Battlefield Lasers

KeyShark writes: "An article on FoxNews describes how front-line troops soon will be protected by battlefield lasers designed to shoot down rockets, artillery shells and even mortars."

Comments

Not too hard.

[man_ls]

Sounds like they put a fire-finder radar tracking station onto a laser. They've had the ability to plot trajectory and such of incoming shells for quite a while, but now they'll be able to do something about it other than leave.

Unfortunately, I have suspicions if this will ever make it to deployment. The U.S. also has an anti-satellite laser weapon that has been tested and confirmed to work by overloading the circuits -- and it was nixed because of the poltical tension it would create.

Re:Not too hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's an amazingly difficult control systems problem, especially if you have no advanced warning, as in these cases. The rockets that they downed were Katyushas, which are really simple, THICK metal tubes full of explosives. I saw the video of the tests back in July--the thing is really impressive. The laser itself in invisible and the source looks like one of those World War II signaling lamps on ships. If you look at the video of the Katyushas, you just see it flying along, it gets red, then poof!
As far as deployment goes, Israel has been pressuring the US for the last several months to at least put up a few stations in northern Israel--it's that effective. The main problem right now is that it's just not mobile, and it's not battle hardened. In other words, taking it out would be easy. But, eventually given enough money and time, they'll get this on the back of a truck, and then you're in business.

Re:Not too hard.

[Lobsang]

Not too hard?

I think it may be impossible. You're forgetting:

1) Decoys
2) More decoys
3) Even more decoys
4) Foliage
5) Line of sight
6) Rain
7) Fog
8) Snow

Am i forgetting something here?

Re:Not too hard.

[flacco]

The U.S. also has an anti-satellite laser weapon that has been tested and confirmed to work by overloading the circuits -- and it was nixed because of the poltical tension it would create.

The coming space-weapons arms race with China will probably make political tensions irrelevant.

Re:Not too hard.

[MxTxL]

Hmm, very true... with a 20 second window for busting mortar attacks, the laser operators (well, really the laser software) better know ahead of time which shells belong to who. This is just another good application for the whole 'digital battlefield' concept that you hear about on the discovery channel all the time. Allied forces need to have detailed computer positioning on all their units and be warned ahead of time what's expected to come flying out of where.

Re:Not too hard.

[Knobby]

Am i forgetting something here?

Yep.. You're missing density variations and laser induced heating of the local atmosphere. Both of which will degrade the power of your beam, and complicate aiming the device. The Air Forces Airborne laser program attempted to solve these using a pair of low power lasers to sample the atmosphere and track the object. Given the information from the low power lasers, the optics for the primary laser could be corrected to hit the target. I'm not sure they ever got the system to work, but I seem to recall the power of the beam to be roughly equivilent to 30 ocyacetylin (sp?) torches focused on a single point.. There was a lot of speculation in the articles I read, suggesting that the laser power would be attenuated by some staggering amount by the atmosphere, and the chances for success were considered minimal by some of the scientists working on the project..

Re:Not too hard.

[man_ls]

I *never* said space-based anywhere in my post. Your comments are well thought out and I wouldn't mod you down for that, but I certainly wouldn't mod you up because you didn't read the article.

The anti-satellite laser is on the *ground* somewhere in the desert, probably the testing grounds near White Sands National Monument, in the gypsum fields. It's less of a "laser" and more of an "electromagnetic radiation emmitter" and it fries the satellites less by heat and more by a super-concentrated burst of radio energy.

The 747-mounted laser is a theater-defense weapon designed to fly around "hot-spots" in the world and shoot down something that is launched, within minutes of the launch, by using heat. It's a prototype, not too effective, I don't even think it's had more than one real test. *shrug*

Re:Not too hard.

[child_of_mercy]

orbital weapons intended to be used against terrestrial targets would be mad to be anything other than ballistic.

having gone to thr trouble of climbing to the top of the gravity well why not use all that potential energy?

"Thors hammer" style devices as written about by Larry Niven spring to mind.

A flying crowbar with minimal guidance systems can come down from orbit literally like the wrath of god.

but for blasting other stuff in space the speed of lasers would be helpful.

Re:Not too hard.

[child_of_mercy]

a) you'll bugger up your own orbit flinging gravel,

b) time to close will preclude many firing solutions

I'm sure we'll see a variety of approaches successfully applied.

Re:Not too hard.

[ThatComputerGuy]

I remember a teacher of mine stating that a mirror is some 97 or so percent reflective, and the silver, which is one of, if not _the_ most reflective surface, is 98%.

Draw whatever conlusions you want based on that, but I'm pretty sure that losing 98% of the laser is not a good thing.

Re:Not too hard.

[JimPooley]

Well maybe they could use it when they accidentally drop bombs on their own people or their allies...

Re:Not too hard.

[Dyolf Knip]

Adaptive optics, yeah. They use it to reduce (ie, virtually eliminate) atmospheric distortion in telescopes and may be used to make vision correcting laser surgery even more effective. How'd you like to have 20/10 vision?

Re:Not too hard.

[Dyolf Knip]

Depends on the power of the laser, how well the surface reflects, and the melting/boiling point of the material. No mirror is 100% effective. Once the shiny surface absorbs enough of the energy from the laser it'll boil away and won't be much use anymore.

Re:Not too hard.

[Dyolf Knip]

Decoys

Well, the first MIRV ICBM's were like that. There'd be one warhead and a bunch of decoys. Of course, then someone realized that the enemy had no way of shooting down either the warhead or the decoys and that the cost of the warhead was cheap compared to that of the missile, so they gave up on the decoys. How much more expensive is a mortar that can kill you than a decoy which will merely annoy you?

Foliage

Fantastic. Now ground troops are given yet another set of contradictory imperatives: find cover in the trees vs don't be under the trees where your lasers are useless.

Line of sight

Well, all that says to me is that if this tech catches on, the days of artillery firing from over the horizon (or at all, really) are essentially over.

Water in the air

Agree, very big problem. Hmmm, I wonder what the effect of a high power laser is on the atmosphere. What happens when air and water vapor are heated to extremely high temperatures? Anyone know if it might it mitigate the dissipating effects somewhat?

Re:Not too hard.

[Dyolf Knip]

If you can make them perfectly reflective on whatever spectrum is used. I doubt that, to be honest.

Hahaha, I hadn't thought of that! What kinds of materials reflect, say, an infrared beam? Anyone know offhand?

Re:Not too hard.

[ErikZ]

Last I heard, they built 12 of the things. I hope they bothered to make sure it worked.

Re:Not too hard.

[Tassach]

It should be pretty simple to distinguish between outgoing and incoming artillery with doppler radar. [Infantrymen have been doing this for years by sound] Furthermore, if the software can track the shell well enough to shoot it down, it can predict where it's going to hit -- and if it's coming down close to you, it doesn't really matter who fired it.

In reality, this is more of a command and control issue, for which we have already worked out a solution. Don't you think the military has procedures to make sure that (for example) our airplanes don't accidentally fly through the middle of a friendly artillery barrage? You are not going to hear much about it on The Discovery Channel because the details are classified.

hard part

[simetra]

The hard part will be making the lasers make a cool zapping noise like on Star Wars.

Re:hard part

[ansible]

...or move at a speed substantially slower than the speed of light.

Re:hard part

[isomeme]

Hey, any laser powerful enough to damage or divert artillery shells is going to make *thunder* when it fires. It's the same effect as lightning -- superheated air shocks away from the beam, then slams back in when the beam cuts off. That's way more impressive than zzzzt-whoosh-bleem, far as I'm concerned.

Re:hard part

[mpe]

Hey, any laser powerful enough to damage or divert artillery shells is going to make *thunder* when it fires. It's the same effect as lightning -- superheated air shocks away from the beam, then slams back in when the beam cuts off. That's way more impressive than zzzzt-whoosh-bleem, far as I'm concerned.

How fast can this laser fire. Drawing too much attention to yourself on a battlefield tends not to be the best of ideas. Since they enemy then knows where to target their weapons.

Re:hard part

[Rogerborg]

• Drawing too much attention to yourself on a battlefield tends not to be the best of ideas. Since they enemy then knows where to target their weapons

What weapons though? Projectiles? This thing is designed to shoot them down, and it's not going to get harder if they're aimed right at it. Other beam weapons? Well, then you're in a line-of-sight slugging match, and the best technology (and economy) wins.

Actually, the biggest downside that I can see if the increased chance of friendly fire incidents. If you have a system that is designed to respond to a threat within seconds, you're really going to have to pick up the IFF and battlefield communication.

are artillery shells that delicate?

[rebelcool]

I know the airborne laser (uses the same chemical type laser) was capable of shooting down rockets by weakening the metal skins, which the forces of flight would thus rupture and cause the thing to fly apart, but are artillery shells really that delicate?

Re:are artillery shells that delicate?

[pryan]

For artillery shells without an explosive payload, I would imagine if you could melt the tip, it would throw off the aerodynamics to throw the shell off course. That is assuming, of course, that you didn't vaporize it.

And for ones with an explosive payload, the obvious would happen in flight. :)

Re:are artillery shells that delicate?

[silicon_synapse]

It's the armor that makes the explosion possible. If you've ever held a match to a pile of black powder, you'd know that it doesn't do a whole lot. BUT if that black powder is confined to a small space, the pressure of the gasses builds until the container bursts. Hence the explosion. Now an artillary shell contains a lot of explosive and need to make a big bang. Therefore it needs a very thick, strong shell to contain the immense pressure of the gasses until enough gas has been produced to create the desired crater. That thick shell will also make it difficult to destroy enroute.

Re:are artillery shells that delicate?

[haruharaharu]

Now an artillary shell contains a lot of explosive and need to make a big bang. Therefore it needs a very thick, strong shell to contain the immense pressure of the gasses until enough gas has been produced to create the desired crater.

Black powder is a low explosive and will burn in open space. Most modern artillery explosives are HE and can detonate in open air (think C4). I would expect that you only need enough casing to keep the shell together during firing and to shield the fuse.

Re:are artillery shells that delicate?

[haggar]

Delicate or not, this system is in use right now as we blabber on /.

I have actually read, about a year ago, an article about THAL and how it's used on the border with Lebanon, to defend against katyusha shells and other missiles. I saw pictures of the laser turrets. Pretty neat stuff, actually.

Or, just use pen lasers

[chancycat]

Think about it:

Eash of our troups has a pen laser and two house cats.

1) Release cats between you and the enemy.

2) Direct cats toward enemy trenches with pen light. Watch enemy freak out.

Re:Or, just use pen lasers

[dumpster_d]

I saw this tactic employed once . . . the best part came in targeting the unsuspecting victims' crotch at the final moment.

He and the cat didn't think so; but, Damn, that was funny.

Re:Or, just use pen lasers

[broody]

Inspired by the 1960's CIA spy cat perhaps?

Also under development:

[Nindalf]

Revolutionary new developments in extremely shiny rockets, artillery shells, and even mortars.

Re:Also under development:

[Migelikor1]

Mirror coating, etc. doesn't make a difference. Try holding a match to the mirror, and you'll find to your surprise that the mirror gets warm. That's because oxidation is releasing lots of energy all over the place. A laser is a way of releasing lots of energy to a single spot. Tom Clancy said mirror coating or spinning a missile in front of a laser would be like having a ballerina pirrouete in front of a shotgun. Besides, in the battle between bigger armor and bigger guns, the guns always win eventually.

Re:Also under development:

[Maj. Kong]

Tom Clancy said...

Citing Tom Clancy as an authority on millitary affairs is like citing the late Stephen King as an expert in criminology.

Maj. Kong

Re:Also under development:

[MongooseCN]

Revolutionary new developments in extremely shiny rockets, artillery shells, and even mortars.

Don't forget smoke screens.

Re:Also under development:

[Nindalf]

Mirror coating, etc. doesn't make a difference.

To be blunt, this is wrong. I do agree, however, that just polishing up a stainless steel shell until you can shave in front of it probably won't make enough difference. Most mirrors don't reflect nearly enough light.

On the other hand, such powerful lasers are hard to make and very expensive. It would be tempting to make them just barely strong enough to work against existing designs which have no defense against such countermeasures. If a spinning (or randomly tumbling), mirrored shell, can cut down the rate of heating by something like 30%, and there's some extra heat-shielding inside, it might be enough to survive.

All kidding aside, you also can't rule out, as I said, revolutionary new developments in mirrored armor. I mean, if there was no way to deflect the beam, there would be no way to generate or aim it!

BTW, Tom Clancy is a novelist, not a physicist. His entire livelihood is sounding plausible about things he doesn't really understand.

Besides, in the battle between bigger armor and bigger guns, the guns always win eventually.

Ah, but which is which? This is an odd historical precedent to apply in favor of a defense mechanism.

Re:Also under development:

[dumpster_d]

"All kidding aside, you also can't rule out, as I said, revolutionary new developments in mirrored armour. I mean, if there was no way to deflect the beam, there would be no way to generate or aim it! "

Exactly. You don't polish steel, you give is a coating which does not absorb the wavelengths the other guys are using [make it the colour of the beam].

• Or you make it so extreme heat doesn't generally cause a catastrophic failure [HE is already like this].
• Or you start applying stealth technology to the projectiles so they can't be tracked.
• Or you give your troops Rosco Model 4500 Foggers to disperse the defensive beams [plus, it'll make the war-time photography look so cool!]

Re:Also under development:

[Migelikor1]

I used him as a source for what I considered a funny analogy. Surely you agree he can write a funny analogy? The quote actually was made by him in an interview with some MIT folks and pentagon folks durring which they tried to describe how Star Wars would work. He, just like slashdot readers, assumed he was smarter than the scientists employed to make the weapons, so he asked why not just cover sattelites and ICBMS with mirrors. They then explained that they were hoping to deliver at a minimum two sticks of dynamite, which would be able to burn through existing systems, and (here's the important part) completely destroy the delicate bits. That includes Sattelite solar panels and all the sensor systems on missiles. Again, Clancy was smart, and referenced the then emerging technology of GPS...could you mess that up if you had no sensors? No, the panel replied, but by the mid-nineties, their laser technology and computer control should let them deliver considerably more energy, and enable slagging (melting) missile bits far more robust than the sensors. To that, Clancy replied with the quote about a ballerina.
Also, I reccomend you read the book series Guided Tour of...(Carrier, Armored Cav, Fighter wing, Airborne, etc.) If Stephen King spent a big chunk of his life writing criminology texts, interviewing homicide detectives, and researching enough to write non-fiction analysis and case profiles, then sure, I would use him as a reference. However, in this case, despite what I consider Clancy's adequate qualification, I just used his color commentary.

Re:Also under development:

[Migelikor1]

Me: "Besides, in the battle between bigger armor and bigger guns, the guns always win eventually."

Reply: "Ah, but which is which? This is an odd historical precedent to apply in favor of a defense mechanism"

Good point. What I intended in my statement is that this gun can defeat the armor on incoming ordinance, and should be able to scale up to continue to defeat it. However, I do believe that even the most powerful laser defense system in the world will be rendered useless by the next type of ordinance, (maybe offensive lasers?) An example of the sword slicing both ways, eh?

Re:Also under development:

[child_of_mercy]

"Try holding a match to the mirror, and you'll find to your surprise that the mirror gets warm."

the flame also deposits soot on the surface, which makes it less reflective.

Re:Also under development:

[child_of_mercy]

I was referring to the example given.

Re:Also under development:

[MulluskO]

Okay, mortars that are... totally transparent!

I'd be much more difficult to target too. Also much more expensive. Aim for translucent, maybe?

Re:Also under development:

[istartedi]

There's only so much thermal shielding you can put in a projectile-- and the impetus for the projectile is to maximize the payload.

Perhaps they will come up with a missile that has just enough payload to take out a laser installation. The missile might use an ablative coating or something, and of course it would be too heavy for general-purpose use but once you've taken out the defense you can just go back to using regular missiles.

Even in that case though the lasers are useful: they forced the enemy to spend time and resources developing, acquiring and deploying yet another specialized weapons system.

Re:Also under development:

[swillden]

You should read Clancy's "A Guided Tour" series and then repost begging forgiveness.

The guided tour books are excellent, but you shouldn't take them as an indication that everything Clancy says/writes is correct.

In particular, don't believe anything he writes in any of his novels that has anything to do with cryptography, code-making or code-breaking, because it's all seriously wrong.

I have no idea whether you should pay any attention to what he may have written about lasers and mirrored satellites, but he definitely does write about things he is clueless about.

The man used to write naval text books.

Really? I have never heard that. He was an insurance salesman before he started writing fiction.

Re:Also under development:

[Hektor_Troy]

"Besides, in the battle between bigger armor and bigger guns, the guns always win eventually."

Eventually being the key word.

I saw a documentary on Discovery about the Gulf War, where a tank commander commented, that his tank was going *bonk* from time to time, and they couldn't figure out just what the hell was going on, until another tank commander told them. They were taking fire from a T70(or 72 can't quite remember) behind them. The enemy tank was HITTING them - but not causing any damage - well, I suppose they were worried their tank was having engine problems, so to some effect the iraqies were causing a minor panic, and maybe a minor head ache from all the *bonk*.

Re:Also under development:

[mpe]

Or you give your troops Rosco Model 4500 Foggers [rosco-ca.com] to disperse the defensive beams [plus, it'll make the war-time photography look so cool!]

This is a theatrical smoke machine.
There are military smoke machines, but these are considerably bigger. i.e. trucks... Also IIRC they can produce IR opaque fog, so as to hide the number of troups and vehicles being covered.

Re:Also under development:

[mpe]

Perhaps they will come up with a missile that has just enough payload to take out a laser installation. The missile might use an ablative coating or something, and of course it would be too heavy for general-purpose use but once you've taken out the defense you can just go back to using regular missiles.

Or simply fire more missiles or shells than the laser system can shoot down. Remember that there is currently artillary which can function as a so called "one gun battery", firing several shells which reach the target at the same time.

Re:Also under development:

[pmc]

Tom Clancy is widely acknowledged as an incredible researcher

He is? I remember reading Rainbow Six (about 500 pages too long) and was stunned by the poor quality of research, particularly in the background stuff such as British Pubs, Football teams, local dialect, and the rest. There is also the gross error in the plot: The Aussie Olymipics were taking place in their winter - the cooling system that is a vital plot element would not be required.

So I'd take what he writes as fiction - not as an authoritative source.

Re:Also under development:

[dillon_rinker]

Bah...those things that have to do with Ordinary Life are worthless. We want FACTS, man; we want to know, down to a hundredth of a millimeter, the actual caliber of a Chinese-manufactured AK-47 knock-off, circa 1973. We want accurate descriptions of the small-unit tactics used in the Nigerian Congo during the Boer Wars of 1987. We want to know, from bootstrapped satellite reconaissance, exactly how many outbuildings in the classified CIA camp in Walla Walla Washington were large enough to house a toilet in 1990.

You, sir, are full of Pablum (tm).

Re:Also under development:

[markmoss]

Paint on an outer coat that will simply boil away fast, exposing the reflective inner layer. It doesn't have to be shiny (reflecting all the light the same direction), but just has to reflect it somewhere. E.g., paint containing a high proportion of titanium dioxide particles might be optimum. No material is completely reflective, so some fraction of the laser beam will be deposited in the shell as heat and a big enough laser at close enough range will still burn through. What reflectivity does accomplish is to require a bigger laser, which is harder to move, and to keep fed with electricity or chemicals.

To form any laser beam, you've got to have mirrors that reflect the light sufficiently well as not to melt or become deformed. A metal-cutting laser handles this basically by using big mirrors to focus the beam onto a tiny spot -- the beam is spread out wide enough to not be destructive at the mirrors. War lasers have to accomplish the same thing, but with a point of focus that is far away and moving. That's tough to do in vacuum, and much harder when you've got air diffracting the beam, but adaptive optics helps by warping the mirror to approximately cancel the atmospheric effects.

This system is probably for defending small areas, so it's "kill" range need be only a few miles. That's a lot simpler case than the long-range kills desired for starwars systems. It's still quite an accomplishment if it works.

Finally, there is a very old technology that will defeat any possible mobile system: solid shot. Maybe the laser can vaporize 30 caliber bullets, but a 105mm gun can fire a solid slug 4 inches in diameter and weighing about 30 pounds at something like 2000mph -- no laser is going to melt enough of that to make much difference, and if it hits the kinetic energy is almost as destructive as a chemical explosive. It does have to hit, not just come close -- and without any homing technology in the shell, because lasers certainly can blind sensors and melt steering fins.

Re:Also under development:

[pmc]

Pablum eh? Someone has been reading word of the day, methinks. A true sciolist, sir. I fleer at you.

Re:Also under development:

[Squeeze Truck]

That tactic worked pretty well with nukes in "Total Annihilation".

NO! To make jiffy pop!

[xeeno]

like in real genius.

Re:a flame but...

[man_ls]

This has really been how it is in any war. In Vietnam, Napalm would hit allies on the ground as well as the enemies. In World War II, bombs would fall astray and kill civilians and soldiers for the same side. If there's a situation involving dangerous equipment, and humans are involved, there *will* be human error. In this case, it's lives lost - but it was going to happen anyway.

Re:Bad timing

[Dr Caleb]

from their biggest threat

You'd have to have a pretty big laser to shoot down a B52.

Is it really so difficult?

[djrogers]

All I asked for were some frickin' laser beams!

Re:Is it really so difficult?

[Happy Monkey]

Indeed. These won't be useful until they can be shark-mounted.

Re:Is it really so difficult?

[jsse]

All I asked for were some frickin' laser beams!

Exactly like what a CIO-idiot said in last meeting:

"All I asked for were unbreakable secure transaction! Is it so difficult?!"

You must be him.

Here's a related piece

[hether]

Military Lasers High and Low
Battle lasers are rapidly moving from the realm of theory into operational reality

The Airforce Association
http://www.afa.org/magazine/0999lasers.html

Govexec.com says

[hether]

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0401/042301nj.htm

that "These lasers also have a drawback--their energy comes from large tanks of industrial chemicals, which have to be mixed until they glow, like an outsize high-school science project. And they are so bulky that one weapon fills a large aircraft, or a small building. "

Does this jive with the fox news article?

Re:Govexec.com says

[Happy Monkey]

Yes, though foxnews says there's an experimental solid-state laser that looks promising. With that, it would cost 25 cents per shot, and fit on a Humvee.

Any weapon has this problem...

[Svartalf]

Trip and shoot your buddy with your rifle/SAW...

Trip and impale your buddy with your pike/sword...

And so forth.

Besides, this isn't a personnel carried device- it's a Humvee/Bradley mounted device. One's an eximer the other something solid-state. Both are going to be too large for people to carry.

Re:Any weapon has this problem...

[Tackhead]

> Besides, this isn't a personnel carried device- it's a Humvee/Bradley mounted device. One's an eximer the other something solid-state. Both are going to be too large for people to carry.

How many of you, when reading this, started drooling and pounding on the table, screaming "I want one! On my car! I've been good, Santa! I WANT! I'll never get stuck in traffic again, and if I do, at least it'll be fun!"

A Humvee (or better yet, a giant winged robot that can fly on Mars!) with a battlefield laser! Fuck this traffic jam, d00dz! Check out my ride! I rule!

Just what we need on the battlefield

[Teleporting Wombat]

>>The laser weapons vaporize metal.

OK, I fire it at your depleted uranium artillery shell. Vaporized uranium on the battlefield. Voila! How's that for environmental cleanup?

Re:Just what we need on the battlefield

[child_of_mercy]

"is depleted uranium toxic?"

YES

"Will it leach into groundwater?"

YES

but hey, its usually used on someones else water table right?

Re:Just what we need on the battlefield

[Rogerborg]

• • The laser weapons vaporize metal.
  OK, I fire it at your depleted uranium artillery shell. Vaporized uranium on the battlefield. Voila! How's that for environmental cleanup?

Uh... since you bring it up. I fire my depleted uranium shell at your T-72. It self sharpens on the way through the armour, then sends your tank up in a fireball and puts carconigenic dust 2km in the air. How's that for environmental cleanup. And that's not theoretical.

The end of air combat

[biotechnician]

Since like all technology this will disseminate to the other countries in the globe, this also means a major change in air power. Manuverablility means practically nill at the speed of light. Large aircraft equiped with lasers would in addition to destroying missles would also be able to destroy all aircraft, even if the enemy aircraft are super manuverable, stealthy, super expensive F-22 jets. In fact the developement of powerful lasers will strongly reduce the importance aircraft, all you need to do is see the aircraft and you can kill it.

Re:The end of air combat

[child_of_mercy]

except u still have to be able to track the thing,

just because the beam moves fast from the laser doesn't make pointing the laser in the right direction less challenging.

plus many missiles fire beyond line of sight these days.

Re:The end of air combat

[Rogerborg]

• except u still have to be able to track the thing, just because the beam moves fast from the laser doesn't make pointing the laser in the right direction less challenging.

We used accoustic stations on the ground to listen for aircraft in WWII before radar caught on. These things were accurate to a couple of degrees back in 1939 with basic engineering and human ears doing the direction finding. We can do better now, if we want to. The more we deploy stealth aircraft, the more incentive our targts have to develop these forgotten technologies.

So, we know where the aircraft is to within a few hundred metres. If it's day and a clear sky, you can see it, but chances are it's night. Find the hottest spot in the sky in that area. It's not hot enough to throw a missile at, but it's enough to give us an idea to within a few metres. Fire at it. And again. And again. And again. And again... Ever seen the amount of AAA that gets thrown at US stealth planes? Count the cost. Lasers actually work out pretty effective, if you're firing within a few metres at a pretty fragile target. Heck, you only need to make a little hole in it, and there it is on your radar all of a sudden.

Stealth aircraft have been getting slower and slower, to cut down on heat. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation were fuel cell powered electric ducted turbofan vehicles. They not only have to be invisible to radar, but they also have to be silent and cool (or only fly when it's rainy or cloudy).

• plus many missiles fire beyond line of sight these days.

If only we had some way of shooting them down in flight...

Re:The end of air combat

[markmoss]

just because the beam moves fast from the laser doesn't make pointing the laser in the right direction less challenging. It does take out one part of the challenge. If you fire a bullet at a moving target, you have to calculate or guess where the target will be when the bullet gets there. This is still a challenge, because (1) it takes a while for a radar set to accumulate enough position measurements to give the speed and direction accurately, and (2) if the target is capable of changing direction (bullets don't, missiles do), then it's just guesswork anyhow. Since a laser beam moves about 500,000 times as fast as any military hardware does, at battlefield ranges you can just point and shoot. Other things you can ignore are deflection by gravity and Coriolis effects. "Windage" doesn't apply as a deflection to your aim, although optical effects of the air do have to be corrected for to get the beam focused enough to cut metal. On the other hand, hitting a 6 inch wide projectile at 1 mile range requires aiming to better than one part in 10,000 -- that's very precise. And if you are waiting for the artillery shells to come within one mile before shooting at them, you'd better get them on the first shot.

("Starwars" lasers would have to lead the target, since speeds and ranges are much greater. A "close" shot might be 3,000km; this takes 10ms for the beam to get to the target. Double that, at least, for the time from the last sight of the target to the beam reaching it. A satellite travelling at 3600km/hr = 1km/sec moves 20 meters in that time. It's probably only 2 or 3 meters wide.)

For a more technical overview...

[mbessey]

...of specifically the solid-state high-power laser, take a look at Lawrence Livermore's page on the project:

http://lasers.llnl.gov/lst/helstf.html

Re:Heh

[pagercam2]

$3000 is only half of a toliet seat at government prices!!! I think they're using chemical lasers and they are real big and complex, so $3000 for anything the government gets involved in is a pretty good price and if you can use it to save a HUMMV or M1A1 tank the saving would be great, even if you save only a single soldier per $3000 you're way ahead of the game, helps moral, keeps soldiers out of hospitals, saves having to train new soldiers, saves having to knock on parents door to tell them that Johnie isn't comming home. $3000 seems like the deal of the centrury, getting it to work is the only problem I see.

Re:A step up for laser pointers

[diesel_jackass]

if they did come with the different tips it sure would make it easier for cowfolks to brand their cattle.

Re:Arm the cats

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

You joke - but in WWII the Russians did some experiments with dogs, training them to associate the underside of a tank with food. Strap on a mine, and boom.

First field trial worked perfectly - dogs saw tanks and ran towards them. Only problem: they'd been trained to associate Russian tanks with food, not German, and forced the Russians into retreat.

(this may well be urban legend, but it's a great story)

This raises some frightening questions

[joshjs]

What's to stop them from using these things on people? They have amazingly accurate targeting systems and they're cheap to fire (article says 25 cents (maybe dollars, I forget...) per shot.

So what's to keep the defense dept. from using these things for assassinations, or ground warfare?

Would that be cruel and unusual?

Here's a question: is there a "right of the people" to keep and bear these? The idea doesn't sound assuring, I must say: what kind of signature would it leave. Bullets can be tracked, but this -- would there even be a body left?

I'm not trying to complain or predict horrors, because I'm all about the advance of tech. I just want to know a little more about this kind of thing.

Also: it's eerie that the article only mentions uses of these for defense, and not for attack, covert (which I think is a promising potential use for this technology) or otherwise. Just considering it's a time of "war" and all.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Anonymous DWord]

There's an international treaty that the US has actually signed (wonder of wonders!) against using lasers on people. I tend to doubt it'll be followed in practice though, when "our" forces are involved.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Anonymous DWord]

Here's a six year old report on blinding weapons of the US military.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[luge]

As far as it being 'cruel'... if such lasers are powerful enough to destroy solid metal shells, they are probably powerful enough to kill instantaneously or fairly close to instantaneously. Compare to the rather gruesome and slowly fatal wounds gunshots produce... obviously, I'm no expert on these lasers but I'd think (offhand) they might be vastly more 'humane' than most current battlefield technologies. [Please take 'humane', in context, of course... nothing 'humane' about shooting anyone with anything more powerful than a Super Soaker.]

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Razzak]

There's a lot of treaties like this to minimize the "horrors" of war. For example, it's a war crime to use an anti-tank rocket or a .50 cal machine gun on infantry.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[EccentricAnomaly]

So what's to keep the defense dept. from using these things for assassinations, or ground warfare?

Simple... they don't work that well. The best they can do is heat up thin metal rocket skins and make them burst because of the pressurized fuel inside... most rockets are so weak structurally that they would collapse if you drained the fuel out of them.

These lasers are too weak to do much damage. The worst they can do to people is use laser light to blind people... which is pretty bad, but it ain't no death star.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Fnkmaster]

Honestly, I'm not sure that on the battlefield per se this would be terribly effective. The thing is, bullets cause huge amounts of collateral damage, make organs bleed, bounce around, create big exit holes, etc. Bullets are very good at wounding and killing. Is a bulky, truck mounted laser any more effective against personnel than a 50 mm automatic cannon on a truck which can mow people down? I doubt it. And you can keep firing the cannon, you don't need a huge generator to keep it going. Just doesn't seem like a cost effective way to kill ground troops.

Against tanks and vehicles, perhaps this would be effective... though those are slow enough in general that a guided rocket or smart bomb is probably just as effective. And they are big and much better armored than a small incoming Katyusha rocket, so I don't know how well that would work at this point.

Planes are not that much unlike missiles and artillery shells in that they are big things flying through the sky at high speeds with lots of fuel in them. I would think that planes would be susceptible to this class of laser weapons too, as a result, and avoid the complexities of defeating chaff, ECM and jamming systems.

Also, if this actually works for shooting down these small projectiles, is there any fundamental reason a later iteration of this technology couldn't be used to defend from ICBMs - I suppose you would need a lot more range to get high enough to hit them while it still mattered. Perhaps better than the missile defense program missiles that don't seem to work really well in the real world.

The "plane-mounted assasination" might be effective though. If we can hit a rocket from the ground, we can probably hit a person from a plane with the same laser. And it might not be efficient against large numbers of ground troops, but if you want to knock out one guy with minimal or no collateral damage that would result from shooting missiles or rockets at him, this would possibly be effective. Although I may be wrong about the "no collateral damage" thing... refracted laser light all over the place could definitely at least blind a lot of people.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Anonymous DWord]

Aww, too bad, because you're right. :-)

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[cancrman]

Yea, seriously. At least if you get shot with a .50cal you're pretty much dead and not in a lot of pain. Instead of, say, getting shot in the stomach with a 9mm. That would hurt like a bitch.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Ian Bicking]

An excellent point to bring up.

Considering these offensive possibilities is the only way I've found to make any sense of missile defense: why some people are trying so hard to make it, why others are so opposed to it.

In its proposed use, it's obviously stupid: it does a very poor job of defending against a very unlikely attack. Maybe its supporters are just trying to make more money for weapons producers -- actually, I'm sure they are -- but maybe there's more to it.

But then why do all these other countries get so bothered about it? If it's doomed to fail -- there seems to be concensus on that from all nonpartial observers -- then why not just let the US fail at it?

So here's where this theory comes in: missile defense provides a reason to do research and implementation of military systems in space, with high accuracy lasers and all that. It doesn't have to work, because it will never be tested in a realistic way, and the staged tests will just be faked (like all the tests so far).

Once you have high-precision and powerful lasers in space, you have a hell of a lot of power. Spy satellites already have impressive accuracy. It's entirely possible to create an offensive weapon that could kill anyone that's out in the open (given a certain amount of intelligence -- supposing biometrics don't get too good, so they could identify us from space).

Of course this would scare the hell out of all the other countries -- enemies and allies alike. It's no secret that the US is a fickle lover. One day you're our best friend -- Noriega, for example -- the next you're in jail. Or just dead.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Fesh]

Hmm. Then the .50cal sniper rifles that the SEALS and other forces use are anti-equipment weapons? Pardon my cognitive dissonance here...

I thought the rule was anything larger than .50cal. 'Course, I'm sure that being strafed by 20mm is no picnic... (Hell, being attacked with anything would put a crimp in my day...)

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Ryan Amos]

Yeah, but a .50 caliber sniper rifle is fair game... Plus the .50 BMG rifles the US uses use the same ammo as a .50 caliber machine gun (BMG stands for Browning Machine Gun) Hell, they're even legal for civilians to own. Not to mention that the M98A1A rifles that US special forces use get 6" groupings at 1000 meters...

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[child_of_mercy]

"tactile nuke"

Yeah I really hate those nukes that want to touch.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Stonehand]

Sure, it could be used as anti-equipment.

That 0.50-BMG cartridge was originally designed as an anti-tank (WWI era tank...) round, if memory serves. It likely has enough penetration to still be good enough for damaging many things besides flesh and blood today.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[csbruce]

So what's to keep the defense dept. from using these things for assassinations, or ground warfare? Would that be cruel and unusual?

You're right. People should only killed decent and proper with a sniper's bullet.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[martissimo]

when i was in the military this is what i was told regarding this topic.

while trained on a 50 cal+ weapon they will make a very strong point of the fact that you cannot shoot people with them.

they will then almost always point out just following this that it is certainly OK to shoot at a persons gear like the canteen on his belt or his backpack he's wearing.

take it as you will but thats my firsthand experience

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[jburroug]

Once you have high-precision and powerful lasers in space, you have a hell of a lot of power. Spy satellites already have impressive accuracy. It's entirely possible to create an offensive weapon that could kill anyone that's out in the open (given a certain amount of intelligence -- supposing biometrics don't get too good, so they could identify us from space).

Say wasn't this the plot to the movie Real Genius? Damn funny movie...

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Rogerborg]

• lasers are too weak to do much damage. The worst they can do to people is use laser light to blind people... which is pretty bad, but it ain't no death star

If you kill a soldier, how long does it take two men to bury him? Hours.

If you blind a soldier, how long does it take two men to care for him? A lifetime.

Special forces need weapons with stopping power. If it comes down to grunts shooting, it's better (economically) to cripple. Harsh, but military planners have to consider it.

Re:This raises some frightening questions

[Rogerborg]

• Bullets are very good at wounding and killing. [A laser] doesn't seem like a cost effective way to kill ground troops

Why would you want to kill them? You're not fighting them, you're fighting their state/organisation, and its economy. So wound them. Cripple them if you can. Blinding is ideal. Make them a burden on their state. It's harsh and it doesn't have the faux purity of death, but that's the way military planners have to think.

Re:Arm the cats

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

Gah. Hate to reply to myself, but I found a link!

Re:Missile Defense?

[Happy Monkey]

High-tech warfare is a game of rock-paper-scisors, but the enemy will win if you are missing one of the above, and he knows it. The Maginot line was unsuccessful because they were complacent once they had it. I don't think that will be the case in the US for a while, now that we've had both the 9-11 and the anthrax attacks.

Two arguments I've heard against missile defense are that it doesn't work, and that it wouldn't stop other attacks. For the former, the fact that it doesn't work hardly seems like an argument against research. As for the latter, if we put all our money into aircraft security and mail sanitization, we'd be unprepared for missile attacks.

Not a sermon, just a thought. (OK, maybe that phrase implies that it is a sermon. Oh, well.)

Re:Arm the cats

[Anonymous DWord]

Yup. The US Navy did tests like that with dolphins. Dolphins are smarter than dogs. While they're still alive, anyway.

Re:Bad timing

[dumpster_d]

The technology to shoot down aircraft was developed and during the 1970's--no big deal. I remember seeing great footage of the engine compartment being nicely sliced out of a flying drone.

Problem is: the dispersion/diffraction of a high-powered LASER being used outdoors has the side effect of permanently blinding most of the people in line-of-sight to the aircraft [which can be a lot and, of course, include one's own troops].

Question is: why not just attach a whatever-KV potential to a spark-plug in a mini-dish and knock out the target's electronics instead? Should be easier--of course, that'd have little effect upon an incoming shell/bomb once the fuse has been armed.

Re:Uh huh

[flacco]

Wow, cos if it's on fox news then it MUST be true!

Fox News: News for idiots.

Took it off my channel line-up ages ago.

Re:This just in!

[bloggins02]

This would be true if it weren't for the fact that in what we sane people call "the real world", peace doesn't come from asking the enemy nicely. I'm sure in whatever world you live in all problems can be resolved by saying "Hey, if we talked about it we could live in peace and understanding." I'd love to live in that place, but that pesky little thing called reality doesn't seem to want me there.

When diplomacy fits, use it, but do I have to rape your wife and murder your your children before you decide maybe it would be a good idea to fight back?

More handy links

[mbessey]

Most of these haven't been updated in a while, though...

The US Army's HEL sites:

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/THEL.html

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/HELSTF.html
TRW's contribution:

http://www.trw.com/thel

-Mark

Re:Heh

[flacco]

$3000 is only half of a toliet seat at government prices!!!

Gotta fund those ultra-black projects somehow.

Not gonna work.

[blair1q]

Old way:

Shell comes down, buries in dirt, explodes. Shrapnel flies everywhere, but mostly up. Maybe shell has an altitude based fuse, so it explodes in the air. Shrapnel flies everywhere.

New way:

Shell comes down, gets zapped by laser. Shrapnel flies everywhere.

Still, you have supersonic, ballistic shrapnel, and still, you have it landing full-speed on the target.

--Blair

Re:Not gonna work.

[flacco]

Still, you have supersonic, ballistic shrapnel, and still, you have it landing full-speed on the target.

If the shell is directed at an even marginally hardened target, you'd much rather have a bunch of tiny, dispersed bits of metal (burning off their momentum agaist air resistance with their much greater overall surface area) than a massive, explosively-armed charge burying itself into your position, then detonating.

Re:Not gonna work.

[Wyatt Earp]

There is also a system that uses radio signals to detonate the proximity fuzes at a distance from the friendly lines.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-vlq-9 .h tm

"The Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS) is an RF Proximity Fuze counter measure. The Shortstop battlefield electronic countermeasures system is capable of prematurely detonating incoming artillery and mortar rounds. It counters the threat of RF Proximity Fuzed munitions by causing them to prefunction, to protect friendly ground troops, vehicles, structures, and other equipment under fire."

Shortstop is already in service.

There are already radar systems to track rounds down to a 60mm mortar shell.

Get real

[writertype]

I can buy an automated projectile system to shoot down guided missiles, but a laser? To shoot down artillery shells? Can you imagine the engineering required to lock onto said shell and the laser power to detonate it? What about smoke or other haze?

And let's not even consider making this a "personal" means of defense.

Sounds like the old warbirds over at Fox are lobbying for a larger military budget.

Re:Expen$ive

[flacco]

Man, $3000 / shot? That's a lot.

What's the cost of a 105mm shell landing on your command and control center?

You mean jiffy popped eyeballs?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If they use any wavelength that is well-focussed by eyeball optics you'll blind anybody without eye protection tuned to the laser that looks in the direction of anything the laser is shining on.

If they get hit in the face with a specular reflection they might have eye damage beyond merely going blind.

War is about to beome H.E.L.

Re:You mean jiffy popped eyeballs?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Such "dazzle" weapons were developed during the 80's, and were apparently used.

True. And there are moves to outlaw them (like poision gas and biological weapons) as inhumane (and counterproductive).

But what I'm talking about is accidental dazzle. When you're sending a light pulse that can vaporize metal in miliseconds, even a tiny splinter of that energy, focussed by an eye's lens, can wreak havoc on retinal cells.

Colloids, proteins, and DNA are a lot more fragile than metal.

Re:Heh

[Tackhead]

> I found it amusing that it costs $3000 to fire a single shot with this sucker. A bit pricy for a focused blast of light if you ask me.

If you're one of the guys sitting under the incoming artillery shell, it's simultaneously "cheap" and "priceless".

MIRACL

[sheetsda]

The granddaddy of all the laser weapons is the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser, known as MIRACL, which fills a large building and its surroundings at the test site.

Nice acronym. Now every time I see a picture of someone standing in a beam of divine light from the sky I'm going to get a mental picture of him bursting into flames and melting.

Re:"Fox News" != "News"

[DarkEdgeX]

Uh, sure, whatever.

They were only on 24/7 in the days following 9/11 reporting on every detail as it came out. Making assumptions is something I EXPECT the media to do, what the hell do you think reporters do all day? "Hm, let's gather some facts, but never actually suggest any possible conclusion, yes, this is news-worthy, HONEST."

Besides, I'd be willing to bet they were only reporting what government officials were telling them in private (the bin Laden connection). I think most people are used to seeing un-substantiated news on the TV, and most folk are smart enough to make their own decisions (what's the Fox News slogan-- "We report, you decide."-- this was more than true after 9/11; they presented a number of possibilities right after the attacks happened, and left it to you, THE VIEWER, to decide).

Personally, I think you're just some CNN-zealot who doesn't like Bill O'Reilly.

Now all they need

[Amazing Quantum Man]

is some really big cats, so they can get some exercise (US Patent 5,443,036)

the goddamn hippies

[HongPong]

Next thing you know the goddamn hippies are going to demand we only set them on 'stun.' Bastards!

Re:FoxNews?

[Anonymous DWord]

How about this?

Re:Friendly Fire

[Malc]

Or hit him with the shrapnel from the munition that you just destroyed above his head.

10 and 11, Clouds and commercial aircraft

[Futurepower(tm)]

Thanks for bringing a little sanity to this subject.

And dont forget:

10) Clouds. Laser light does NOT penetrate clouds. The water vapor easily absorbs all the energy.

Also don't forget:

11) Friendly aircraft. On July 4, 1988, the U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes, in the Persian Gulf, shot down an Iran Air A300 Airbus, killing 290 persons, after mistaking it for an attacking jet fighter. "The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.

The cruiser was "equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic battle gear in the Navy's surface arsenal."

Organizations that sell weapons are often not honest about the shortcomings.

--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?

Re:10 and 11, Clouds and commercial aircraft

[child_of_mercy]

two words

x-ray lasers

of course the nuke that powers them upsets some...

seriously projectiles will always have a place, but as laser tech improves so will they

there was a good 200 year overlap between the crossbow and the black-powder gun.

at the start the crossbow would win every time, and by the end it was a curiosity.

More bias/social engineering from the hawks at FOX

[Sleepy]

This wasn't news, it was a *commercial*.

It's pretty simple:
1) a chunk of your tax dollars goes to pork-barrel arms projects (that don't work).
2) Said arms dealer profits.
3) Arms dealer "lobbies" for more congressional pork.

In the "old days" of the early 90's, #3 meant simply bribing the congressmen via his campaign "war chest". While that made effective lobbying, today we have Rupert Murdoch's lobbying group, "Fox" television. It's sad to have seen the name of a once-great US media company bought out by a "naturalized" foreigner whose intentions are simply to influence American politics.

In other words, this is a LOBBYING EFFORT to raise taxes for yet another military boondoggle. It's just pretend news.

Congress is already leery of "star wars" (the SDI kind), seeing how there is so much pressure to deploy the damn thing, when star wars misses 3 out of 6 targets in *lab* conditions.

Now they want the same unproven technology on the ground. Fox runs nothing but editorials against "government pork" and "big government" EXCEPT when it serves the war hawks or their stock portfolio.

Remember, these are the same maggots who ran "investigative reporting" how the USA supposedly never landed on the moon. Note this story ran JUST BEFORE renewed calls in Congress to both cut NASA funding (to make them less effective), AND to privatize NASA altogether.

George Orwell was wrong. In the future we will be controlled by mindless, hypnosis-inducing corporate-sponsored "information", news, etc.

Throw ball bearings very, very fast

[leonbrooks]

A standard truck-mounted generator with a couple of little railguns on the roof would do the same job (by flinging a bucketful of ballbearings at the target in a second or so) for a lot less $$$ and would also make a really neat ripping noise when it fired.

Not as easy to steer as a laser but extremely difficult to defend against. Good for anti-aircraft as well, since colanders have poor aerodynamics. Anything not detonated by ball bearings doing many kilometers a second would be thrown well off course. Not that this is not necessarily an advantage, since certain nations are reknowned for just carpeting the target area with ordinance and knocking something off course might make it more accurate.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[Anonymous DWord]

What they've been using it for mostly is for optics and antennae. A blind tank is pretty useless, and easy to sneak up on with more conventional (read: cheaper) weapons.

futurism

[xah]

The article focuses to its detriment on lasers as a defensive armament. They are more likely to be used offensively, if history is any judge.

If the article is right, and the energy supply for these lasers continue to be expensive, bulky chemicals, we may see a return to the battlefields of the 19th century, when artillery, and not air power, was most critical to warfare. Supply lines would become more important than they are today. Battlefield tactics would have to change.

Why wouldn't they mount lasers on aircraft? Maybe the chemicals are too heavy?

real genius

[passion]

great - if only the leonids were over afghanistan... then perhaps we could lure OBL out of his tent/cave, and zap him like in weird science...

now I'm hungry for some popcorn.... yum.

Slashdot sees the error immediately.

[Futurepower(tm)]

I've read most of the posts, and so far I haven't seen even one that both takes this seriously, and believes it will work. Maybe all weapons proposals should have to go through Slashdot first.

A thought occurs to me

[glassware]

This whole thing is so fantastically Real Genius.

God: Think about it, Kent. What use is a phase conjugate tracking mirror? A big mirror needs a big beam.

Kent: I... I overheard Dr. Hathaway talking about a test out in the desert.

God: Good. Now, I want you to think about what you've done. And for the last time, stop touching yourself!

Sorry, it's patented

[hmckee]

The use of a laser to get a cat to move. is already patented. You may have to come up with a new idea.

-harry

Re:"Fox News" != "News"

[NeuroManson]

Don't forget, the owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch... You know, the guy who owns The National Enquirer, and numerous other tabloids... Hardly worth calling a reputable source (ironically his tabloids are the sort that would have paid well for pictures taken of Princess Di by the freelance French papparazi that chased her to her death, and even more ironic, that shortly thereafter her brother gave them an interview on teevee)...

Mind you, this was common knowlege over 10 years ago when Murdoch took over Fox, the NY Post, et al...

Re:"Fox News" != "News"

[NeuroManson]

That could be said of ANY news agency... However, CNN researches it's stories far more often than Fox... They all screw up either way, so that's a moot point... I still trust a news agency that got it's "start" in covering the gulf war, far more than a news network that got it's start with 'Bigfoot could be your neighbor!!!', and 'Here's our big titted broad of the week!'...

What about good old reflection?

[Remote]

Ok, the system was reported to be able to melt down Katyushas. My bet would be that those were painted gray or olive green. What if one chrome-plates the damn thing? Would that make the rocket (or a shell, or a racing pigeon!) laser-proof? Would someone in the know tell me why this wouldnt be a protection?

Re:What about good old reflection?

[Knobby]

You don't need to reflect 100% of the energy! You only need to relect enough energy that destroying your missile requires more energy than your opponent has the ability to deliver..

The laser will be illuminating a fairly small area on the missile casing. The big problems are: Will burning a hole in the side to the missile destroy it? and if so, where does that hole have to be located?

Take the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion.. The booster rocket was pushing hot gas through a hole in the side of the casing, and even after the booster rocket was jetisoned from the external fuel tank it continued to fly relatively straight for miles before being destroyed by mission control. Read that again.. The booster casing which was under phenomenal internal and compressive loads did not explode or really even change course with a hole in the side of its structure.. So what makes us think that burning holes in missiles will destroy them?

From what I've read the idea of the Air Force's Airborne Laser program was to hit missiles as they were launching and the cases were still under a compressive load.. In this scenerio, weakening the structure MAY result in a buckling of the case in a manner similar to applying a small dent to a soda can under compression..

Re:What about good old reflection?

[Graymalkin]

You have your Hindenburg facts wrong :)
The Al doped fabric covering the thing meant to reflect heat from the sun as to not cause adverse boyancy problems (hotter gas expands and causes lift which is bad when you're trying to do something like land) was a chemical equivilent of thermite. That shit will burn a whole through concrete, solid steel, and flash fry an egg two feet away. When it caught fire the gas escaped and the Zepplin crashed, most of the hydrogen due to the heat escaped into the atmosphere and never burned. Also, rockets do not store their fuel and oxidizers as gases. They store them in liquid form because it is more space efficient. The burning a whole in one of those tanks causes alot of pressurized material on the inside of the tank want to escape from a teeny tiny hole in the side of tank to the far lower pressures outside of the tank. Usually the pressure leak will cause the rocket to rip itself apart because the high pressure stuff in tha tanks blew out the hole at several times the speed of sound exceeding the stess limitations of the container material. Sometimes however the fuel tank will rupture and when speeding through the tiny hole in the fuel tank heat up enough to ignite not only blowing the rocket off course but when the pressure in the tank drops enough the entire thing blows up in a fairly spectacular fireball.

the case is the deadly part of artillery

[rebelcool]

the thousands of metal shards caused by the case blowing are what makes artillery such a good weapon against exposed infantry.

In essence, a very large grenade.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[pa-guy]

OK, so you may slag off some armour. Tanks move using low ground, scooting around treelines etc. They also move in pairs (fire teams), with one member of the team staying put while the other moves to his next fire position. This thing is line of sight (obviously). That means that the tank thats getting hit's fire team partner will take out the laser. As well, even if it does penetrate the armour, there will be no spalling on the inner armour. Pretty ineffective actually.
BTW, I was a tanker for twenty years so I do have a little clue about this shit.

Yeah.

[mindstrm]

Maybe you should go out there to the battlefield and SHOW THEM how to do it right?

Easy to preach from the armchair, eh?

Several points.

[rebelcool]

Unless you're referring to distant technology, virtually all of these are unlikely.

article says 25 cents (maybe dollars, I forget...) per shot.

It is cheaper to shoot a rifle. Plus these laser weapons are pathetically weak compared to a rifle. These weapons were designed for use on weak rockets and missiles travelling at high speeds in the air. The laser is only capable of heating and weakening the metal skin, which flight forces would tear a hole in, thus rupturing and destroying the missile. In an earlier post I questioned exactly how well these lasers would work on the much thicker and stronger skins of artillery shells.

To use one of these on a human is stupid and ineffective. Sure, it'll burn you..but why not just shoot the guy? More damaging and a quicker death.

As for the 'people' to get one, find me someone who can actually afford something like this. These weapons are enormous (they're TRYING to fit one on an 18 wheeler) and cost millions.

These lasers are useful city defenders against things like SCUDs. Not something Joe Q. Gunowner will own.

Re:Several points.

[Rogerborg]

• To use one of these on a human is stupid and ineffective. Sure, it'll burn you..but why not just shoot the guy? More damaging and a quicker death

For about the zillionth time, death is what you want to inflict in Quake. Wounding, crippling and especially blinding is way, way more effective. You target the economy, not the soldiers.

Is anyone else wondering.....?

[moonboy]

Is anyone else wondering why we are spending so much money on the missile defense system? This seems to have solved the problem of missile defense much more elegantly (and more cost effectively?) Maybe I'm missing something.

Re:Is anyone else wondering.....?

[andkaha]

Is anyone else wondering why we are spending so much money on the missile defense system? This seems to have solved the problem of missile defense much more elegantly (and more cost effectively?) Maybe I'm missing something.

The military industry in the U.S. is so big and employs so many people that they will have to come up with these kinds of technologies as an addition to the already existing systems, as a justification for continued financial support and of their importance and supremacy. They will not stop spending money on that ballistic missile system, that would look as a failure. The U.S. army is not very keen on admitting failures.

A quote from Noam Chomsky (interview):

The Cold War may be over. But these days, the policies remain the same, only the pretexts have changed. It is another reason why the US military budgets have been increasing year after year. It is not a defence against Russia anymore. It is against the technological sophistication of the Third World. The US believes that globalisation has deeply polarised the handful of rich and the poor worldwide. To keep the poor nations in control, you need new military systems.

The Noam Chomsky Archives

Re:Is anyone else wondering.....?

[zulux]

Nope. The reason that most poor nations are poor is that other nations wants them to be poor.

For every poor country that's opressed due to imperialists, there are ten that are opressing themselves better that any outside country could dream of.

Same with indivisual humans: most people find that their own worst enemy, the enemy that makes their lives miserable, is themselves.

Re:Is anyone else wondering.....?

[zulux]

Do you really believe that?

It's not a idea that needs to be 'believed' - the evidence is overwhelming. If you discount Russia, there hasent been an impeialist power in twenty years. If any country sucks, they have only themselves to blame. Japan was NUKED back to the stone age - in two generations they are back on top. What the hell is keeping (choosing a random counrty) Kenya from making the same strides? I'll let you in on a secret: It's Not the GM/Microsoft/GOP/Alien conspiricy.

Thankfully there are only a few countires that suck. Some have harder lives that we do, but they are improving. Hell - your average person in the world, unless they give themselves AIDS, has a longer life expectancy than a 1700's head of state.

We humans have made a lot of progress in the last 100 years - just beacuse some people are a bit behind the curve dosen't meen that there some vast global conspiricy going on to keep people opressed.

Want a good life for masses? Stop picking on people who are sucessfull and start emulating any good ideas they might have. Mr.Chompsky is a smart man, but did you ever notice that all he does is point out problems. He hardly ever offers any solutions. I wish he did, maby he have a good idea. Instead, he's the same broken record, playing the "Blame America First" anthem over and over. It's a shame, A good mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Re:Is anyone else wondering.....?

[zulux]

I think the correct term for that statement is bullshit.

Opps. Sorry, I diden't know I was dealing with a child. I'll use smaller words for you.

world's only imperialistic state today is U.S.A.


America my be considered by you to be 'corporate' or 'evil', but it dosen't have vassel states. Check your dictionary.

Japan had, just like Germany, the knowledge of how to build big industries.

Whats wrong with the Kenyans. Is knowlege too difficult for them? I think not. Kenya just needs some help with their democracy and education. America bashing, as popular as it is with people with too much time on their hands, won't kelp Kenya one bit.

It's not his job to offer solutions.
Chompsky doesen't offer solutions because 1) I suspect that he doesent have any. 2) offering solutions would take time away from blaming America for everybody elese problems.

EVERYONE is more or less miffed and irritated about the way U.S.A. is behaving?

If everybody is so pissed off at America, then explain why everybody wants to immigrate here. Emplain why, as an American, people treat very kindly when I travel aborad. They may not treat you well when you travel - but I digress.

And don't you think he's right?

On some things yes. His point of view worth cosidering, espically his thoughs on linguistics, but I place Chomsky with the likes of Ann Ryand and Jesus Christ. Their viewpoints are educated and interesting, but their followers tend not be able to think for themselves. I suspect that Chomskys views would change if he traveled more and wasen't so Ameri-centric. As much as I like America, our influance isen't great enough to make the world a paradise or a hell. To think so is arrogent on Chomsky's part, and demeans the progress third world countries have made for themselves.

Re:Is anyone else wondering.....?

[zulux]

If anyone was interested in getting the poor African states back on their feet, they should write off their debts.


Well, you and I agree on one thing at least. It was a twofold mistake to give money to most undeveloped nations, we should have spent the money on their education; and the current debt load is crippeling their stuggeling economies and making them follow the odd (if not bad) policies of the IMF.

So why is it bad to point out errors?

Beacuese it's not constructive if you don't follow it with possible solutions. It's not helpfull. Infact, Chomsky has probably done more harm to the cause of anti-walmart-nike-mcdonalds-globalisation than anybody - he makes the perfect Goldstein for todays Big Brother. I respet people like Ralph Nader, who can not only diagnose, but make reasonable prescriptions. I don't agree with Mr. Nader half the time, but he'd be welcome in my house anytime.

Democracy, funny word, eh? There's no real definition of it,

I was useing small words for you. See my previsous note on why. Representational governemt seems to work well - all the prosporous, civil and pleasent countries seem to have one. Maby there's a better form of governemnt out there, but statistically, it's the best there is for now.

PR companies up there? ... or any educated presidents?

PR companies only hold sway with the stupid and greedy. I don't really care for either group - so if a PR company can convince a stuipd and/or gready person to part with their money then more power to them. Presidents are elected by the people, serve their time, and return to the people from whence they came. They are not that remarkable in the scheme of things. Only little people are impressed by the shiny polish that their campaign staff smears on them.

Mecha plans under way...

[(H)elix1]

Laser, check...
Water cooling, check...
Meth Fuel cell, check...
Ginger platform, check...
Power Glove, check...

Now I need an autocannon, more legos, and I'm set

Yes, the are that delicate - to a laser

[Un1v4c]

As an ex artillery guy, I can speak from experience.
A standard 155mm HE round weighs in at 103lbs. The shell itself is nothing but steel with a grid-like pattern etched on the inside (for shrapnel).
The thickness varies from about 1/2" to 3/4" thick (at the bottom next to the propellant). Other than that, they're just filled with gunpowder.
At the tip is a fuse (there are too many types to list), and just below that is a small bag of quick burning powder to kick things off.
If this laser is heating things up as hot as they say, that baby is going to blow pretty quick no matter where it's hit.

I have collection of shrapnel I picked up at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, that's where I got a look at the innards.

As a side note, by themselves they're not all that fragile. I dropped one on my foot (almost everyone does at some point), and apart from the two seconds of deafening silence following, we loaded it up and it was 12 miles away in a few seconds. Then I proceeded to scream like a bitch. Big toe was smashed something awful.

Re:Yes, the are that delicate - to a laser

[hughk]

Another person has commented that most real shells use HE, black-powder may be used for practise rounds but otherwise it went out a very long time ago.

The point is that the shell must be detonated to explode. The shell is also spinning very quickly (much faster than a rocket), so heat is dissipated. The shell is thick so the thermal mass is high.

The other point is that as you and your toe noted, shells are heavy. There is some serious inertia there, so knocking it to one side isn't easy.

So if you can't blow it up in flight or knock it seriously to one side, then its a no-no. You may be able to seriously screw up proximity-fuse though. However, most of the bits are well inside the shell.

Mortar rounds are somewhat lighter (the mortar is a man-portable weapon, so it can't fire very big rounds). At the top of their trajectory, they may be easier to deflect, but this may only work if the mortar and target are relatively close so there is comparatively little forward motion (at the top of the arc, the vertical motion is 0).

Basis for Future Weapons...

[masteroveride]

Just a quick question... how much interference does our atmosphere create for these lasers? Now the reason I ask is that everyone is talking about how this is the basis of the starwars project and all. But what would the difference in intensity of the beam would a laser at sea level and a laser at geosynchronous orbit? eh, food for though...

Treaties

[Convergence]

Weapons treaties are there to be ignored by a the parties signing them.

THink of it, you sign a treat to (say) not research biological weapons for offensive purposes, say, like Russia did. Then, you secretly violate the treaty, and now you have weapon the other side doesn't have. Its happened in the past, it'll happen in the future.

Weapons treaties only penalize the honest countries. Dishonest countries won't care. At least we actually do (for the most part) obey our treaties.

Re:Treaties

[Anonymous DWord]

I mostly agree with you, but I'd like to know a couple of things:

1) Name an "honest" country- i.e. one that has the ability to make such weapons and chooses not to (I suppose Canada is one, for nukes);

and

2) Name a treaty (either military or environmental) that the US has signed that it's obeyed.

This is not meant as flamebait. I'm seriously curious what sort of answers people can come up with.

Re:Treaties

[child_of_mercy]

Nukes are expensive

countries like Australia and Canada choose not to build them to save money, safe under the Anglo-American nuclear umbrella.

Also funny:

[Nindalf]

Arthur C. Clarke was a scientist who, among other things, wrote a paper explaining and introducing the principles of geostationary communications satellites before he sold his first hard science fiction story.

Tom Clancy got his degree in English, and worked as an insurance broker before he became a military drama novelist.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[child_of_mercy]

$3,000 a shot is a LOT cheaper than any anti-tank missile.

not so much worse than an AP artillery round.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[child_of_mercy]

With all due respect

these things don't have visible beams, no muzzle flash, no smoke, no noise

how are you planning on returning fire if you can't see it?

Useful-Use on People Much SOFTER

[Christopher B. Brown]

If you fire a high-powered laser into somebody's eyes, it will do an eminently good job of blinding them.

That is going to be more expensive to the enemy that has to retrieve and treat the people than killing people outright.

(Reminiscent of another thread; in Children of Dune, much of the story revolves around who is the "prophet" that had his eyes burned out by what they called a "stone-burner," and whether or not this man was Paul Muad'dib Atreides...)

Israel is trying to hack these

[K-Man]

This report claims that Israel is trying to hack around range restrictions in the control software. That begs the question, what is the range of one of these? I suspect it may reach quite a ways.

Pentagon sources said Israel wants this technology for a variety of reasons, virtually all of which are harmful to U.S. interests. The Nautilus laser was given to Israel to protect against Katyusha rockets, which are short-range, relatively crude weapons. The laser system?s source code, not made available to the Israelis as part of the original agreement, contains mission-limiting restrictions on the laser?s range and strength

There's LOTS of stuff you can burn...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"These lasers also have a drawback--their energy comes from large tanks of industrial chemicals, which have to be mixed until they glow, like an outsize high-school science project. And they are so bulky that one weapon fills a large aircraft, or a small building. "

Does this jive with the fox news article?

Yes. But it doesn't tell the whole story.

The lasers they're talking about are spinoffs of the Star Wars missile defense system. They had to get a LOT of energy into a beam quickly, to shoot down missiles while still in space, or to bounce off a mirror in space to get them on their way up. One shot, one dead nuke, so cost wasn't much of an object.

Neither was portability: You had either a fortified underground bunker as big as you wanted, or a satellite in zero-G.

So they did something very strong, effective, big, and expensive.

But lasers are EASY. Excluding superradiants (which are easier, if you've got the materials) all you need is a couple of well-alligned mirrors, one of 'em slightly leaky, with an "inverted population amplification light amplification medium" between them.

For "inverted population light amplification medium" read "smoke from a fire".

The medium must have the following characteristics:

It has a state transistion (an "excited state", a "ground state" or less-excited state, and an allowed transition between them) with an energy difference corresponding to a usefully energetic photon.

It must have significantly more of its atoms or molecules in the more-excited state than in the less-excited state. (This is the "inverted population" part.)

It must have ENOUGH of a surplus of more-excited particles to produce a usable amount of power if you extracted the energy difference by de-exciting enough that you're down to 50/50 (or de-exciting them all if there's a further transition that drains the less-excited state).

It must be transparent and reasonably uniform (i.e. non-distorting) at the light frequency corresponding to the state transition.

When you burn darn near ANYTHING the resulting molecules start out excited. If they meet the other criteria you've got a suitable medium for a chemically-pumped laser.

Burn a suitable fuel in a long, thin, rocket flame and run the exhaust at right angles between the pair of mirrors. You'll have a laser beam coming out as long as the flame lasts. Chose the right material and a large fraction of what would have been the heat of combustion ends up in the laser beam.

Now there are some fancy and deadly fuels (fluorine comes to mind) that make an exhaust where the bulk of the energy can be extracted by a single transition. This is nice and efficient. And you don't want to be ANYWHERE NEAR them when in use, due to the toxic nature of the exhaust. So if you're going to be shooting down a nuke from a fort in the desert they're fine.

But there are LOTS of others that are simpler, and might be more suitable for a battlefield.

I expect that eventually we'll see a chemically-pumped laser rifle or pistol, about the same size as a normal rifle or pistol, with an optical cavity where the barrel would be, powered by cartridges of solid fuel that are fed by a mechanism similar to the one that feeds cartridges consisting of case/primer/powder/bullet.

Re:There's LOTS of stuff you can burn...

[markmoss]

The fundamental problem with laser weapons is power density. A brass cartridge full of smokeless powder has very high power density, although it works just once. Nothing electrical that can generate power or store it for a few days comes within 100 times that power/weight ratio. (Capacitors might be within 10X, but they can only store power for a short time, so they'd have to be recharged from something else on the battlefield. And you really wouldn't want a long recharge time.)

The chemical laser is one way of getting around the power problem -- instead of chemical reactions to explode and push a slug, it uses a chemical reaction to directly put molecules into the "excited" state (charged with energy and ready to release it as light). So you get pretty high power density, not as good as with a gun, but maybe good enough considering that gunfire misses about 99.9% of the time in combat, and lasers probably won't.

Besides that, at present lasers are not very efficient -- that is, more than half of the energy put in winds up as heat in the laser system, so the laser system has to dispose of more unwanted heat than the target does. This is not too big of a problem if you are using a semi-truck sized laser to shoot 6-inch artillery shells and rockets, but it means that a hand-held laser would burn your hands before it burned through the enemy's uniform. The chemical laser systems might have an advantage here; they are more efficient than other high-power lasers, and maybe most of the waste heat can be exhausted as hot used chemicals.

Finally, weak lasers are effective if you point it at their eyes! You certainly want most of your platoon armed with something with real stopping power (like guns), but give a couple of guys lasers to discourage the opposition from looking straight at you and you've got a big advantage in a firefight...

Re:a flame but...

[andkaha]

If bullets went whizzing by my head I'd shoot first and ask questions later. Call me crazy I'm all for self preservation.

If I ever had to make that decision, I would know that the point where I made the wrong decision was when I decided to put myself in that situation.

Re:Arm the cats

[zulux]

Still in use:

On at least two occasions since the marine mammal program began, the Navy has used dolphins in combat situations, reportedly for surveillance and mine detection. First in 1971 during the Vietnam War, then again in 1987 during tanker escort operations in the Persian Gulf. One of six dolphins deployed to the Persian Gulf died, the Navy reported, when it developed a bacterial infection.

Assault weapons are designed to wound.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So what are you looking for, a "humane" way to kill people?

The ideal antipersonell weapon doesn't kill the target.

It wounds him sufficiently that it takes him out of action, along with about six other people to take care of him.

It wounds him badly enough that the other people WILL take care of him (so essentially that means he probably dies if he doesn't get help), but

It wounds him in a way that, if he gets help and survives, he achieves essentially a full recovery - after a convalescence that keeps him out of the fighting until it's over.

Permanently blinding a hundred-thousand-man army with lasers is trivial. But after you win the war you have a hundred thousand blind people to take care of - and a hundred thousand families that will be itching to make war on your grandchildren.

Re:Assault weapons are designed to wound.

[sigwinch]

But after you win the war you have a hundred thousand blind people to take care of...

Who says they have to be taken care of?

...and a hundred thousand families that will be itching to make war on your grandchildren.

Blind them too. The primary goal of modern warfare is not to stop the present enemy, but to teach future enemies not to start fighting in the first place, and a blind city would make a pretty damn effective object lesson. I don't buy the "humanitarian" argument that being blinded or crucified is worse than being burned alive (Dresden) or nuked (Hiroshima).

Re:Heh

[Xerithane]

Wrong. Independance was also wrong with their pencil invoice.

The way many government invoices are totalled is you have a list of supplies and a total cost of budget. So you have a $25,000 pencil on the invoice and you also have a $25,000 32-cpu 10GB ram box there.

Granted, it's stupid and most invoices aren't like this a lot of them are. All the hype about projects having "hidden overhead" is typically bunk.

Re:Bad timing

[child_of_mercy]

I believe in the Gulf War the British point blank refused to be the opposing arm of a US pincer movement, fearing that coming from the other direction in "funny looking tanks" they'd be blown to pieces by their allies.

Of course going back further my father was on board HMAS Hobart, in the US gunline off vietnam, when an american F4 mistook them for a helicopter(?) and put a missile into them, killing good men.

And not to get too bitter about it a large chunk of the RAN was sunk at guadalcanal by their american allies (funny looking british built ships).

These things happen but they seem to happen more when americans have their fingers on the trigger.

Re:a flame but...

[child_of_mercy]

only to have the 155's crew's throats cut in the night.

Re:Doubt it.

[Algan]

Never been in a desert but I guess you don't get too much fog there, do you? And I have this feeling US is very concerned with desert conflicts these days

Re:FoxNews?

[andkaha]

If you are going to offer such profound criticism about something, at least have the decency to back it up.

Here you go:

• Go to the archive of FAIR and search for "fox news" (including apostrophes).
• Try the same search at PR Watch.
• ... or try "fox" at AIM.

Re:Arm the cats

[child_of_mercy]

oh c'mon

the brits tried to train pigeons to peck at pictures of battleships,

then put the pigeons in glide-bombs with a harness to guide the bomb in the direction being pecked at

it didn't work.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[the_2nd_coming]

have you seen what some of these lasers can do? they have lasers that can knock down a building....do you think that armor will stand a better chance against such a laser?

blinding lasers, not toasting ones

[mikeee]

I believe that treaty only bans blinding enemy infantry with lasers.

If your lasers can incinerate them, you're ok!

Umm...

Re:Missile Defense?

[child_of_mercy]

also the line wasn't completed.

they never ran it along the Belgian frontier as planned.

the line wasn't cracked it was by-passed.

a bit like americans in vietnam.

Coil Guns don't

[dmaxwell]

A rail gun vaporizes a thin conductive coating on the back of a shell and electrostatic repulsion of the vaporized coating thrusts the shell forward. This vapor is very hot so it wears away a good bit of the rails on it's way out.

A coil gun is a different sort of electropropellent. The "barrel" of the gun is a multitude of coils laid in a row. The coils are driven by banks of capacitors in rapid sequence. They work just like a solenoid except that a sequence of coils is employed for greater acceleration. A working coil gun can be fired many times as no hot plasma is involved in accelerating the shell.

The problem is that it is much harder to build an effective coil gun than it is a rail gun. The timing of the coil firings must be timed precisely. Fire a coil too soon and the shell is braked rather than accelerated. Fire it too late and little to no accelleration is imparted at all. Secondly, it takes a number of coils to do this. One big coil won't do much since it is pointless to increase power once the (ferrous) shell has been magnetically saturated. So multiple coils have to kick the shell up to speed. A lot of coils isn't the problem in and of itself. Each coil will need a large bank of capacitors to itself, this will serve to make the weapon very bulky. The capacitor banks also have to be recharged between firings. It will also take some doing to cool the system. Ever play with a home made electromagnet? It's going to get HOT.

So to recap, the device will have sophisticated sensing and timing requrements for the coils; the generator and capacitor banks will be bulky; getting a high rate of fire is problimatical and it will require a large cooling system as well. I haven't mentioned any sort of targeting system or the engineering requirements that will be imposed on the shells either.

Basically, a battlefield practical electromagnetic mass driver is at least as hard as this laser system.

Naval Applications

[mcelli]

I think the real military application of this is in the Navy. Mixed with modern biotechnology, there is a huge potential for sharks with lasers attached to their heads.

So What?

[broody]

So far the only new technology we seem to need in the 'war on terror' is some kind of method to discover the location and identity of those in caves, some tunneling bombs to hit the deeper caves the 'bunker busters' cannot reach, and a box cutter defense system. We're hardly fighting a high technology enemy.

Re:So What?

[Stonehand]

Useful against low-tech foo as well. A mortar round filled with sarin is pretty low-tech, and you *really* would like to intercept it before it gets anywhere near. Sometimes you *need* high-tech to counter low-tech. For instance, you can "counter" a nuclear missile via MAD, but that won't *stop* a nuclear missile if the other guy simply doesn't care (either believing that he won't be identified, or won't be hit for other reasons, or doesn't mind being vaporized in the name of a greater cause). Stopping an attack tends to be a far harder problem than replying with a symmetric attack.

'sides, think ahead. We'd be monumentally stupid to ignore the potential for enemies more powerful than the Taliban. For instance, there is a fair probability that there'll need to be a Desert Storm II eventually; and if Pres. Hussein believes that the next time, we *won't* stop before deposing him, he may decide that with nothing left to lose he might as well pull out all the stops. Or what if North Korea implodes due to famine, and perhaps the tensest DMZ on Earth explodes? Or...

Re:humane weapon

[child_of_mercy]

one word:

goggles

Re:Uh huh

[Anonymous Coward]

What you didnt see in Fox (or any US news)
was how easy it was to fool the technology when the US decided to test their toys and bomb Yugoslavia for 3 straight months.

The funniest thing I ever saw was when it was all over. They had BBC there when the Yugoslavian MIGs where taken out of ground and that one scene with the mountain side opening up and dozens of planes flying out was priceless.

The graphite bombs were rendered almost useless by applying hair spray on wires. Microwaves in old tanks were used as decoys....it was getting funnier by the minute (well, except for the civilians they were trying to kill but those only matter when its US civilians)

Sorry Sergeant, your platoon cant go out, we have to get the latest security patch first...

yeah....that inspires confidence.

Like that German UN relief guy said on Swiss TV, "The only people who believe in the accuracy of smart bombs adn such technological wizardry are being fed the clips straight from the Pentagon. Once you've been on the ground for a few of these things (bombings), you realize how totally imprecise they are. Unless, of course, they aimed there in the first place!"

Keep watching Fox or better yet, CNN....
best fiction on TV.

Lasers as a defensive weapon

[Animats]

Lasers are still weak, large, and expensive compared to existing offensive weapons. But because they can be aimed accurately and have a very short flight time, they have potential against incoming ordnance. That's why they're looked at as defensive weapons.

Artillery duels stopped being fun when the first Fire-Finder radars were developed, and shooting back became far more effective. The current U.S. Army performance standard for counterbattery fire is that within one minute of incoming artillery fire, counterfire should be hitting the source. So the days of fixed artillery are over. Fixed artillery dies after getting off a shot or two. Current US doctrine is "shoot and scoot"; get off a few shots and run like hell.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[autopr0n]

1) These lasers are huge. They are talking about systems that are deployed on tractor trailers or on modified 747s. Why would you launch this into space?

Why would you NEED to shoot them into space? You fire the laser from the ground and hit the sat like that. I mean you can *see* sats in space with a telescope (sometimes just with your naked eyes) People use lasers to measure the distance to the moon in centimeters.

The whole rest of your post is based on the idea that you'd need to launch the laser into space to fire it, witch is just a ridiculous.

Re:Well..

[sigwinch]

..Any Laser have a couple of mirrors in it - beam bouncing between them, getting amplified.. They do withstand the beam just fine.

The laser can afford a platinum-on-sapphire mirror cooled with 1000 liters/minute of liquid argon. Plus the mirrors can operate at a lower power density and use lenses afterward to increase the power density to cut-through-tungsten-like-a-hot- knife-through-butter levels.

Idea: build little corner reflectors that can be fired with a mortar/howitzer. The laser boys will be unhappy when 90% of the optical power bounces back to their general vicinity. ;-) At the very least it'll raise the supply and support costs for the laser units.

Why laser pistols?

[Christopher Thomas]

I expect that eventually we'll see a chemically-pumped laser rifle or pistol, about the same size as a normal rifle or pistol, with an optical cavity where the barrel would be, powered by cartridges of solid fuel that are fed by a mechanism similar to the one that feeds cartridges consisting of case/primer/powder/bullet.

While this would probably work, I'm having trouble seeing why someone would use this instead of a gun.

The big problem with lasers is that you can do a lot more damage to a target by hitting it with a fast-moving slug than by heating it. Lasers are useful when you have a target that's far away and moving erratically enough that you can't fire slugs at it, but personal weapons are usually used at much shorter range. This suggests a chemically-pumped kinetic slug weapon might better fit infantry's needs... which is what they currently have.

As for shooting down missiles, one of the more interesting ideas in the Star Wars project was guided bullets. If you can guide a bullet - or even a countermissile, as is currently being tried - accurately enough to shoot down an incoming rocket, this method will likely be cheaper than using a laser to destroy the same rocket.

There might still be scenarios where you'd rather use a laser than a slug-based weapon. I'd certainly be interested in hearing suggestions (I certainly don't claim to have thought of everything; it's just that lasers aren't the best solution for the scenarios that I _have_ thought of).

Re:Why laser pistols?

[Rogerborg]

• I'm having trouble seeing why someone would use [a laser small arms] instead of a gun [because it doesn't do a lot of damage]

Kill a man, it takes a couple of man hours to bury him.

Wound, cripple or blind him and you put a long term drain on your enemy's economy.

It's simple economics. Instead of "Kill 'em all!", the strategy is "Wound 25% of them, then wait."

It's an unpopular strategy with the trigger pullers. When the British army went from the 7.62m SLR to the 5.56mm NATO round SA-80, it was vastly unpopular, and despite repeated modifications, it's still not loved (although the plastic furniture on it is no longer melted by QM-issue insect repellant...). One British special forces guy forced to try out the SA-80 in the Falklands reported shooting an Argentinian 3 times at bayonet range but failing to disable him. In the event, the British guy had actually fitted his obsolete bayonet, and stabbed the Argentinian. The baynet snapped. He had to cut him to bits with the broken edge.

It's a nasty story, but it illustrates that the people commissioning weapons have very different priorities from the people using them. In fact, special forces (and paramilitaries like SWAT) are the only troops who are still allowed to pick weapons for their stopping power. If it comes to the point where Joe Grunt is being used, then it's become an attrition war (or garrison duty, which isn't dissimilar), and Joe is going to be armed with something that's a compromise between robust, reliable, and cheap enough (weapon, ammunition and servicing) to perform effective recon by fire.

Which, now that I think about it, pretty much precludes lasers in the immediate future.

Re:Why laser pistols?

[Rogerborg]

• As a former marksman with sniper training on both the 7.62 SLR and the 5.56 SA-80, I can only express surprise. The SA-80 has incredible hitting power from its high muzzle velocity - 1.6 times as great as the SLR

I make it 940m/s (SA-80) to 838m/s (SLR).

• Your source for this British Special Forces Guy Hacks Argie to Death story?

Buggered if I can find a reference. I can't even remember what service he was with. For what it's worth, if I was making it up, I've have made up a service as well. ;-) I really do recall reading about this, but I'm damned if I remember where. It may very well be rubbish, it was probably fifteen years ago.

• P.S. Bayonets will never be obsolete.

Absolutely. Sorry, I should have put that in "quotes". I meant to imply that whoever specced/made the bayonet probably thought that it was obsolete and only there to lengthen the weapon and stop it slipping under soldiers' armpits.

• The Falklands War was in 1981 and the SA-80 only came into use in 1985. It is of course prefectly possible that special forces personnel were already using it, but it does seem a little strange.

Er, well Falklands was April-June 1982. Now that I think about it, the SA-80 / Enfield L85A1 was initially specced to fire a 4.7mm round (maybe a copy of the caseless 4.7mm in the HK G11 when it appeared to be the Next Big Thing) and it had to be re-engineered to fire the NATO 5.56mm. It's conceivable that the 1982 version was even a 4.7mm. What the politics would be in trying to persuade special forces (collectively or individually) to use a prototype weapon, I would only imagine, but the US has done it recently with the Saber 203 laser illuminator/"dissuader" (to get back On Topic). By "dissuader", I mean that the Saber 203 is quite capable of blinding a target at close range. Temporarily, they claim.

I'm not slagging of the SA-80, but my point is that it was designed by commitee, built by the lowest bidder, and it's taken 15+ years to get a version that finally looks like it'll deliver on the original promise, with the improved SA-80 A2.

We might see anti-personnel lasers on the battlefield at some point, but by this measure, they'll take a good while to actually achieve their initial promise, particularly in terms of reliability.

Well, not me.

[autopr0n]

WTF would I do with a anti-artillery laser? Seeing as how I'm not constantly dodging mortar fire, that is. And if you did shoot it at other cars stuck in traffic you'd just be stuck longer, and then stuck in jail.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[child_of_mercy]

u sure?

we're talking a coherent beam...

so the detector would have to be along the firing line right?

I suppose a really tip-top damage control system might manage to get a fix?

Also expect the truck carrying this thing to be well camoflaged.

Re:Good for tank vs tank

[Graymalkin]

Keeping a laser trained on enemy tanks won't work so well with chemical lasers. They don't like to run for a long time because there's only so much reactive chemicals you can fit in the firing chamber and still get any emission from them. Lasers are powerful against stuff without alot of armour like airborn munitions but against something with a real defensive system they're going to have much less effect. Penetration with a laser is entirely dependant on the material and the laser's wavelength. You don't just have one laser fits all, as anybody who works with industrial lasers. Some wavelengths have next to no effect on certain materials because they absorb the radiation too well. It'd suck if your tanks for their asses kicked because the enemy force covered their Toyotas with tin foil or painted them differently. KE weapons are the way to really inflict some heavy damage. Lets hear it for railguns mounted on an M1A1 chassis!

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[DNS-and-BIND]

The M1 Abrams tank has had lasing warning for a good while now. I remember getting "Laser Detected" warnings playing M1 Tank Commander back in 1987...

You just can't please some people

[DNS-and-BIND]

Jesus...there's always going to be mistakes made. Friendly fire is as old as the wooden spear.

I think it says a lot that nowadays the worst thing that the anti-military folks can say is "i'm shocked by how many of our own soldiers we're killing". Funny, I'm shocked at how few of our soldiers have been killed by the enemy (current score: 0). Just goes to show you how some people's minds work. Sad, really.

Re:You just can't please some people

[Sebastopol]

"...the anti-military folks... ...Sad, really."

What?! At what point did you think I was anti-military? Don't be so quick to judge. I totally support the war (especially leveraging the N.A. rather than putting our own troops at risk), I just never expected the death tool from friendly fire to be higher than that inflicted by the enemy.

Sad, really, how some people just draw their own conclusions from their own malicious bias.

Re:You just can't please some people

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, the campaign is going smashingly well, America's enemies are in full retreat, and all anybody can talk about are the miniscule friendly fire statistics. Sounds pretty unfriendly to me.

Re:Save Us

[DNS-and-BIND]

FYI: the bomb that hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade wasn't a mistake. We had blown up all the Serbian Army's big radio transmitters, and they had no way to get messages from HQ in Belgrade to the units in the field in Kosovo. The Chinese helpfully stepped in and began relaying orders to the Serbian Army via the transmitter on the grounds of their embassy. The USA was faced with a dilemma...if they accused the Chinese in public, they'd get the usual lousy treatment from the media, UN, etc. If they did nothing, the campaign was in jeopardy. Shockingly, the USA chose to do the right thing, which was bomb the embassy (which had forfeited its neutrality by consorting with belligerents). Only the portion of the embassy containing the transmitter was bombed, and the Chinese knew damn well they had been caught red-handed. The Chinese didn't protest too much, and the event provided a convenient way for the Chinese public to blow off steam that would have otherwise likely been directed at the Communist Party.

Aegis is considered to be a sophisticated system.

[Futurepower(tm)]

There was NO intention on my part to say it was a conspiracy. I don't think that. I was just saying that there are a lot of things that can go wrong with an automatically guided laser.

My point about the Vincennes is that the recognition radar was not sophisticated enough to show the difference clearly between a fighter and a large commercial aircraft. People on board genuinely thought they were being attacked. They would not have thought that if they had a better recognition system. That is significant because Aegis is considered to be a very sophisticated system. If that is close to the state of the art, then we can expect problems of the same nature with laser weapons.

Great belief in the power and efficacy of weapons

[Futurepower(tm)]

Regardless of the problems in Saudi Arabia, the situation there is many, many times better than it is in "similar" countries such as Iraq and Iran.

Senator Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, disagrees with you. He said in a recent interview that the government of Saudi Arabia exists only because it is supported by the United States. This is effectively saying that Osama bin Laden's main complaint is justified. (HOWEVER, note that bin Laden's violence is NOT justified.) A transcript of the interview will be posted later at http://hevanet.com/peace.

This is all relevant to the discussion of laser weapons in that something is out of control. There is a much greater belief in the power and efficacy of weapons than there should be.

I read about 60 Slashdot posts when the story was young, and I didn't find anyone who took the new weapon seriously. Many discussed reasons why it wouldn't work.

X-rays are refracted.

[Futurepower(tm)]

X-rays are refracted and dispersed by the water vapor in clouds. Very short wavelengths might work, but I don't think they are feasible.

Re:Can they target insects.

[hughk]

There is a rumour about a guy in Russia reported a while back in The St Petersburg Times, who made a smaller zapper for mosquitoes (which are a major headache during the summer in northern Russia). It used two lasers, one for tracking and a pulsed beam for frying. The guy was working at the Lenningrad Optical Institute which was where some of the Russian laser research is done.

Someone heard about of this device and nixed on the grounds that it used the Soviet Starwars technology, which is restricted and secondly, you don't really want to be in the way when it fires.

"FoxNews, The Most Biased Name in News" - FAIR.org

[Kraft]

Thank you thank you thank you for pointing that out.

I have a grudge with Fox, and this article didn't help either. I totally avoid it for any "War on Terror" news.

Recently Fair And Accuracy in Reporting wrote a special report titled:
The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt (note that's it's written before sep.11).

Now that I am at it, CNN is no saint either, that's for sure. I feel like screaming BIASED! at the TV when I see Lou Dobbs et.al. wearing Stars and Stripes on their suit. All reporting is "WE need to fight this enemy...", "Protect OUR country...". So much for International.

No thank you, I will stick with:
- guerrillanews
- mediachannel
- and for TV, EuroNews or even BBC

Microwaves as crowd dispersal weapons

[Von Rex]

It's already in the works.

Here's an interesting experiment on using microwaves to heat up crowds of dissenters.

The Air Force Research Lab has already set guidelines for acceptable pain levels for use against civilians, though some say the levels are too high as they could cause eye damage. Testing against human volunteers has already begun.

Re:More bias/social engineering from the hawks at

[Sleepy]

Interesting. There is no failure or redesign in any of our (being citizens) projects?

Oh, wait!

We're *human*. That means we know we aren't perfect and we aren't going get it right the very first time trying to do a complicated thing!

Or did you *not* fall down while you were learning to ride a bycicle?

You might have had a point if you selected a better example, but you failed. "Civilian projects" do not spend upwards of 80 BILLION dollars in just the TEST phase. In science, at some point in testing, you will always arrive at a conclusion that the project is either not feasable, too expensive, or the technology is not ready. After almost 20 years of failures, I'd say it's all of the above.

The closest thing I could think of to your comment would be Boston's Big Dig. Sure, it's expensive as hell and has a lot of waste, but at least *civilian* projects like this are financially accountable, and nothing is filed as "secret". More importantly, and this is my counter-point.. there was plenty of evidence the tunnel would work. They just keep running these SDI tests to keep the pork flowing, and maybe sneak in more appropriations when the public is too busy worrying over terrorism.

In other words, the beef with SDI/star wars isn't over the trials, it's because they're PUSHING for Congress to ORDER the thing, when no one YET knows if it works. Oh yeah, and then there's the cost issue, and how much more likely a nuke would be suicide bombing than some fearless leader launching a missile at us... (I think our arsenal pretty much guarantees the latter will not happen)

Newsflash----

Not even Fox Network took the 'Moon Hoax' seriously. Sure it was titilating and it was a huge uproar. Got decent ratings too.

Nice to see Fox supporters shrug off gross acts of irresponsibility in the name of politics and profit. "We report - you decide" is the Fox motto, but it should be "We decide -- you agree (and your conscience can be clear because you heard it on TV)".

But if you're blaming NASA's problems on FOX, you aren't looking in the right place.

Most of its problems are within congress and management

In my opinion, the only problem NASA has is *intereference* and fiscal sabotage. And yes, I can lay that squarely at the feet of conservatives, who can think of nothing more than profits from privatized space exploitation. Hell, Nasa's detractors in Congress are the same bastards who feel nothing wrong about privatizing our POLICE forces, if they could get away with it.

The only thing "wrong" with NASA management is they will spend whatever it takes to protect their people, accidents notwithstanding. You won't for example see a mining corporation install multiple fail-safe devices... "it's just part of the job".

Re:"Fox News" != "News"

[NeuroManson]

"What, that they were started by Ted Turner?"

Nope, that they are often open to massive gaffs when it comes to accuracy...

"However, CNN researches it's stories far more often than Fox...

And you have documented proof of this, I presume."

Ahhh, the old "Provide proof on paper" argument... Well, can you provide proof otherwise? And can you provide documented proof from a reputable source? There aren't any... Sorry, try again...

The truth is, that Turner built his news network up from a relatively meager start as an independant UHF station in Atlanta, and until the gulf war, they had very little in the way of real visual presence (except for those who HAD cause to watch it)...

Just because you don't study history or the actual information, or have an attention span that exceeds 5 minutes, doesn't mean it isn't true...

"I still trust a news agency that got it's "start" in covering the gulf war, far more than a news network that got it's start with 'Bigfoot could be your neighbor!!!', and 'Here's our big titted broad of the week!'

Uhh...WTF??? I suppose you "researched" that, too."

No need, go to the average supermarket and dig up a copy of the National Enquirer, and read the indicia, you'll note that it's owned by 'American News Corporation', a Rupert Murdoch company... Also owned by Murdoch is the Sun, a Brit publication, and here's your documented proof as well, take a look at their actual website if you don't believe me: http://www.thesun.co.uk/

The list of Rupert Murdoch owned publications can be found at http://www.newscorp.com/index2.html (warning, Flash heavy)

I rest my case...

Re:Aegis is considered to be a sophisticated syste

[saider]

Causes
1) Airbus IFF was not active.

2) Airbus was off course.

3) Airbus did not respond to voice queries on several channels.

4) Vincennes did not broadcast warning on Air Traffic Control channel.

5) Vincennes had no way to visually ID the Airbus.

6) Vincennes' helicopter had been attacked by gunboats.

It was just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

From the Washington Post...

The Pentagon at first denied the Iranian claims, declaring that information from the fleet indicated that the Vincennes, equipped with the Aegis electronic battle management system, had shot down an attacking Iranian F14 jet fighter. But after sifting through more detailed reports and electronic intelligence, Reagan directed the Pentagon to confirm there had been a tragic case of mistaken identity in the war-torn gulf.

Crowe, in his hastily called news conference at the Pentagon, also backed up the skipper of the Vincennes and faulted the Iranian airline pilot. Crowe said the Airbus had flown four miles west of the usual commercial airline route from Bandar Abbas to Dubai and that the pilot ignored repeated radioed warnings from the Vincennes to change course.

Why and how the Vincennes mistook the bulky, wide-bodied Airbus A300 for a sleek, supersonic F14 fighter plane barely a third the transport's size will be the subject of "a full investigation," Reagan promised. A military team under the command of Rear Adm. William N. Fogarty of the U.S. Central Command will leave this week to begin that investigation, Defense Department officials said.

The shootdown of the Airbus represents the biggest loss of life on the strategic waterway since the U.S. warships began escorting Kuwaiti tankers in and out of the Persian Gulf last July. Pentagon officials then said the increased U.S. naval presence would have from a "low to moderate risk" of provoking confrontations with Iran.

But in the past year, although the United States and Iran are not in a formal state of war, there have been a series of brief but fierce sea battles in the gulf between the two countries' military forces. Vigilance and readiness among U.S. forces intensified after the near-sinking of the patrol frigate USS Stark by an Iraqi fighter-bomber on May 17, 1987, in a missile attack that killed 37 sailors.

Yesterday started out as another sea battle, and ended with what the Vincennes commanders misinterpreted as a "Stark profile" attack on the high-tech cruiser. Crowe in his briefing and other Navy and Defense Department officials offered a detailed version of how the shoot-down occurred.

At 2:10 a.m. EDT, the Pentagon said, three Iranian Boghammar gunboats fired on a helicopter that had flown off the Vincennes on a reconnaissance mission. The helicopter flew back to the cruiser unscathed. The Vincennes and a smaller warship, the frigate USS Elmer Montgomery, a half-hour later closed on the gunboats and put them under fire with 5-inch guns, sinking two and damaging the third.

At 2:47 a.m. EDT, the Iranian Airbus with almost a full load of passengers took off from Bandar Abbas, a big Iranian naval base on the northern coastal elbow of the Strait of Hormuz. The field at the base is used by civilian and military aircraft and recently had become the center for Iran's dwindling force of F14s, a twin-engine, two-place fighter that the United States sold to Iran during the rule of the shah.

Two minutes after the Airbus took off, the far-reaching radars of the Vincennes Aegis cruiser saw the plane was coming its way. The skipper of the ship, operating under liberalized rules of engagement that call for U.S. captains in the Persian Gulf to fire before being fired upon to avoid another Stark disaster, warned the approaching aircraft to change course, according to the Pentagon.

The Vincennes and most airliners are equipped with identification of friend or foe (IFF) electronic boxes that query each other across the sky to establish identities. The Vincennes' IFF questioned the Airbus IFF via telemetry, but received no response. A response would come in radio pulses that would be deciphered and displayed as an identifying number on the ship's combat information center consoles.

Failing to raise the Airbus by IFF, the Pentagon said, the Vincennes broadcast its warnings by voice radio, using the emergency UHF and VHF channels that aircraft crews would hear if they followed standard practice of monitoring those frequencies. Crowe said three warnings were sent over the civilian emergency channel and four over the military one, called "Guard." The Pentagon said the Vincennes could have issued the warning over the air traffic control channel but did not.

"The suspect aircraft was outside the prescribed commercial air corridor," Crowe told reporters. Defense Department officials said later that the Airbus was four miles west of commercial air corridor. "More importantly," Crowe continued, "the aircraft headed directly for Vincennes on a constant bearing at high speed, approximately 450 knots."

Without becoming specific, Crowe said there were "electronic indications on Vincennes" that led the U.S. crew to conclude the approaching airliner was an F14. "Given the threatening flight profile and decreasing range, the aircraft was declared 'hostile' " at 2:51 a.m. EDT. The airliner at that crucial moment was on a course of almost due south, 185 degrees, and descending toward the Vincennes from an altitude of 7,800 feet, according to Crowe. Visibility was no more than five miles, Crowe said.

Three minutes later, at 2:54 a.m. EDT, the Vincennes launched two Standard surface-to-air missiles from its deck. The missiles whooshed toward the twin-jet airliner, which was nine miles away and not visible to the naked eye because of the haze hanging over the gulf. The Standard missiles homed in on the heat of the quarry's engines and at least one of them exploded when it pulled abreast of the Airbus. Such a missile hit usually slices an aircraft apart and turns it into a fireball of burning fuel.

Re:missle defense

[Dyolf Knip]

The problem is, powerful lasers have until recently been VERY big beasts

Agree, and getting the kind of surge power needed to actually destroy something is never easy.

and aiming at something the size and speed of a missle is an incredibly difficult problem

But it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to hit it with another missile! Look at the inter-satellite laser link the ESA set up a few weeks ago. It was almost trivially easy to do! It's clear that lasers will be able to do what ABM's never can.

The US has developed a flying version of this technology that can shoot down an ICMB from hundreds of miles away. The laser take up most of the space inside a gutted 747.

Yeah, I saw that. How about we put nuclear reactors on a couple of space stations in LEO and use them to shoot down any long range missiles? We know that the reactors would work, the lasers would work, and the targetting would work. Aside from the fact that it would be expensive to deploy (thank you very much, NASA!), though less than an equivalent ABM system, what's left?

Unfortunatly the US is violating treaties in developing it, so who knows if they will ever be put into action.

I'm not sure, did we have any ABM treaties with countries other than the USSR? If not, they're treaties with a nation that no longer exists. Just how binding is it?

A sophisticated system did not deliver enough info

[Futurepower(tm)]

Why and how the Vincennes mistook the bulky, wide-bodied Airbus A300 for a sleek, supersonic F14 fighter plane barely a third the transport's size will be the subject of "a full investigation..."

There is a point here: A sophisticated system did not deliver enough information to allow the crew to distinguish between very different targets. I think they are not doing that much better now, and that limitation is a limitation for laser weapons.

Cannot work because of the laws of physics

[Futurepower(tm)]

The problem seems to be that the U.S. government spends money on weapons that cannot work because of the laws of physics, as earlier posts have mentioned. This seems to be a case of government corruption; these are largely secret, high-profit deals.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[Codifex Maximus]

Who says you gotta penetrate the armor to take out a tank? All you gotta do is render it immobile (take out the tracks) and it's effectively dead.

They have something that does...

[Svartalf]

It's called body armor or vehicular armor.

While it's not 100 percent effective, it DOES stop most types of small arms fire (Especially some of the new body armor types- they'll stop stuff like 12ga. sabot slugs at point-blank range.).

If you're talking about a Star Wars shield generator type affair, you're going to find it's going to be easier for us to make beam weapons for a while yet as the technology to make useful, efficient force fields is still essentially in the stone age level of development.

Re:Better idea

[trcooper]

Strap the PETA folks up with explosives, and guide THEM with the pen lasers.

Re:More bias/social engineering from the hawks at

[Rogerborg]

• this is a LOBBYING EFFORT to raise taxes for yet another military boondoggle. It's just pretend news

Yup. Let's not forget that during the Gulf War, the press was reporting that Patriots were shooting down 90%+ of the Scuds raining down on Kuwait and Israel.

As it turned out, what the military was very carefully claiming was a 90%+ "interception" rate. The press cheerfully interpreted that as "shooting down". In the enquiries afterwards, it turned out that "interception" meant that the Patriot had exploded in the vicinity of the Scud. When pressed as to how many Scuds had actually been shot down by Patriots, the number of confirmed kills turned out to be of the order of zero. Zilch. Nada.

And also let's not forget that early laser tests were carried out on flimsy target drones painted black.

So when I read an article saying that a laser has "destroyed" 25 Katyusha rockets, I take it with a huge pinch of salt. Where did the word "destroyed" come from? 25 out of how many launches? What colour were they painted, and what modifications had been made to them (like covering them in thermite to simulate "future enhancements" to the laser)?

I'll believe it when the grunts say it's working, and not before.

Re:Uh huh

[monkeydo]

They had BBC there when the Yugoslavian MIGs where taken out of ground and that one scene with the mountain side opening up and dozens of planes flying out was priceless.

I think you were watching one of the old James Bond films. Really, planes _flying_ out of a mountain....in Yugoslavia?

The graphite bombs were rendered almost useless by applying hair spray on wires

I guess I don't watch enough CNN since I have no idea what a graphite bomb sould be used for, or why you would put hairspray on wires.

Innocent?

[EnglishTim]

I thought the term 'innocent' in this context was normally only used to describe civillians. Although not by implication 'guilty', it is generally accepted that dying is recognised hazard of a career in the armed forces, and to a certain extent, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword". Although it is a noble thing to risk death and mutilation for the good of your country, killing others, even your enemies, can at best be described as a regrettable necessity; hence the innapropriateness of the adjective 'innocent' when applied to combatants.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[Tassach]

IIRC, reactive armor is pretty well obsolete - it's not very effective against the current generation of anti-tank weapons, most of which were designed to defeat reactive armor. The US hasn't used it for many years, and I'm pretty sure the Russians have stopped using it as well. It may still be used by some smaller countries that bought their military equipment from the USSR, but even that seems pretty unlikely -- reactive armor is very difficult (and expensive) to maintain, which lessens the probability that any army that has to rely on Soviet hand-me-downs will have the resources to keep it functional.

Re:"FoxNews, The Most Biased Name in News" - FAIR.

[Kraft]

(also answer to ghoti221 and borzwazie)

I completely agree that remaining unbiased is not possible. But it gets my goat when it's presented as unbiased: commentaries aren't.

Guerrillanews and mediachannel were mostly thrown in there for the interested reader to get a counterbalance. The Institute for Public Accuracy might have been a better addition to the list.

Guerrillanews is more of a commentary site than anything else. Of cause you can find speculative qoutes, if you look for them, but what I appreciate about the site, is they bring on people with non mainstream views. Sometimes they are dumb, but at least they don't read from a government press release. It's deliberately opinionated, but not presented as something else.

And for mediachannel, it links so many interesting articles on "both sides of the camp". Like interviews with CNN journalists and editors.

That being said, I don't look at Guerillanews for breaking news - for sure. I read news papers, magazines and check out a range of channels. I completely agree that one source won't give you the entire picture, and that all you can is look around and make up your own mind.

My biggest complaint about CNN is NOT lou dobbs. At all. Did you read the article I linked to? Here's another complaint. There's much more.

And for CNN being regarded as being liberal biased news - hmm... let me guess. You are American and you don't have a passport, right ;) ? And even if CNN is liberal biased news, who cares? That's really not the point.

I'm glad that you see the Fox bias, because Fox always claim that they are not.

> Please, just admit it that your biggest
> complaint about foxnews is that it shows a
> conservative voice. I would find it hard to
> believe that if a news

I'm more conservative than you imagine. I'm a capitalist, for globalization etc. If all the media was libral biased, I would have less of a problem with Fox, because it wouldn't be such a big problem in terms of ratings. I just don't see that as the case now, so if one is to seek "alternative" news sources, they will generally (in the US at least) have to look a bit to the left.

Re:"Fox News" != "News"

[NeuroManson]

Nope, you decided to insultingly demand proof, I demand you prove otherwise... I provided mine, and thusly you claimed a 'guilt by association' bent... Wrong... It isn't a matter of guilt by association, it's a matter of OWNERSHIP...

For example, how often do you see anti-Disney or anti-MPAA news on ABC News? None? Golly gee, wonder why? Because they're OWNED by Disney? Because *gasp* the once honorable news division of ABC is actualy having their reports respun by their corporate owners to satisfy their corporate owners? Golly gee willikers!

Fox News is owned by a corporation that's known for producing supermarket tabloids, and you thus expect that their business isn't bound under the same practices of sensationalism and oft times personal bias? Sorry kiddo, the real world doesn't work that way... Fox News learned to make their business by appealing to the lowest common denominator, which in American society is almost equal on either side of the political coin... If they cannot appeal to the liberals (CNN and MSNBC), they'll try to appeal to the conservatives, including by supporting every conceivable pie in the sky concept produced by the military industrial complex... Irregardless of the facts, with the very same level of sensationalism and inaccuracies their tabloids use...

So stop defending them, they aren't paying you enough, go back to reading up on Bat Boy or whatever... You've proven nothing other than your capacity to scream "You're wrong wrong wrong!" just as loudly as the evil liberals you're obviously so biased against...

Two words:

[Galvatron]

Light speed. Literally, a laser is a point and click weapon. Whereas a rifle bullet will travel at Mach 2 or so, giving someone a chance to duck, if they anticipate the shot, a laser can hit anything you can see.

Another excellent reason, of course, is lack of recoil. Both of these factors will increase accuracy by an unbelievable degree.

Re:"Fox News" != "News"

[DarkEdgeX]

Shrug, just as offensive as CNN is to conservatives-- you guys are just pissed they finally got a news channel of their own. (Having had the lock on all the major networks and other media outlets, this must be a real let-down-- now you can't force-feed your point of view on the rest of the world, with no way for dissenting viewers to refute it publically.)

Besides, like I said in my first post, FoxNews was one of the only networks running news (LIVE news) 24/7 advertising free after the attacks on 9/11. You could switch it on at 2 or 3 am (Pacific Time) in the days (and I think even weeks) following the attack and get live updates on what was going on.

Re:hard part; not so; air may be transparent

[isomeme]

actually, for the laser to be efficient, it MUST emit light which is hardly ever absorped in air. therefore, no superheating of air...

Air is indeed almost transparent at the wavelengths of interest -- notably visible light -- but it is not *perfectly* transparent. And even 0.1% absorption of a beam designed to vaporize a significant portion of a steel artillery shell in a fraction of a second is going to be auite suffient to superheat the air along the beam path.

Did not give enough information to the people.

[Futurepower(tm)]

Yes, but the detection system did not give enough information to the people. Presumably, this would be the same for laser weapons.

Re:Bad timing

[child_of_mercy]

well i'm an Australian with family in the British Army.

There's a general perception (might not be true) that American soldiers are discouraged from developing their independent thinking, which in turn leads them to blindly shoot at stuff which may later turn our to be one of their own.

Australian units in Vietnam had MUCH lower rates of friendly fire than their American counterparts, thats the only near-fair comparison I have.

Re:Purely defensive??????? I dont think so....

[child_of_mercy]

thats a targetting laser being detected.

it's not incinerating on it's way in.

and did that "laser detected" give you a range and bearing?

Against a real fighting laser you wouldn't need the "laser detected" light, because your flesh would be melting first.

Re:They already had a design like this

[markmoss]

It was an automated system that aimed for the eyes, but got cancelled due to bad press. Oh my. That would certainly upset those people that imagine war can be made more humane... But the reality is, to fight a war you either kill people or wound them. Wounding is more effective, because then their buddies have to stop fighting and take care of them. A laser in the eyes would be very, very effective in this way. I think, unlike most non-fatal gunfire wounds, laser blindness would be quite permanent. If we deployed this system, the next country to get crossways of us would wind up with their streets full of blind beggars afterwards -- a hell of a drag on a third world economy, and assurance that what happens when you p*ss off America would be remembered for a century, at least. Is that good or bad???

Re:Uh huh

[Squeeze Truck]

I think I recall reading that the Serbs were able to fool laser-guided bombs and cruise missles by painting huge red and yellow colored squares on the airfields and tanks they wanted to protect. Evidently this screwed up the "signature" of the object (or something like that) so that it didn't look like an airfield or tank.

Re:Arm the cats

[Squeeze Truck]

England doesn't have skunks. Skunks are indigenous to America.

Many kinds of rail guns

[leonbrooks]

A rail gun vaporizes a thin conductive coating on the back of a shell and electrostatic repulsion of the vaporized coating thrusts the shell forward.

Well, that's one kind of rail gun. Another kind is basically a coil gun in reverse, where the current across the rails makes a field which pushes against the frame. True, the projectile would get kind of hot, but you do get a lot more than one shot per gun. This is the kind that I have in mind, plus maybe a stage or two of coils for tweaking on the way out the end of the gun. Give it to the Australian military as a project and they'd build the first useable one for a few million (-: the Yanks would need a few (tens of) billions to do the same thing :-)

Coil guns have often been proposed for space launching devices (as in, tonnes per shot), but the big bummer there is also heat. Much of the heat in that huge flame spat out by rockets is necessary, unless you're dealing with Buck Rogers levels of efficiency in your equipment, no matter how the launching is done. Dissipating even a few percent of that much energy in a fixed, solid structure is not easy.

Re:Uh huh

[flacco]

News for people that don't need the Liberal elite telling us how to think. Go read the new book called "Bias"... you might learn something. Or you'll just end up calling me a but wipe.

Or a presumptive idiot. Who can't spell "butt". But you're doing a great job of parroting what you've been told.

I didn't say a word about politics. I'm talking about the news FORMAT, TV personality behavior ("reporter" and "news anchor" are completely inappropriate terms), etc. Especially those insipid shitheads who do Fox's morning chat show or whatever it is.

It's a general trend that is infecting other news programs as well, including CNN. I call it the Foxification of all news. Sensationalized Hardcopy-like story setups, that damn "swoosh", or "chu-wonggg" sound that sounds like someone just threw a knife into someone's forehead.

Or the despicable info-box headlines. I actually saw one on CNN about Omar that said "Big Talk - Done Walked". If the monkey whose job it is to write those things ever was a real news employee, he must spend a lot of nights at the kitchen table with a gun in his mouth wondering what the hell happened to his life.

Can "News Hour" on PBS be far behind, now that they are whoring for Archer Daniels Midland? Maybe not. There is no escape from the non-stop sea-to-shining-sea marketing mind-fuck machine.

Oh well, I bet you listen to techno music....

Hmm, that's relevant.