fake according to him. I don't count Bannon's blog as a news organization. Even the New York Times is fake news according to Trump, though they have been considered a conservative newspaper for many years. David Brooks, a long time conservative columnist with the New York Times said the other day on the PBS News Hour that Trump has been making mistake after mistake and is the swamp which needs to be drained, shifting the blame to others......a practice he has used for a lifetime. Everybody except for Fox News can't be all wrong.

Blaming others for what they do is the democratic mantra, it's a very old and time honored practice.

I have watched Republicans since Reagan put people into parts of the government, not unlike Pruitt in the EPA, and when these agencies fail to protect the public their mantra was, "see, we told you government was the problem." It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

paul1598419 said:

That is a good point as what country that was being invaded would not resort to whatever means to defend their home land. If the United States were invaded, would we not resort to what we consider as terrorists methods to defend ourselves. It is all relative and political when it comes down to defending against invaders.

Click to expand...

You probably would - i suppose the US could consider it's home soil more or less safe from any invading force: there are only 2 land borders to defend against, neither neighbors are likely to invade, so the threat would have to come by sea or ocean.

But if the enemy is actually at the gate? I'm quite sure most countries would resort to just weapons that don't follow the rules of engagement. Perhaps not typical 'terrorist approaches' like IED's, but things like biological weapons... i can see that happening.

I doubt there is a need to quote anyone on this.

If your homeland is about to be overrun by enemy combatants the rules of engagement usually go out of the window quickly. Not that'd blame anyone for doing so, if my country was on the brink of being overrun by another nation i'd happily work on a biological weapon (as biochemistry is my background) to halt them in their tracks, regardless of how (in)humane that weapon would be.

If your country was already occupied, would IEDs still be out of the question? My point is, the rules go out the window when you have an occupying force in your streets. Would attacking the occupying force's home land be out of the question? If not, then it is all relative.

I got a bunch of messages from friends and fans about this Chinese laser gun...so I ended up making a video about the plausibilitty of such a gun



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdURyWZD9t

tl;dr: it's a load of BS

Good video Styro, here's a chart.

Finished watching the video and alls I can say is Styro is such a killjoy.

That's one more vote for load of crap. Seems like we are all coming to the same basic conclusion. This Chinese weapon is pure propaganda. :na:

styropyro said:

I got a bunch of messages from friends and fans about this Chinese laser gun...so I ended up making a video about the plausibilitty of such a gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdURyWZD9t

tl;dr: it's a load of BS

Click to expand...

You make vary valid points why all of the claims could not be true at the same time.

Then again i'd take them with a very large grain of salt to begin with, so just want to focus on what a handheld laser weapon system could do.

First thing would be weight: If it was 10 or even 20 kilograms it's still a weapon that can be used by a single soldier easily. This would be the weight of a typical shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile system: not something you would want to lug around all day long, but you could walk with it for some distance and fire it even if you're all that fit.

The more interesting issue is the wavelength: given the power level i more or less presumed it would have to be a CO2 gas laser, but it could be something else. To achieve power density has such a large range it would need to have a large diameter output beam, perhaps making it look more like a telescope than a machine gun.

So no, i don't believe it exists with the specs as advertised, but some type of laser weapon that can be carried an operated by a single soldier, and do some serious damage cannot be excluded either.

The whole 'instantly carbonzing flesh' thing seems total propaganda speech, but if it could set fire to a vehicle a kilometer away it would still make an interesting weapon. It may not ingite diesel or gasoline fuel directly, but just driving around and suddenly 'wtf all our tyres are on fire?!' is probably enough to stop a vehicle and sent the occupants running for the hills