JFZ/LJ
As mentioned earlier, Admiral Sandy Woodward mentions the Flasher in
One Hundred Days. Some years earlier (l980/1990?), one of the tabloids got hold of the pictures and printed them.
Anyway, Sandy Woodward gives a clue as to the purpose of dazzlers. He discusses what happens when low flying aircraft attack ships, which does not present a challenge in terms of lining up, as pilots have to do this to land. What does present a challenge to the attacking pilot is timing bomb release, particularly for those inexperienced in attacking maritime targets. He then discusses why the doctrine is for ships being attacked this way is to turn beam on to the attacker, in order to make that judgement as hard as possible.
I would imagine that a visible light laser could be an additional problem, as it would make it harder to judge the distance to the target ship, and surely a pilot would have a natural tendency to pull up? In some ways it would be like using an IR jammer to blind a missile.
Lasers that deliberately cause permanent damage to the eye are prohibited under international law on the grounds that they causes excessive and unnecessary suffering. See Ch 6.15 of JSP 383: the
Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict:
‘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.' These weapons must not be transferred to other states or non-state entities.
Other laser systems may be employed against military objectives, for example, against military optical equipment even though this may cause incidental effects, including blindness, to the users of that equipment.
‘In the employment of laser systems, . . . all feasible precautions’ must be taken ‘to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision’.
JSP 390: military laser safety is also worth reading.