So... hear the latest about "lasers"?
 

I can't believe no one's posted this.

It's pretty hilarious because they're being serious about it. I thought it was a joke: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/09/ter....ap/index.html

Hahaha, seriously now... a terrorist is gonna fire a laser into a cockpit HOW exactly? Sittin over yonder on a hill trying to snipe a laser into something thousands of feet away? Oh gee, not suspicious at all :rolleyes:

They might as well just come out with a report saying, "Evidence of black magic found on terrorist site, terrorists may try to summon satan to attack pilots"

Trust me, planes are far from their todo list at this point.. it's great how we pour all this money and focus all of our attention onto PLANES while we're leaving pretty much everything else wiiiiiide open.

The conservative media is getting a bit ridiculous with the fear mongering these days.

While I agree with your last two lines, the use of lasers to blind a flight crew in the final moments of flight is possible and potentially dangerous, particualrly with older technology airplanes.

Old news... Similar stuff was posted months ago...

It's not a joke to me. No they're not going to "fire" a laser. but like JJ said, use lasers to blind a flight crew during the landing. The fact that they have made it public so now anyone who wants to bring down a plane can know how, eh not so smart.

To clarify, what I meant by that was, that a lot of these "warnings" also help provide suggestions for groups that may have not even thought of it until the american media announced it as a possibility.

I'm not so sure that "everyone who wants to bring down a plane" would have access to the kind of laser required to pull something like this off (does such a laser even exist!?), and even "organised" terrorists would have a hard time of it. Add to this the logistical nightmare of setting it up and you're left with a completely inefficient and not-a-little-weird type of terrorist attack. I mean what are they supposed to do? Sprint down the runway brandishing laser pens obtained from christmas crackers?

Besides, terrorists want their work to be noticed, so I find it unlikely that they'd favour such a subtle method of bringing down a plane over firing a simple rocket for all to see.

I wonder what works better, the flying saucer or star adapter?

I'm not sure that a portable laser powerful enough to do this exists outside of the US military.
EDIT:
In theory it certainly is possible, but very very complicated.

Since pilots have been temporarily blinded by lasers in the past, I fail to see why this is a laughing matter.

When the Luxor hotel first opened, the pyramid panned the sky with lasers. Then they were forced to stop. Can anyone guess what forced them to stop?

The thing is, it's highly improbable.

Anything can happen. I'm not saying it can't, there's just no need to make a news story about anything and everything a terrorist "could do".

I'm still not sure this isn't a troll, but I'll go ahead and post a couple of links relating an incident in 1997. I assume that will take out the usual "Neocon" rants.

Laser 1

Laser 2

And here's a little medical literature:

Laser 3

It's from the United States Naval Flight Surgeon Handbook: 2nd Edition 1998

I'm having a very hard time seeing the humor in eye damage of others. I've seen temporary bannings for less.

when it comes to weaponry I tend not to say "Improbable"

I mean look at hellfire missles, ballistic armor, oxygen removal bombs and so forth. Things that are normally sci-fi become real when it comes to weapon

Soldiers are also provided with goggles to protect against lasers. A tank armed with a laser range finder could do it.

Tom Clancy had some of his characters bring down some aircraft in one of his books using a tightly focussed light that sent the crew into epileptic fits.
In the same book, a Japanese airline captain flies his fully fueled 747 into the Capitol building.

If an author can think of it and has researched it and found it to be plausible, why not a terrorist?

There so much a terrorist could do. It's most likely some bored kids just sitting on the hood of their cars under the approach path of the aircraft. Bored mormon kids. They can't drink so they may as well blind people. ;)

but really, why is this news? true, maybe some hero can stop an evil laser operator because they knew what to look for. but it just doesn't seem to do more than frighten regular people and help terrorists brainstorm.

is our food supply safe? what about all those containers coming into the country? are power facilities amply protected?
some may be valid concerns, but it starts to wear on you after a while.

Welcome to the real world.
Take our word for it, you get used to it in a while and the only real problem is the trip to work when another bomb stops traffic or trains.

It'll soon become old news.

I would say say that the idea of a terrorist attempting to use a laser is plausible, but probably not at the top of their list. BTW, are all landings non-instrument? Frankly, I'm just living to hear Georgie W. talk about the issue in a Dr. Evil voice.

if it actually happened i'm sure stompy would be one of the first to blame the grossly negligent Bush administration for ignoring the warnings.

Warnings like "Osama Bin Laden is planning a major attack soon in the US" is vastly different from those of:

"Terrorists COULD put a flammable bar of soap in a gigantic slingshot the size of a house and aim it at the engine in an attempt to blow up the plane!!!"

It's highly improbable, not news worthy. Maybe for the onion, but not for CNN. There are many more realistic scenarios a terrorist COULD do other than firing a fuckin LASER at pilots!

It's funny that people actually take this seriously... "omg, but it COULD HAPPEN!" Looks like we can easily pick apart those who fall subject to these stories :hmm:

:lol::lol::lol:

You have yet to provide anything that establishes the improbability, or even difficulty, of using lasers in the manner suggested.

Can we expect any verification from you in this regard, or is your ridicule of the idea to be all we need?

i guess it's debatable whether these warnings are defining attributes of the real world. sure, certain real events make people pay attention, but so far the warnings themselves have served little purpose save overblown news items.

i can't avoid a peripheral knowledge of these things, but i certainly don't dwell events that have a 0.00...0001% chance of happening (and a negligible chance of affecting me directly). i'd argue that reality is not contained in hyped commercial teasers, despite their ubiquitous nature in our lives. although i attempt to ignore them, it is nearly impossible to do so without ignoring the news altogether.

I hear the terrorists are going to use sharks with lasers on their heads.

ok, here is one way to look at this (from a post of mine a weeks back).
if terrorists completely destroyed a mall each month, the odds of your resulting death is still negligible.
now, we are assuming that one mall WILL be destroyed monthly.
if you agree that the event of a laser interfering with a pilot is less likely (again, we assume 100% chance of a mall destroyed monthly), you can see how important this laser scare actually is.

you die from laser + plane < hypothetical monthly mall destruction kills you
??? < 6 million to 1

http://www.anxietyandstress.com/sys...whataretheodds/

If terrorists killed 2 million people in the US, you would still have less than a 1% chance of dying.

Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned?

Seriously, I can't figure out how it would be possible to shine a laser into a pilot's eyes unless the laser was at a higher altitude than the cockpit of the aircraft.

I feel a diagram coming on...

Odds are the time you would do it would be when the plane was landing and the nose was pitched down. This would also be the most effective time as well.

Exhibit A:

http://img104.exs.cx/img104/4858/plane5zi.jpg

1% would be a lot. If I had a 1% chance of winning a $50 million lottery, I'd be playing it constantly. As is, I never play the lottery and my chances of winning are about the same as if I did.

Terrorism is nothing to be concerned about, to the degree that this country is concerned about it. But it damn sure makes a mighty fine Machiavellian method of controlling the populace. Be afraid! Be very afraid! I will protect you!

What about crazy drivers? Now they're dangerous, even with all the laws and regulations we have in place to reduce the killing they produce. Let's ban all cars.

And don't forget farmers' alamancs.

Why does that last sentence remind me of John Kerry?

And that one reminds me of gun control laws.

Guess it all comes down to who owns that ox.

Probably because you're confusing Dick "Mushroom Cloud" Cheney or George "Imminent Threat" Bush or Tom "Terror Alert! Terror Alert!" Ridge with Kerry.
Let's ban all Muslims.

Hold on here though..wouldn't they have a better chance shooting at the plane with FLAK than with a "laser" and how massive would this laser have to be. Would it look like a flak emplacement, because it wouldn't be conspicous by any means.

Trick with a laser is that it would be pretty hard to trace to the source. You try using a pom-pom gun and see how long before they find ya :P

Ok I have seen professors unable to keep a laser correctly possitioned on a still projection from 20 feet away. So terrorists are going to be able to hit something the size of a nickel from large distances that is moving at 100+ miles an hour?

That is friggin hilarious :icare:

Such detail, the only thing missing is a turbin

sure, if terrorism was happening regularly we would be concerned with more than just our own lives. but i really don't think those numbers are misleading.

1:6,000,000 is roughly 0.000 016 667 %. chance of being struck by lightning is between 2 and 20 times greater (depending who you ask). chance of dying in a car accident is about 1:250 (0.4%). regardless, if you don't worry about lightning, you shouldn't worry about le threat du jour. of course, it's not my place to make up your mind. this is just simple math, but perhaps even that is debatable here.

not that our leaders should be complacent. they should do their best given their resources to protect us from legit issues. the average person, however, could calm down a bit.

That's like asking me to prove the improbability of the flammable bar of soap... I really don't think you need statistics, detailed diagrams, or a detailed report from scientists at MIT to understand how absurd and improbable it is.

Whatever happened to common sense and using your head?

The point of this thread is... why report on something ridiculous like LASERS? "Terrorists could use lasers to blind pilots! It was in a Tom Clancy novel, so it's GOTTA be realistic!" Come on now...

"Terrorists COULD be stealing your identity online, getting advanced plastic surgery to mimic someone you know, and infiltrating your family in an attempt to kill you"

"Terrorists COULD sprinkle anthrax into the Quaker Oatmeal factory, infecting millions of americans across the country"

Where does it end? :lol:

Do you not understand that this casues unnecessary paranoia? People are so obsessed with terrorists after 9/11, but they don't realize that they were INCREDIBLY lucky to even get away with THAT!

As open and unmonitored as most of our borders are, if the terrorists were even a fraction as smart or tactical as the media is leading us to believe, as if they were this underground cult of genius madmen, there would have been another attack somewhere by now.

They have nothing.

I'm not saying turn your back and ignore the problem all "ho hum", but damn, there's really no need for these kind of reports. They serve no purpose to the general public except fear and paranoia in the back of your mind of "Shit, next time I could get on a plane, terrorists could blind the pilot!!"

Why is that so hard to understand?

Also, my Bulgarian friend keeps mentioning an incident where Russia was attacked by the Chinese army and supposedly the army totally disapeared. He goes on to explain that the Russians used a "laser" and that is why there were no survivors. I don't believe him one bit but now that there is this topic I thought I should bring it up for discussion.

I'm still more concerned about a terrorist with a few syringes full of BSE-infected blood running around and sticking them in whole herds of beef cattle..

Good thing, because you won't get them.

I don't plan to post the entire web pages, but here are two links: One from a Marine Major, and another from Boeing. They both disagree with you.

Boeing

Marine

What ever happened to accuracy in posting?


Better tell that to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Oh, and you can tell the world that Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons is unnecessary.

New Scientist

I was thinking the exact same thing myself.

sob, you're completely missing the point.

I'm sure there are tons of articles you can find with google that describe using lasers as potential weapons, just like I'm sure there are tons of articles on how terrorists can use plastic surgery in an attempt to steal an official's identity. Just because you link to something doesn't make it factual or any more realistic.

I said multiple times that sure, the possibility is there, but not very likely.

Regardless, it remains a very silly thing to report on.

[edit]
Perfect example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/

How bout another? http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/...3002/221502375

Wee, this is fun! http://www.bjhc.co.uk/news/1/2004/n41203.htm

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00020.html

I really could go on and on... understand what I'm trying to say now?

LMFAO! Great diagram. I had a similiar thought myself, "wouldn't they have to be above the level of the cockpit?" Maybe it would be possible with a nearby building or mountain, but then the distance would be immense. Pilots are perfectly capable of landing the plane without looking out the cockpit as well; though once you detected an attack like this it would probably be too late.

Personally I'm much more worried about the mundane and unspectacular types of attacks that are more likely: food poisoning, anthrax, BSE in our cattle stocks (lets not give them any bright ideas now!), etc.

BSE = mad cow disease? If so, all you'd need is one messed up cow and every country around will be boycotting your meat. Just ask Canada eh.

Yep, Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis. It's already been found in U.S. stocks and boycotts have already been issued. The beef industry in America is particularly adept (ask Oprah about this) at covering up issues that make them look bad. So if there was a terrorist attack like this we'd likely never hear about it until it was much too late.

I too question the newsworthyness of this story, but deffinitely not the validity. As an Air Force flightcrew member I have been warned throughout the course of my career about the use of lasers. Do terrorists poses the technology to make these things? No, but the former Soviet Union HAD them and we all know where all of the USSR's Cold War surplus of stuff has gone... Oh wait, no we don't cause they have sold it off to anyone with some cash.

You still haven't explained why there is a Geneva Convention Protocol on it, if it's as silly as you say.

Speaking of understanding, can you accept the concept that if the public is informed of a very feasible means of terrorist attack, that the public might be more likely to report suspicious activities of that nature to the authorities?

Otherwise, Bush/US haters would have a field day claiming that "the government was asleep at the switch/withheld vital information, etc., ad nauseum.

Hrrm... I didn't know Heathkit made a laser-tracking system.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines
---
FBI Probing Laser Directed Into Jet's Cockpit
Wednesday, December 29, 2004


STORIES
•
Terrorists May Use Lasers to Down Planes
CLEVELAND — Authorities are investigating a mysterious laser beam that was directed into the cockpit of a commercial jet traveling at more than 8,500 feet.

The beam appeared Monday when the plane was about 15 miles from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (search), the FBI said.

"It was in there for several seconds like [the plane] was being tracked," FBI agent Robert Hawk said.

The pilot was able to land the plane, and air traffic controllers used radar to determine the laser came from a residential area in suburban Warrensville Heights.

Hawk said the laser had to have been fairly sophisticated to track a plane traveling at that altitude. Authorities had no other leads, and are investigating whether the incident was a prank or if there was a more sinister motive.

Federal officials have expressed concern about terrorists using laser beams, which can distract or temporarily blind a pilot. ...continued online...
---

How does RADAR track a laser?

Nice link. My local news also reported the two incidents of lasers in cockpits of flights over Colorado.

Time for a review:


Locobot? Manx? Are these just more Bush/Cheney scare tactics?

I have to agree with sob here. Stompy, you are being a little too dismissive.

A few thoughts:

it should be obvious to all that such a laser could be located anywhere within the pilots' visual range from the cockpit. If he can see you, then you can hit his eyes with a laser. Of course, the farther away you are, the harder it will be to aim, so your best shot is going to be on approach.

I voted for Kerry, so please don't accuse me of being an apologist, but I think all this crap about alarmist terror warnings is hypocritical. YOu can question the timing (and I do), but you can't question the release of the information. Put yourself in the administration's position, if you will. You capture an al Qaeda operative or uncover some al Qaeda documents and find out they have been studying a particular attack. What would you do? If you don't release it as a warning to police, etc., and the attack is used, do you think people will say "well, it's ok that they knew this was possible and didn't tell anyone, b/c they knew not to freak everyone out with every possible type of attack"

In fact, knowing that they have no choice but to release the information, if I were a terrorist I would keep documents suggesting I'd studied every kind of attack under the sun just so as to keep people afraid. Keeping people afraid is exactly my goal, and all the better if I can make the administration do my work for me.

finally, this is 20/02 hindsight, of course, but it is now clear that such an attack is entirely plausible, so clearly you were wrong in saying it was highly improbable, etc. Next time, feel free to say you think something improbable, but acknowledge that you could be mistaken.

There's a post in the general discussion area, and also on fark.com (I know bad source) of rampant laser usuage against airplanes.

balderdash,

actually, what you need to do is differentiate between probability and plausability. Stompy doens't have a problem discerning the two.

Plausibility is whether something can happen. Stompy said he realized that it could happen.

Probability is whether something will happen, or how often it might occur in a given number of instances in a population.

Stompy claims that these incidents are not very likely to occur, not that it is unable to occur, but that we should be worried about threats and incidents that are more likely (far more likely, in fact) than these in terms of our safety.

What is he mistaken about?

Whoops, I didn't know this was here, otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread in General Discussion. Honestly, I thought this was a brand new story when I posted it.

Gosh, I really had no idea what the difference was between probability and plausibility. Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you really so pedantic?

I think you are looking back at Stompy's posts with rose-tinted glasses.

Yes, I happen to have chosen his use of the term "highly improbable" as an example of how Stompy dismissed this as an issue, and yes, I suppose that opened me up to the fairly silly critique you made above.

However...

Stompy was clearly ridiculing anyone who took this seriously. Yes, he/she said it could happen, but he also made it quite clear that he/she thought it had about an equal chance of success as me shooting a 747 pilot in the eye with a BB gun. From the ground. He/She refused to even consider that such an attack was a serious concern.

SOB's post contains a nice set of excerpts. Please read that again to refresh your memory. Even better, read all of Stompy's posts for the full sense of tone.

In case you missed it, my point has very little to do with the difference between plausibility and probability. It has to do with Stompy's dismissive attitude toward something that turned out to be a legitimate concern.

Thanks.

Edit: one more note: Stompy's problem was not whether he/she was right or wrong. It was about tone. I happen to agree with the point that people should focus on attacks that are more likely to occur, but Stompy could have made it in a far less dismissive tone.

Here is how I would have done it:

Yes, I suppose you could blind a pilot with a laser beam from the ground, but it seems to me like that would be far too difficult to pull off. Plus, unless you can treat the windows in some way to block the laser beams, I don't seem much you can do to defend against it. I think we would be better served to focus on attacks that are more easily carried out and that we can do something to prevent.

I think more people will die this year because of car accidents then they will because of laser beams being shot at planes. Thats just my guess. I think more people will die this year of being struck by lightning than laser beams being shot at planes... I just see it as highly improbable. Especially since most of the landing is controlled by the plane it's self. And this would require blinding 2 piolets. The equipment to do this is highly sophesticated and would be diffuclt to move around without someone noticing. My guess is we have some childern doing pranks and because it got in the media more are doing it now.

More people will die in car accidents this year than died in the WTC attack. It doesn't make you feel any better if you're on the plane.


Right and wrong. The equipment is available, and at least this instance appears to have been a "prank."

Link

If we didn't have a legal means to arrest this guy before the Patriot Act, it would seem that it's a law whose time has come.