SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US warns China after lasers injure American pilots in Africa
The United States has issued a formal warning to China after personnel at the Asian country's military base in Djibouti used lasers to interfere with U.S. military aircraft, minorly injuring two pilots, according to the Pentagon.
Top Defense Department spokeswoman Dana White told reporters Thursday that the U.S. is confident the Chinese are behind the "very serious incidents," which have increased in the past few weeks.
"There have been two minor injuries. This activity poses a true threat to our airmen. We have formally demarched the Chinese government. And we've requested that that Chinese investigate these incidents," White said during a Pentagon briefing.
The U.S. government, meanwhile, has warned airmen to be cautious when flying in certain areas in Djibouti, in Africa, due to the recent incidents.
Also at CNN.
Related: A Small Secret Airstrip in Africa is the Future of America's Way of War
China Sends Troops to Djibouti Ahead of Establishment of its First Overseas Military Base
(Score: 5, Interesting) by esperto123 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:45PM (15 children)
So the chinese were probably using lasers to blind cameras on spy planes, some US pilots got too close to the base, maybe unintentionally, probably to spy, got hit by the laser and got partially blind. I don't know if this kind of act is covered by some convention on engagement, but I would call this just china defending their post, they are not obligated to allow foreign powers to see their base.
Next time, use protection glasses.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:58PM (8 children)
I understand your statement, but I disagree.
On one hand you have passive observation.
On the other hand, you have an action which certainly _can_ cause harm, called "reckless endangerment" in legal terms.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @06:54PM (6 children)
> On one hand you have passive observation.
"Spy planes" don't sound very passive.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LVDOVICVS on Friday May 04 2018, @08:06PM (5 children)
It's the difference between looking at someone and poking a stick in their eye.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday May 04 2018, @10:15PM
Thank you, well said. I almost responded, but so many AC comments here are irrational and I've never found a way to correct irrational thinking. Besides, I have more important things to do. Thanks again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @08:39AM (3 children)
Eh?, if you think the act of looking is passive then clearly you've never had the pleasure of drinking at some of the more 'salubrious' pubs and bars out there where a mere wrong glance at someone (or their wife/girlfriend/sister) can start a full scale fight (fun times...)
Got what you meant though..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @11:56AM (2 children)
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/salubrious [dictionary.com]
I don't think it means what you meant, even with single quotes.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday May 05 2018, @12:21PM
First: You are entirely correct in addition to being helpful and you are entirely in the right.
Second: Directed to this site's sizeable contingent insistent upon on misusing language and calling it "progress": Shall we now modify "salubrious" to mean any random thing as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:24PM
No, the use of the word 'salubrious' here to describe a pub/bar where you're likely to have at least one fight a night heralded by the words 'are you looking at my wife|girlfriend|sister?' was perfectly correct.
I do know what the word means, but in context here it's an obvious example of the deliberate misuse of the word to describe a pub/bar which is the exact opposite of the pleasant/agreeable/high-class one that the use of that word normally conjures up, written sarcasm, if you like.
Obviously an idiomatic use that didn't cross the pond.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @01:40AM
What would be the response from a US military base if a foreign country was flying planes that close?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 04 2018, @06:11PM (3 children)
Instead of counter measures, I wonder if it is technically possible for the US to engage in the same kind of laser blinding against Chinese aircraft?
It would require a budget, and laser pointers from a contractor at $50,000 per unit. But it could be done, I think.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday May 04 2018, @07:24PM
"Now remember children, the age of human flight began in 1903 and ended in 2018, which was the start of Cold War II, also known as The Laser War."
(Score: 3, Funny) by RS3 on Friday May 04 2018, @10:24PM
I think the US should use Chinese-made laser pointers.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 04 2018, @10:52PM
As it happens, I have a good supply of high-quality military grade laser pointers [dollartree.com] that I will sell the armed forces for *half* your quoted price.
They are highly portable and feature replaceable power supply units.
At this price, I will also train up to twenty instructors in their use, that the instructors might train the troops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:33AM (1 child)
Lasers can't take out cameras like that anymore. Doesn't do Jack with current filters.
Even if it does do something, it's a camera. Just replace the damaged parts day when a huge frigging laser mounted on a shark is used to burn through it from 50km away. .. Just like in the movies
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:00AM
It isn't about 'taking out' the cameras, but 'degrading' their ability to take clear images, hitting the cameras with a number of beams pulsing at various frequencies in an attempt to both 'dazzle' them and (assuming electromechanical aperture control) to try mess with any ALC, I do know from messing around with my shitty little bridge camera that a standard red laser being shone at it can cause it to lose focus and start the AF 'hunting', though I'd be surprised if military grade surveillance ones would suffer the same (focus would be more or less infinity anyway, I suppose, so AF mostly irrelevant)