Most Powerful Military Handheld Green Story

[Eudaimonium]

You mean, Lockheed AC-130?

You can pack everything into airplanes and warships and whatever. You've heard that by 2016 US Navy plans to install Mega-watt level lasers on Destroyers and Cruisers, powerful enough to destroy missiles in flight and even melt through hull of opposing ships in the right circuimstances?

But no "handheld" laser's gonna do that (which started the discussion).

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

Na he did mean the Lockheed EC-130, and that's interesting about warship lasers. That has potential for the perfect scenario, a water cooled and indirectly nuclear powered laser.

 

[zeramant86]

MBDA Germany demonstrates 40 kW laser gun

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Yes... but that's not exactly a handheld now is it?

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

Yes... but that's not exactly a handheld now is it?

Lol, the handheld I was speculating about must be like a super driven DPSS green, like several watts, with a very high beam density. And the part of his story would make sense that it could set off a heli's flares if the IR isn't filtered out.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

I really don't think it would be DPSS... more likely an IR laser, at 2-3W, if the helicopter has sensors to engage countermeasures while being targeted, my guess is the laser sets them off. It's by no means due to any kind of damage though.

 

[Trevor]

The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of directed energy weapons that powerful against people. This rule was made in the wake of the use of spotlights in WW2 against bombers.

Given that word of such behavior would surely reach the media, the US would not do that.

He was pulling your leg.

Trevor

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

He's not the only guy in the military where I've heard they don't necessarily follow all the rules of war.

 

[Trevor]

He's not the only guy in the military where I've heard they don't necessarily follow all the rules of war.

Just because they don't follow the rules of war doesn't mean a device like he described even exists. Moreover, the Pentagon isn't going to distribute something like that to basic infantry, because it WILL get picked up by Al Jazeera that the US is violating the Geneva Convention.

All it takes is someone saying they got badly burned by a US laser or - also likely - one getting lost or stolen and examined by the opposing side.

I doubt even special forces would get to use something like that, because even then all that it would take was the story getting out and the US would be in major hot water.

Now, moving on to why the device does not exist.

To leave a mark on someone, you need enough power so that it will do a lot of damage before they feel heat and move. In order to actually create a burn, you'd need over 10W - at range, probably over 25W.

In an ideal green laser, you're looking at about 25% efficiency. So, you'd need 40-100W of input. The power requirements would be obscene - and the package would not be something that could be mounted on a rifle, or even easily carried by a soldier.

The most likely scenario? Your friend just wants to impress you with silly stories of nonexistent toys.

Trevor

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

Believe whatever you want to believe, I don't have physical evidence so there isn't a point in arguing. I was really speculative at first but the more questions I asked him the more it seemed like he really might have held such a device.

 

[Lethere Belight]

All our military national defense secret weapons have now just been broadcast to the world.
All because of some guy that couldn't keep his mouth shut.

 

[Eudaimonium]

Believe whatever you want to believe, I don't have physical evidence so there isn't a point in arguing. I was really speculative at first but the more questions I asked him the more it seemed like he really might have held such a device.

Well yeah, I believe the physics researched and established so far.

So unless somebody somewhere developed handheld portable nuclear reactor overnight,

I seriously doubt they have a handheld laser capable of doing what you described.

Bottom line is, I actually believe that either he misunderstood some instructions, or wrongly relayed them to you, or you misunderstood what he was trying to say, or that there was a broken communication line somewhere along the way.

On the other hand,

What the actual f**k is all this bulls**t?

People figured out a way to harmlessly defend themselves from bombes using lights and that's prohibited all of a sudden? (that WW2 story)

Blinding people is illegal but shooting them with a god damned firearm is not?

What kind of convention is that?!

 

[StardustSprinkles]

On the other hand,

What the actual f**k is all this bulls**t?

People figured out a way to harmlessly defend themselves from bombes using lights and that's prohibited all of a sudden? (that WW2 story)

Blinding people is illegal but shooting them with a god damned firearm is not?

What kind of convention is that?!

The US bypassed this problem by using a laser so powerful that it burns them to death instead of just blinding them. So meh. It's just a bit of fine print.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Bottom line is, I actually believe that either he misunderstood some instructions, or wrongly relayed them to you, or you misunderstood what he was trying to say, or that there was a broken communication line somewhere along the way.

You're forgetting the ever so important bragging rights factor... put it all together though, and it fits the story perfectly.

Bottom line is, just as with new guys who want to sell on the forum... proof or it didn't happen

 

[sopark4000]

I remember about 10 months ago a guy had a glare mout for sale. He wanted $1,000 for it. I was so tempted to buy it, especially because he was 30 minutes away from me on Long Island. I had to control myself though.

Just because they don't follow the rules of war doesn't mean a device like he described even exists. Moreover, the Pentagon isn't going to distribute something like that to basic infantry, because it WILL get picked up by Al Jazeera that the US is violating the Geneva Convention.

All it takes is someone saying they got badly burned by a US laser or - also likely - one getting lost or stolen and examined by the opposing side.

I doubt even special forces would get to use something like that, because even then all that it would take was the story getting out and the US would be in major hot water.

Now, moving on to why the device does not exist.

To leave a mark on someone, you need enough power so that it will do a lot of damage before they feel heat and move. In order to actually create a burn, you'd need over 10W - at range, probably over 25W.

In an ideal green laser, you're looking at about 25% efficiency. So, you'd need 40-100W of input. The power requirements would be obscene - and the package would not be something that could be mounted on a rifle, or even easily carried by a soldier.

The most likely scenario? Your friend just wants to impress you with silly stories of nonexistent toys.

Trevor

This.
Obviously the rules of war are broken often enough. But the use of weapons prohibited by the protocol on blinding laser weapons (convention on certain conventional weapons-1980 ) is the kind of rule the US doesn't violate that often, and if they are going to violate it they're not going to allow a couple of infantrymen to know about it. Trevor pretty much said it all.



EDIT- Found the thread with the guy selling the glare mout.
http://laserpointerforums.com/f39/fs-meyers-glare-mout-laser-67792.html

 

[gunbnny]

I know a buddy of mine had one of these for sale not too long ago. if you are still interested, I will see if he still has it.