www.ditl.org

Dumb question, but do you all suppose that those laser pistols they were carrying around in The Cage had some kind of stun setting as well? Wonder how that would have worked.

Lasers don't stun

If the laser flashed really fast in the eye at a low setting it could send someone into a fit...

Aren't there real life military lasers used to blind people temporarily?

There are lights that blind them but I havent heard of lasers for that specific purpose.

I think those lights are lasers.

Rochey wrote:Aren't there real life military lasers used to blind people temporarily?

There are, for both temporary and permanent. There quite illegal under the Geneva Conventions, though there was a CF or RN officer (which one escapes me) that was permanently blinded after his Sea King investigated a Soviet "trawler".

To give you an idea of how anal people are about this kind of device: you're not allowed to use laser pointers to blind armoured vehicle optics anymore because it might cause blindness.

That seems like a strange thing to out law when they allowed cluster bombs up until a few weeks ago.

Teaos wrote:That seems like a strange thing to out law when they allowed cluster bombs up until a few weeks ago.

International military law often makes no sense. The often quoted "illegal to sharpen your bayonet" clause comes to mind.

Why in the hell are you not allowed blind the enemy? Seriously, what's worse: blinding someone or blowing their head off? At least if they're blinded they get to live.

And for the love of all that's holy, please tell me there aren't rules against sharpening a bayonet.

Rochey wrote:Why in the hell are you not allowed blind the enemy? Seriously, what's worse: blinding someone or blowing their head off? At least if they're blinded they get to live.

I believe it's considered to be cruel. But white phosporous is still allowed, so that pretty much falls flat.

And for the love of all that's holy, please tell me there aren't rules against sharpening a bayonet.

I've never been able to confirm it in the actual text of the Genevea or Hague Conventions but we were always told it was illegal to sharpen them. Apperently it also falls under being cruel.

So it's "cruel" to stab people with sharp blades?

Rochey wrote:So it's "cruel" to stab people with sharp blades?

I suspect the reasoning was that if the troops sharpened them, than they would be more inclined to use them.

Don't forget that some of these Conventions date back to 1899, when the bayonet was still considered a valid weapon (it was actually obselete but the mindset had not yet caught up with reality).

It wasnt that obselete. I remember watching a war doco about WWI and their were a quite a lot of bayonet injuries.

Teaos wrote:It wasnt that obselete. I remember watching a war doco about WWI and their were a quite a lot of bayonet injuries.

The bayonet is a close-quarter weapon. A firearm is not. See where I'm going with this?

The only reason all those bayonet wounds were possible in WWI was the insane nature of the conflict, caused (as I noted above) by an obselete military mindset, that thought forming up in a line and charging through MG fire was a good idea. It took the German Strumgruppen tactics in 1918, to finally dispel this attitude (though various Commonwealth countries used tactics other than a headlong charge at the local level).