Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 'cat's eyes' laser that can help British troops pinpoint a sniper before he pulls the trigger
dailymail.co.uk ^ | January 12, 2009 | Mail Foreign Service

Posted on 01/13/2009 6:52:44 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY

Snipers or assassins could be spotted in their nests before even firing a shot thanks to laser surveillance technology to be unveiled in Britain.

European and U.S. companies are accelerating research into anti-sniper defences in response to threats in Afghanistan and Iraq and at home.

But most systems use acoustic or thermal sensors that depend on waiting for the first shot.

An alternative developed by the European aerospace group EADS aims to warn of attack and pinpoint the sniper before he pulls the trigger by bouncing light off his telescopic sight.

'It is the same principle as 'cat's eyes' in the middle of the road,' said Peter Talbot-Jones, research team leader at EADS Innovation Works at Newport in Wales.

'Cat's eyes' behave like the retina of a cat by reflecting light from a car's headlamps to illuminate lines on the road.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: banglist; catseye; oneshotonekill; snipers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

1 posted on 01/13/2009 6:52:44 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Does anyone else get the feeling that these technical innovations in counter-insurgency warfare make the second amendment even more irrelevent than it already is when it comes to protecting against the government?


2 posted on 01/13/2009 6:57:26 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

You think the Second Amendment is irrelevant?


3 posted on 01/13/2009 7:00:00 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

“Does anyone else get the feeling that these technical innovations in counter-insurgency warfare make the second amendment even more irrelevent than it already is when it comes to protecting against the government?”

IMO it makes it even more important.


4 posted on 01/13/2009 7:00:12 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
What happens the first time they kill an 8 year old girl with a video camera...
5 posted on 01/13/2009 7:00:30 PM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Yep.....I was thinking the very same.


7 posted on 01/13/2009 7:03:41 PM PST by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

RElax.

These kinds of technologies end up being like radar guns for cops. First someone invents the radar gun. Then the radar detector. Then better radar. THen better detectors. Then instant on radar. THen...

They will never be king of the hill forever.


8 posted on 01/13/2009 7:04:03 PM PST by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Iron Sights.


9 posted on 01/13/2009 7:05:08 PM PST by omega4179 (Bush Abandoned Ramos and Compean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Bat Man

http://www.botachtactical.com/killflash1.html


10 posted on 01/13/2009 7:06:25 PM PST by omega4179 (Bush Abandoned Ramos and Compean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I’d think some type of polarized filter over the objective lens would defeat this pretty easily.


11 posted on 01/13/2009 7:08:17 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Not for something like crime-prevention, no. But for having the potential to rebel against a tyrannical government, yes. And whatever you say about every measure having a countermeasure, the government is always going to be way ahead of the curve compared to your average joe....


12 posted on 01/13/2009 7:11:46 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

bump


13 posted on 01/13/2009 7:13:04 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Bat Man

There are millions of armed citizens in my state of Michigan alone. There are probably similar numbers in the rest of the midwest states as well.


14 posted on 01/13/2009 7:15:31 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Since you are in the UK, you may not be aware of how heavily armed many parts of the US happen to be. Churchill said “We will fight them in the hills, in the fields, and on the landing grounds”. I suspect that the UK no longer has a serious ability to do that. The US can.


15 posted on 01/13/2009 7:20:33 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Do they have gear capable of taking down helicopter gunships, fighter-bombers and tanks, or just small arms?
The government also has technology that can detect the trajectory of home-made mortars and is getting better at detecting IEDs, and now detecting snipers before they can even fire a shot.
As the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, you can’t hope to defeat a western military, the best you can hope to do is survive....


16 posted on 01/13/2009 7:34:03 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
Do they have gear capable of taking down helicopter gunships, fighter-bombers and tanks, or just small arms?

We're talking about sheer numbers and even a 2 million man army with all it's technology will lose against a poorly armed army of 100 million or more.
17 posted on 01/13/2009 7:39:13 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Also, huge numbers of our military would refuse to fight a war against their own citizens. I suspect that a lot of military equipment would fall under civilian control that way.

It really doesn’t matter. It’s just mental acrobatics at this point anyway.


18 posted on 01/13/2009 7:41:58 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

You’re spot on. The members of the army have to live here, too. An army that tried to brutally suppress the US populace would find that their communities would turn on them. The result would be very unpleasant.


19 posted on 01/13/2009 7:45:03 PM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Spot on.

Also, let's not kid ourselves -- if it really hits then fan, less than 100% of the US military will side with the tyrannical government. Robert E. Lee was offered command of Abraham Lincoln's army. Lee decided to fight for the other side. This pattern will repeat in some measure.

So, rebels in the US will have a 100 million man army, and some armored divisions, and some serious anti-aircraft capability, and some ...

20 posted on 01/13/2009 7:45:29 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

wow. technology gets more cool. I thought those micro-radar devices that can tell you where a bullet came from was cool.


21 posted on 01/13/2009 7:46:24 PM PST by GeronL (sanity prone freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Robert E Lee did not grow up thinking of the US as his country he grew up loyal to his home state. I think at least 70% of soldiers will side with the one signing their paychecks, at the LEAST


22 posted on 01/13/2009 7:48:03 PM PST by GeronL (sanity prone freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I think at least 70% of soldiers will side with the one signing their paychecks, at the LEAST

That would be the taxpayers unless a foreign nation decided to bankroll them. Of course they would no longer be fighting for America or it's government at that point.
23 posted on 01/13/2009 7:53:16 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Very true about Lee and his state-centered sense of patriotism. But how many members of the current US military do you think grew up loyal to a communist dictatorship with heavy Muslim sympathies? I suspect that rather less than 70% of the military would fight fellow Americans in order to prop up such tyranny.


24 posted on 01/13/2009 7:54:34 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I mean they will fight for government in any civil war


25 posted on 01/13/2009 7:54:43 PM PST by GeronL (sanity prone freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

well, we can pray they will side with the right side


26 posted on 01/13/2009 8:01:11 PM PST by GeronL (sanity prone freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

What the insugencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, to anybody who cares to think about it, is that a few thousand motivated people can keep a large modern army tied up for years.


27 posted on 01/13/2009 8:05:30 PM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Solution: a bunch of old 35mm camera lenses, bottom of old coke bottles, etc. hung from wires at different places.


28 posted on 01/13/2009 8:24:22 PM PST by ikka (Brother, you asked for it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

So you’re relying on the fact that the soldiers who you’ve been blowing up and shooting at will want to join your side? That’s a massive ‘if’, and if you’re relying on them joining you and bringing their equipment with them, doesn’t this make the second amendment a moot point?

Also, what makes you think that the entire citizenry would be on your side? Lets take the example of the War of Independence, which was also essentially a civil war between loyalists on the side of the government and the rebels.
The technology available at the time meant that a rebel force could equip itself to something approaching an equal standard to government forces, in the case of rifles, even better, and was capable of defeating a government force conventionally in the field in the right circumstances. Even then though, without French assistence, especially naval support, the rebels had next to no chance of actually being able to trap and destroy a government army and thus bring the war to an end.
This was less the case during the American civil war, but in that case, the rebels still put up a good fight before the superior equipment available to the Union told against them.
Nowadays though, the disparity is huge. It may have been feasible a couple of centuries ago for a citizen’s militia to get some horses and cannons, but getting tanks and helicopters/jet fighters etc is just not feasible.
Sure, a rebel force may be able to inflict a few casualties like they are in Afghanistan, but the casualties are going to be a lot greater on your side, and as for any dreams of defeating a government army in the field and driving it away so you can storm Washington DC and overthrow the government, forget it. Not going to happen. Best you can hope for is to survive for a long time until everybody gets sick of fighting and the government is prepared to make a few token concessions to you to allow you to keep some of your pride intact as you surrender yourselves and go back to a peace were it is unlikely you will have achieved anything meaningful for your efforts...


29 posted on 01/13/2009 8:26:00 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

“Does anyone else get the feeling that these technical innovations in counter-insurgency warfare make the second amendment even more irrelevent than it already is when it comes to protecting against the government?”

You obviously know nothing of the second or this device or sniper rifles. Just shut up and wear your chains quietly.


30 posted on 01/13/2009 8:34:25 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“Since you are in the UK”

Oh, sorry, I didn’t know he was just a nancyboy whose sister is dating a camel jockey.


31 posted on 01/13/2009 8:35:39 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.


32 posted on 01/13/2009 8:35:54 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

They will just use foreign troops and significantly reduce the size of the US military should an internal rebellion become a threat. This is to prevent a coup attempt and/or mass desertion.


33 posted on 01/13/2009 8:35:59 PM PST by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
The US (as evidenced by recent elections) is easily divided into two demographic blocks.

The first block lives in cities and survives in large part off government hand-outs. These people do not grow food, do not manufacture anything, cannot fix anything, in many cases cannot drive a car, and mostly do not own guns.

The second block lives outside cities, grows food, makes stuff, fixes stuff, owns a variety of vehicles, and often owns many weapons, some of considerable firepower.

The first thing to know is that the population in the first block begins to die off very quickly if the second block decides to stop sending them food and supplies. Riots in the cities will hasten this die-off. The second thing to realize is that a tyrannical government (like all governments) is supported by taxes levied against the producing class. Well, the producing class just stopped paying. The third thing to know is that the supporters of a tyrannical government are supporters largely because the government gives them goodies. Well, the goodies just stopped coming because the tax revenues just dried up. So support for the tyranny is on a constant downward slope.

There wouldn’t be any real pitched battles. There’s no point to any sweeping envelopment by armored divisions. What are you going to envelop? The Midwest?? No. The war ends quickly because the government and its supporters cannot function without active, constant support from the producing class. Any gleanings that may provide subsistence to the tyrants can be interdicted through simple guerrilla tactics by any of about 100 million good old boys who like to have a little fun and watch things blow up.

In a backward country like Afghanistan, low-level fighting can go on for a long time because (usually) both sides have little, require little, and are willing to get by with whatever comes to hand. The US simply isn't like that. The government of the US is an extremely high-maintenance machine. Care and feeding of that beast requires huge resources. Disrupt the flow, push the government toward the status of a backward nation, and the only supporters left will have names like Kennedy and Clinton. Everyone else will have jumped ship.

34 posted on 01/13/2009 9:02:36 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Does anyone else get the feeling that these technical innovations in counter-insurgency warfare make the second amendment even more irrelevant than it already is when it comes to protecting against the government?


I guess you have never seen a competent rifleman shoot a man-sized target reliably at 600 yards with iron sights.

That’s the kind of shooting that won WWII.


35 posted on 01/13/2009 9:52:15 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Guns don't kill people. Criminals and the governments that create them kill people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

And some aircraft as well.

Load up privately owned P-51s with its 6 or 8 Brownings.


36 posted on 01/13/2009 10:20:27 PM PST by wastedyears (In Canada, Santa says "Ho Ho, eh?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

They used .308 and 30.06 in WWII. Much different mindset before the M-16 was manufactured.


37 posted on 01/13/2009 10:26:50 PM PST by wastedyears (In Canada, Santa says "Ho Ho, eh?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
http://www.botachtactical.com/killflash1.html

LOL! Good story shot down with a single link!

38 posted on 01/13/2009 10:34:22 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan; All
I think you have it backwards. It is not so much the citenzentry's ability to protect itself against a government which would attack it, as it is making it unthinkable for any sane government to attempt any tyranny which would arouse the armed resistance of a substantial percentage of the population.

Moreover, a technological population has more potential weapons at its disposal than just the small arms its individuals have at hand. A simplistic example is the case of the West Virginia State Guard, back in the ‘80’s. The unit, knowing itself to be part of the legal State Militia, believed that the laws permitted itself to obtain and maintain heavy weapons, and so they obtained 3 M24 light tanks and a 75mm mountain howitzer. All had been ‘demilitarized,’ but the State Guardsmen included machinists, who put them back in working order. They then secured these privately owned but State Militia dedicated ordinance items at State NG Armories. Where they were discovered by state and Federal officials, to their horror.
Said authorities, since the State Guardsmen had neglected to obtain anyone's authorization to reactivate these weapons, confiscated them. Now imagine that these had not been trusting and law-abiding citizens, but fed-up individuals feeling oppressed by the recurring petty tyrannies of a government aiming to bring them to a state of subjection and slavery.

39 posted on 01/13/2009 11:50:25 PM PST by VietVet (I am old enough to know who I am and what I believe, and I 'm not inclined to apologize for any of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

You would think a Brit would know this lesson better than anyone. After all, the most advanced military machine in the world lost to a 3rd world non nation in the revolutionary war. The king even outlawed the sale of metal farm implements do to the fear that they would become weapons. We wore them down and drove them out despite british decrees ordering the release of slaves to create a ready made army.

Even sadder are Americans who think American soldiers will happily kill Americans for a paycheck. To me that shows a real lack of respect for our men and women in uniform.


40 posted on 01/14/2009 3:34:02 AM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Bookmark


41 posted on 01/14/2009 3:49:55 AM PST by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
No biggie, I can hit a 1sqft target at 1000m using open sights on my M1 Garand (learned to do it when I was in the Navy). Just have to know the ballistics of your round, how to judge and adjust for windage and elevation, and have a steady firing posture, and a decently accurate weapon.

Scopes are nice, but you shouldn't rely on them all of the time.

42 posted on 01/14/2009 4:32:50 AM PST by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VietVet

You would never have them in the quantities neccessary to turn the tide, and those that you did have would quickly be eliminated. Remember, the taliban used to have tanks and heavy artillery, thats gone now, because its impossible to utilise and conceal them against a western army...


43 posted on 01/14/2009 5:15:37 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Did you read what I said about the revolutionary war?


44 posted on 01/14/2009 5:16:45 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Nope. I’ve pretty much written you off at this point.


45 posted on 01/14/2009 5:20:07 AM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Thats one hell of a prejudicial assumption you’re making that all the people on the government’s side are going to be useless, city-dwelling, dole claiming incompetents. Fact is, there will always be a sizable chunk of the population that will take the view that you are terrorists and traitors and thus side with the government. That’s how it worked out in the revolutionary war.
And by the way, during the American Civil War, there were plenty of US soldiers who were prepared to smite rebellious citizens fighting against a tyrannical federal government that was exceeding its remit and had introduced outrageous violations like the suspension of habeus corpus and conscription, which affected not just the south, but also the North. Particularly in New York City during the draft riots in 1863...


46 posted on 01/14/2009 5:29:05 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

They used .308 and 30.06 in WWII. Much different mindset before the M-16 was manufactured.


You make my point. The military may have switched to poodle-shooters, but there are a whole lot of 30 caliber rifles still in the hands of ordinary citizens who can shott with iron sights.


47 posted on 01/14/2009 5:30:06 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Guns don't kill people. Criminals and the governments that create them kill people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Well, if you are not even prepared to engage with my argument, it doesn’t say much about viability of your opinion does it? Oh well, your loss....


48 posted on 01/14/2009 5:31:06 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Even sadder are Americans who think American soldiers will happily kill Americans for a paycheck. To me that shows a real lack of respect for our men and women in uniform.


It sounds like you are describing our unionized, militarized “law enforcement” agencies, the “standing army” our Founders feared.


49 posted on 01/14/2009 5:32:40 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Guns don't kill people. Criminals and the governments that create them kill people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

One of my neighbors is a cop. He’s a good man and a great American.


50 posted on 01/14/2009 5:34:45 AM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson