I don't think there is a clear argument that it isn't realistic to be done from a technology standpoint -- in other words, I don't think this laser meaningfully changes things from a capabilities standpoint. The necessary miniaturization and precision are available.
Now, you may think I have the facts wrong, here -- that we haven't had the kind of precise turret before, or that we can't deliver small arms ammunition with great precision -- but you don't come out and say that: you haven't said I have bad facts.
If we accept that the technical capabilities have been there for a while, then we need another explanation for what the hold up is. I have offered an alternative, which is that it comes down to doctrine or operational issues -- it's not easy to see how to deploy a weapon system that automatically targets people without creating huge practical problems. I offered two concrete cases in my earlier comment. Here again, you haven't really spoken to them: you haven't said, for example, A is not a problem and here's why not. You have just ignored them.
It is really starting to look like you have a story and you are sticking to it.
My argument is that bullets move slow, can miss causing obvious damage to surrounding infra that shows up on cameras, that they are loud and that minaturization is important to making this a real trend. You started with CWIS which is massive and has a lot of maintenance. I don't have information on the small precise turrets you mentioned. Please provide it. Either way my arguments still stand. What may have not been done in the past because it was technically possible but not practical is now quickly becoming technically possible and practical and therefore will be built. We are seeing minaturization, simplification and movement towards a weapon system that minimizes camera unfriendly damage while also seeing a massive improvement in surveillance identification and tracking tech. The trend is there and it is pretty clear that it leads to a capability to track a city down to the individual and to be able, at any time, to hit a button to kill a bunch of people. This is a capability that will be developed and what is morally right never stops weapons development, just what is practical. We need to have the discussion sooner rather than later about how to handle these weapons on the battlefield and just as importantly how to keep them away as 'peacekeeping' use in civilian populations.
Is sounds like you're saying something that "...was technically possible but not practical..." is no longer impractical, or at least is "...now quickly becoming technically possible and practical...", because of these additional facts that should be considered:
(A) "...bullets move slow, can miss causing obvious damage to surrounding infra..." -- In other words, the precision I say is possible with small arms isn't realistic. This has two consequences:
(A1) The bullets can miss. Consider a bullet on its way to a target 500m way -- it may be in the air for more than half a second. Maybe the target was walking forward at 1m/s and just stops walking forward -- then the bullet will pass 50cm in front of them. This kind of miss is unacceptable can prevents technology like the kind you imagine from being deployed.
(A2) If the bullet misses, it will put a whole in a wall, &c, &c, whereas a laser either (A2A) will not miss or (A2B) won't cause a problem if it misses?
Regarding (A2A) and (A2B), are either or both of them something you had in mind?
(B) "...they are loud..." -- Firearms are loud but it's hard for me to say what you think the contrast or relevance is here. The lasers are silent or nearly so? Or the firearm's sound creates a problem for some other reason?
(C) "...minaturization is important to making this a real trend..." -- Firearms are not small enough. You said earlier that "...I think this is taking a miniaturization turn..." but how small do you think these lasers need to be, for the reality that you're concerned about to come into play?
Now, you may think I have the facts wrong, here -- that we haven't had the kind of precise turret before, or that we can't deliver small arms ammunition with great precision -- but you don't come out and say that: you haven't said I have bad facts.
If we accept that the technical capabilities have been there for a while, then we need another explanation for what the hold up is. I have offered an alternative, which is that it comes down to doctrine or operational issues -- it's not easy to see how to deploy a weapon system that automatically targets people without creating huge practical problems. I offered two concrete cases in my earlier comment. Here again, you haven't really spoken to them: you haven't said, for example, A is not a problem and here's why not. You have just ignored them.
It is really starting to look like you have a story and you are sticking to it.