Remix.run Logo
outside1234 3 hours ago

This wasn't the military. It was DHS, who is lead by the cosplaying cowboy hat lady, so this sort of incompetence should be completely expected.

opello 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Really making you wonder why does DHS have direct access to this hardware?

bakies 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pentagon gave it to them. The heads of both these orgs are incompetent and should be impeached.

davidw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I thought I read that they borrowed it from the actual military, which tends to be a little bit more cautious with these things.

kube-system 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lasers are not particularly controlled by regulation. Most people in the US can own a class 4 laser if they want.

Also, most laws that do restrict weapons specifically exempt government law enforcement anyway.

opello 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay, but they're not like styropyro on YouTube here... presumably the DHS people are using the whatever government weapons contractor made device, which is going to come with more nuance, controls, targeting system, etc. than whatever someone might buy off the shelf or cobble together independently.

I think it might have actually been DOD people operating the system even, but there's conflicting reporting and I'm not sure. Either way it seems like there was at the very least some kind of coordination failure.

joe_mamba 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://youtu.be/uo63QQsm5Dw?si=SvD7JZrpJbVXF7nf&t=91

andrewflnr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's pretty directly relevant to "homeland security", anti-terrorism, etc. I wouldn't say that's the problem.

Make no mistake, the actual drone terrorism is coming. I guess you could say that only the actual military should handle it, but... Why?

opello 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I may have foolishly accepted the premise of incompetence in posing my question. Basically it seemed to me like the complaint was untrained/experienced (incompetent) people were deciding/deploying the fancy laser munition. That seemed worth of rebuke. After some brief searching I'm less clear about who took what action.

It seemed more like giving police forces (or allowing them to buy) APCs, armored Humvees, etc. Less trained/experienced people using things made for a different use case, ultimately exposes the people to more risk. Instead of say coordinating with the DOD to deploy the system and personnel accepting requests or being the decision maker for "take action" after some level of expertise in the area of evaluating targets and whatever else need be considered has also contributed to the process.

I don't know how it does work, let alone have enough context to imagine how it should. While I do agree "things to deter drones are appropriate border defense tools," the rest of the details painted a picture that seemed less reasonable.

andrewflnr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Mostly agree. I wouldn't give high powered lasers to local police forces either. My point is that the problem is less to do with lasers and anti-drone tech in particular than with incompetence and abuse of power generally. Lasers are just the way it manifested in this instance.

organsnyder 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nuclear weapons are also directly relevant to "homeland security" (at least as a deterrent), yet I doubt many would be in favor of putting them under DHS as well.

andrewflnr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That both of those are labelled "homeland security" is almost a coincidence. Strategic security vs a fancy brand name for counter-terrorism.

kube-system 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nuclear weapons are controlled more specifically by law. Lasers are not.