In case anyone was wondering, as a weapon that "maims or blinds" and explicitly as a violation of the UN Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, one of the few international humanitarian laws the US has ratified, this is a horrible warcrime.
ODIN is what is known as a dazzler laser. That is, it's one of a class of lasers that are intended to blind or distract rather than destroy. Though the legality of using such lasers against human pilots restricts them to only distracting the person by acting like the glare of oncoming headlamps, such lasers can also disable or destroy delicate optical sensors on drones.
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.
Article 3
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
No. Because it's not deliberately designed to do that.
The laser designators that the military uses aren't necessarily eye-safe but that doesn't matter, neither in theory (because that's not their purpose) nor practice (because who's gonna enforce it).
The US wouldn't sign anything that's meaningfully restrictive.
In case anyone was wondering, as a weapon that "maims or blinds" and explicitly as a violation of the UN Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, one of the few international humanitarian laws the US has ratified, this is a horrible warcrime.
Muh rule based international order
I've kind of been following this and it's been utterly depressing watching the US navy going from saying "this is a weapon designed to blind drone sensors, it would be a warcrime to point it at a human"
to (warcrime alert!)
Turns out these weapons can "disable" humans "sensors" as well, isn't that neat!
Lmao this agreement is Swiss cheese.
Warcrime-industrial complex.
The US committing war crimes seems unlikely to me.
Because the US defines what crime is!
Lmao
No. Because it's not deliberately designed to do that.
The laser designators that the military uses aren't necessarily eye-safe but that doesn't matter, neither in theory (because that's not their purpose) nor practice (because who's gonna enforce it).
The US wouldn't sign anything that's meaningfully restrictive.
war crimes machine thwarted by a welding mask