Lasers take away the personal interaction that normally would take place in a battle or war. It makes the fighting almost like a video game, which desensitizes the soldiers who make use of such weapons. Soldiers should face the full reality of their actions and experience the taking of another human life so that maybe they would decide against it.
I feel lasers should be banned internationally because it gives nations an unfair advantage. Let's say one nation isn't as wealthy as the opposing nation. The nation with more money will have a leg up during the conflict. Lasers are so precise that it would be easy to kill an opponent. No lasers.
I do think that lasers on the battle field should be banned internationally. I do not think it is fair for them to be used. It will potentially expose some soldiers who are hiding. Also it can blind some soldiers. I do not think it is a good thing to have and it should be banned.
The progression of weapons over the centuries has moved conflict and combat farther and farther from responsible decision-makers, both in the military and in civilian government. Warfare has become increasingly distant, fought by "others," with an appalling lack of appreciation for its true costs. Lasers will make war even more "surgical" to policymakers than it is now, and even more distant. It will therefore be easier to consign "volunteer warfighters" (that phrase is in itself a dead giveaway of our current condition) to their heroic fates, knowing that fewer and fewer casualties will be living maimed among us, constantly reminding their neighbors of the costs of a nation's actions.
I don't mind using lasers for sighting the target. I am against directed-energy weapons! DEWs are more barbaric than napalm, and probably more deadly. I am only for ballistics. I don't think for a moment that lasers (or robots) will save our men at arms. Besides, remember Oppenhiemer's pet? I doubt laser will be less destructive in the future.
The use of lasers on the battlefield are another advancement in weapon technology. The whole point of war is to kill your enemy before he kills you, and the use of lasers is just another weapon in the arsenal. As weapon systems get more destructive and deadlier, maybe one day war will become too costly for both sides to even consider that option for settling differences.
Why should laser weapons be banned in war fare. We don't ban IED's, Scud Missiles, Atom Bombs etc. Why would we ban laser eye blinding guns. If someone is worried about hurting the enemy they shouldn't be fighting the enemy in the first place.
Already laser weapons are showing much potency in destructive power. With the advancement of science laser technology may become even more deadly. There are more than enough automatic weapons to kill people excluding the mass killing weapons - which are even worse. In this situation any peace loving man would surely suggest that laser weapons should be banned.
Lasers are needed during battle. Snipers need these to line up a shot to shot down the enemy with ultimate accuracy. They should not ban lasers; we need them!
I doubt that lasers have been developed enough where they could be used as a weapon to cause harm, yet. Lasers are presently used to target incoming bombs, so that the weapon is more precise and causes damage only to the target to, hopefully, avoid collateral damage.
Lasers are a concentrated beam of pure light, whether as a focused ray of electrons or an "aimed" pulse of high-powered gamma radiation. The electrical cost required to form such a beam is relatively low, as compared to the cost of processing and arming a bomb. The precision of a single beam of light is unparallel to any other weapon in the world. Conventional munitions are effected by gravity, drag, wind resistance, and even the rotation of the earth. Even the fastest munition, the Electronic Rail, only matches the speed of Mach 6, slower than a snail next to a cheetah when compared to the speed of light.
Just take the example of Afghanistan or any of the terror stricken middle eastern countries. Whenever a target is located either by the NATO forces or their UAVs, since the identified target is usually hiding amidst populated areas or behind civilian dwellings, even the best targeted missiles/rockets fired result in enormous collateral damage. It has been acknowledged that less than 2% of the casualties from UAVs in Afghanistan have been actual identified targets to date. And this is not counting the several tens of thousands maimed of their limbs, sight, hearing etc. as collateral damage. Mounting HEL lasers on UAVs and aircraft would help focus and eliminate the intended target far more effectively and accurately without such a high proportion of collateral damage.
High powered lasers will probably be used mostly for defense against incoming rockets, mortars and bombs, which could save countless soldier's lives in future wars.
They would also be capable of killing one specific individual in a crowd without hurting anyone around them. You could kill the bad guys without endangering bystanders. And it could be done affordably. In a war against groups like ISIS, this would be ideal.
Lasers are directed weapons, and if used on combatants, less likely to hurt civilians or neutral parties. Unlike nuclear, chemical, depleted uranium or even phosphorus bombs or ammunition, no damage is done to the environment. Other than that, it is not different from ballistic weapons, except more accurate and more powerful.
I think that lasers shouldn't be banned because there is most likely gonna be a country at some point with them. They help improve accuracy and help us defend ourselves. Without lasers we wouldn't have as accurate weaponry. When we use these weapons we are using a tool that helps us. Why should we ban them?
If you tell the military that they aren't allowed to use weapons tech that gives them a distinct advantage on the battlefield, I guarantee that their answer will be "Screw that, we're using it anyway." Moreover, much like the atom bomb, technological advantage ends wars faster, causing less total loss of life.
Very few lasers currently exist that are effective on the battlefield. If, in the future, more practical and deadly lasers emerge, it is hard to see how they would be any worse than current projectile and explosive weapons. In fact, lasers may be more accurate than conventional weapons and reduce collateral damage. Therefore, there is no reason, at the moment, to ban lasers.
I think that lasers on the battlefield are a good thing. They help both sides of the battlefield by being able to line up shots better than before, thus having a lower chance of having civilian casualties. Less civilian casualties saves lives and gives morale to the troops and to the homefront.