Slashdot Mirror
USAF Readies Laser of Death
An anonymous reader submits: "From the SkyNet Terminator Death Beam Dept...The London Telegraph is carrying this article about U.S. military plans to outfit AC-130 Spectre gunships with a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) which can be used against personnel and materiel for lethal and nonlethal missions."
Now that it's a crime to have a Death Ray, on criminals will have Death Rays...
Something to think about.
Who did what now?
Well, yeah, just like any projectile larger than a standard rifle round is not supposed to be used against personnel. But like my Drill sergeant always said, 'Aim for their belt.'
Why should the user of lasers be against the law ? You can use a flame thrower on the bad guys and then bayonet the survivors but not zap them with a high intesity beam. Bush appears quite easy about ignoring laws he does not like and in this case I'd have no problem with either altering international law to reflect new technology or simply deploying the weapons.
Because 5000 years of human history has shown that the side with the better weapons usually wins. Everybody wants to be a winner. That's why whole world is spending money on bigger guns.
You're probably thinking of Protocol IV to the 1980 additions to the Geneva Convention (text at ICRC). As near as I can tell, it only applies to weapons designed to blind people. That's right, folks. You can blow people apart with laser weapons, according to international law, but you can't blind them. It is indeed a strange world we live in.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Precision weapons are only useful if you can locate the target, er, precisely. You'd still want something conventional like big Gatling guns, AGMs and standard bombs for hitting an area where you suspect something is... lasing a whole area might take non-trivial time and energy.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Maybe the treaty writers wanted to keep war as inefficient and ineffective as possible. *shrug*
Of course, if somebody wants to violate the treaties, they're just ink on a page. It's not like deliberate maiming and mutilation are at all uncommon in the numerous hot-spots in the world, but you don't see massive intervention forces stomping out all the Big Men or rebellious Big Men-wannabees. I doubt that wantonly amputating civilians for simply being in territory that you just conquered is permitted under international law, either.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
> the ability to vaporise enemy troops
did they think about these words while writing them? does this get people off? this makes me sick. this makes me sad about all of humanity. there is so much that could be done instead of killing one another.
how many lives have been lost in this 'war on terrorism'. how much has been spent?
how many lives have been lost in the war on hunger? how much has been spent?
maybe if as a society, we stopped spending money on war machines, frivilous SUVs, and associated items, and spent more on helping the rest of the world, there would be a lot less reason to hate the US.
instead we let the world be run as an incredible pissing contest.
remember, blindly following someone elses ideas (patriotism) is the worst thing you can do. most likely they are simply doing the same.
you need to stand up for what you believe in on all fronts. you can crusade for anti-DMCA all you want, but you will never overturn the system unless you have the help of people who could be on your side, but haven't thought about the issue, because they are more concerned with anti-war.
you need to realize that it's all the same front. all the same battle for a nice, civilized, logically run society instead of the current tragedy of the commons ruled by selfish tendencies.
"Despite the successful operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, the emergence of asymmetric terrorist warfare - attacks such as September 11 where the enemy is unseen - has led the Pentagon to identify the need for a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system."
So.... what they're saying is "We didn't see them coming, so we need bigger guns". Is it just me, or is that logic flawed? How do they get from A to B there? I think that the real need should be for better intelligence so they know more about what's going on, not bigger bang-bangs. Proactive is always better than Reactive, IMHO.
"Lasers could also be used as an additional weapon system to fighters, bombers, helicopter gunships and warships but this is unlikely for a decade."
I find this quite puzzling. One of the big threats to warships (i.e. aircraft carriers) today, is cruise missiles.
To defend against those, we use missiles and gatling guns today.
Wouldn't something like this be a ideal supplement to CIWS? Moving a mirror around, directing the laser beam, to hit a sea-skimming cruise missile, should be easier than hitting that missile with lots-of-flying-lead[tm].
/Styx
Line of sight is going to become really, really important in the battlefield. High-flying non-stealth aircraft would be in serious trouble if accurate enough fire-control systems for ground anti-aircraft lasers could be developed. Armored ground forces would regain importance. The derided Crusader artillery system could suddenly look prescient (antiaircraft suppression being one of its combat roles), assuming tracking lots of artillery shells is more difficult than tracking aircraft. F-117's ought to remain effective, but I still think it's dangerous to become overreliant on air power.
The new Spectre's might not work against ICBMs, but what about shorter range ballistic missiles, like the several hundred missiles China has pointed at Taiwan? (Yeah, why China's bitchy about America dumping the ABM treaty with that nation that no longer exists...)
Nice coincidence that it takes a free nation with a free-market economy to finance a proper high-tech military, long-term at least. Hopefully no one will figure out how to dump the "free nation" half of the equation.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. The laser doesn't burn through the target it literally hits it with more energy than it can deal with - sure making it refective would help - but only a little. Plus, there is the majordisadvantage of being poorly concealed to conventional weopans.
--- My dad's political betting
Because a big gun can sometimes save you from a fight, when negotiation fails. Five guys with baseball bats and a problem with a pissant are going to be reluctant to start a fight once that pissant produces a pistol.
99.9% of avoiding war is diplomacy, negotiation, and just knowing how to step lightly and not be a jerk. Those won't save you from irrational people, and that's when you need to use physical intimidation.
I support this laser project 100%. My concern isn't with our military development, it's with our short-sighted attitude about foreign policy, which arguably has been a major contributing cause of the last four wars (Afghan, Gulf, Panama and Vietnam), and has lent support to human rights abuses worldwide. The fact that our President decided to mix it up with North Korea and Iran in the State of the Union Address doesn't exactly help things either. If your concern is about peace, you should focus on that rather than on weapons R&D. We've got nukes and we haven't blown ourselves up yet, but we just might unless we clean up our act, pronto.
Finding God in a Dog
That's always been the government's logic too. You remember the devices terorists used to take over those three planes? They were box cutters. Would baggage handlers have stoped them for those? No. It wasn't there fault for being lazy or underpaid or underqualified, there wasn't anything against having box cutters. That's one of those items that could end up in your bag by accident. But now a lot of people in government are screaming about federalizing bagage handlers; there's no connection.
The military always needs more funding for their little toys, so the best way to get funding is to tell the government that they need money to thwart a threat, even if the weapon doesn't counter the threat. Usually this type of funding is masked under the rhetoric of "military readiness" and "military effectiveness."
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
So, in my non-geek life, I am an Army Field Artillery officer, and I have some background in Fire Support and Close Air. This thing will be used to support US ground troops( army or marine) in the middle of bad fights, where Field Artillery, or bombs are not availble or inappropriate. AC-130s are big, slow, relatively low flying aircraft, and they are generally committed to support our guys that are in a bad fight. This weapon probably will not be used as some sort of non-discriminate area fire weapon, ( would take too much energy, plus there is a higher risk of losing it to ground fire), but it will help our guys in a fight. If we had used a Spectre in Mogadishu, you folks wouldn't be watching "Black Hawk Down" in the theaters right now. Obviously, I am for it.
For the moralist out there, I wish to ask them one simple question: If we are to be continually called to be the world's cop, like we were in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia, why are you against giving the guys who are doing the dirty work the support to do their jobs? If you don't want us to be the world's cop, then do you have any right to be self rightous about the massacres in these same countries? I oughta know. I did a tour in Sarajevo, Bosnia, right at the beginning of the US mission. So, either you want us to do these missions, and you give us the tools, or you convince your elected officials that you won't get upset by the pictures on TV, and then we don't need these sorts of tools.
Well, let's see... what advantages does it have over a missle? Mainly, it's a tad faster---the difference between the speed of sound and the speed of light. There is no time for evasive maneuvers and no time for countermeasures. Either you already have defenses in place when the button is pushed or you get blown up. And it will be at least a few decades before most nations have any effective defense.
It might be better to deploy something that would diffuse the laser's energy before it reached it's intended target...smoke, thick clouds of dust, water vapour, mylar 'chaff', etc...
Ideas anyone?
You're using her as bait, Master!
You mentioned Switzerland and Iceland as countries that have "tried peace," with the implication that they have been enlightened and successful in this endeavor. It's worth pointing out that Switzerland has been avoided as a target for a couple of reasons: First, their geographic location is a very difficult for occupation; and second, virtually every male citizen of Switzerland is not only required to be a member of the military (militia) but is required to keep their equipment (read guns) in their home for rapid mobilization.
Iceland, on the other hand, is a barely noticeable strategic target except in terms of its possible use as a base in an "east versus west" war. It's also worth noting that Iceland is NOT really neutral in that they are a member of NATO for Heaven's sake!
Finally, being intelligent, educated and compassionate as a nation should never have anything to do with defending oneself or initiating military action. Violence is unfortunately sometimes necessary. Most of us don't like it, but if we ever forget it I'm sure that someone will come along to remind us (you may remember 9/11?).
Good luck with Utopia ("no place").
I respectfully submit that you're mistaken here. This laser is the tip of the iceberg. What the Bush Administration is doing is creating a brand new war, the War on Terrorism, to replace the Cold War. Like the Cold War, we will be lucky to see it end in our lifetimes. This is exactly what the defense contractors need: something that will put them on the gravy train for 50, possibly 100 years.
What comes after the laser? Autonomous, unmanned combat vehicles. Better body armor. Improved infantry weapons that can blow up a grendade just on the other side of hard cover. Mechanized infantry companies and light armor companies that can deploy and be in combat position with 48 hours notice. Low-grade nerve gas that knocks out an entire village or a few city blocks for just long enough for troops to sweep in and arrest people. And that's just in the next 10-15 years. All of this represents trillions (that's 10^12) of dollars in revenue for defense contractors, and to defense contractors' investors.
I used to think that Aerospace would be the next big growth sector after Biotech. At this point, I think they're going to boom simultaneously.
Finding God in a Dog
that I served in the military (not as a cook). I experienced having to defend myself first hand. Your theories are nice within the relative walls of safety in the United States. I know what is like to run with a machine gun to help one of my buddies who was already engaging three individuals in military uniform rushing our perimeter. I didn't have time to think of the social ramifications of using my weapon because you see, if I had, I could be dead. PERIOD. Your belief system is nice within the walls of academia.
"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Yah, these terrorists sons of bitches don't play by the rules. But if we don't play by the rules, even with scum like these, then other countries start doubting whether we'll play by the rules with them. And that's the path to a whole world of diplomatic hurt, my slashdotting friends. That's how negotiations the world over break down - when a little voice starts whispering in your head "can I trust these people to keep their word?" The United States must always adhere to the Geneva Convention, even with people who never signed it, or we will never be trusted to adhere to the Geneva Convention.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Bush appears quite easy about ignoring laws he does not like and in this case I'd have no problem with either altering international law to reflect new technology or simply deploying the weapons.
Excuse me? Altering international law?? Bush doesn't have the ability to do that alone.. he would have to get the approval of, well.... THE REST OF THE WORLD!
...that's the question that I'm sure you (and most other) americans are afraid of asking (or answering).
You're using her as bait, Master!
Yeah well it's a shame that accepted practice is to wound enemy soldiers rather than kill them as this places a severe strain on the support services. It's more work to look after a wounded soldier than to handle a corpse.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
I hate to break it to you, but the reason we have to keep developing our military technology at the rate that we do is because people want to kill us. That's the cold reality of the world we live in. Dropping all defenses would be a naive and fatal mistake.
For whatever reason, this information doesn't seem to proliferate the American news media. You only read it in newspapers from outside the USA. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Search some news sites for articles involving other major world powers and the USA and you'll find that our relationship isn't as warm and fuzzy as the American news media would like you to believe.
Japan broke its treaty obligations regarding the balance of naval power, (Washington Treaty) and began building more main battleships than they were allotted. A few years later they invaded Manchuria, conflict over which invasion propelled the United States into war with Japan. Nazi Germany ripped up the terms of the Versailles Treaty and reoccupied areas of strategic military importance and began to rearm. British and US foreign policy elites tended to look the other way in this case of the Nazis since Versailles had been a terrible resolution to the conflict in the first place, its punitive measures insisted upon by France and Belgium, and also they looked to a remilitarized Germany as a bulwark against Stalin. A miscalculation that ended in world-tragedy.
In 1956, the United States backed the government of South Vietnam's decision not to allow elections to take place in South Vietnam in conjunction with elections in the Communist North. With this abrogation of the 1954 Geneva Conference agreement, which was a condition of the partition of Viet Nam demanded by the US to begin with, the United States took its first irrevocable steps down the road to military disaster and genocide in Southeast Asia. Soon they would take France's place in Indochina and be fighting the Vietnamese for possession of their own country causing the deaths of over a million people.
Now we see the United States government tearing up its international treaty obligations left and right. What should we expect the future holds?
I just read Sean Rayment's breathless title and note a couple of things.
- Although the article is entitled "America's laser of death cleared for take-off", a quick glance over the article itself reveals that the laser in question will be "capable of carrying out lethal and non-lethal attacks". I guess the chosen title plays better than "America's laser of death (or not) cleared for take-off".
- Mr. Rayment does a good job of noting the weaponry that was available on the AC-130 before the advent of the laser of death (or not) in question. I think we can take it for granted that getting hit by a round from any one of the "twin 20mm Vulcan cannon (capable of firing 2,500 rounds per minute), 40mm Bofor cannon (100 rounds per minute) and a 105mm Howitzer" is at least as unhappy an event as being hit by a pulse from the laser of death (or not). In fact, the laser of death (or not) may be a more humanitarian (as it were) weapon than anything the AC-130 has had to date. Of course, presenting that notion probably won't sell much copy.
My thoughts, this hyperventilated Sunday afternoon.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Not really. The Geneva Convention is indeed designed to make war hard. Maiming and crippling is much more efficient than killing, as it puts a huge strain on your enemy's economy. But follow that argument, and you soon realise that chemical and biological weapons are the most efficient of all. You'l notice that this is the method of attack that we most fear will be used against ourselves.
And so the Geneva Convention lays down the ways that civilised people should kill each other. It's ludicruous, it's horrendous, but it's entirely sensible.
And as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the Geneva Convention is only as binding as we make it. We can ignore it, but if we do, we declare ourselves to be uncivilised, and should expect to be put down like barbaric rabid dogs. If that sounds like harsh rhetoric, it's pretty much the language that's coming out of Washington right now. "They started it," is a pretty poor schoolyard grade excuse for acting like animals, and if anyone is any doubt that the US government is bothering to conform with the Geneva Convention, they should really do some reading.
Laser gunships are a neat toy and all, but I don't think they're going to solve our major problem, which is that a couple of billion people really don't like our foreign policies, specifically our passion for spending billions of dollars on projecting power across the globe. Weapons like this necessitate their own use. Hey ho.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Hasn't anyone heard of mirrors?
First of all, the US is fighting people who consider civilians not only fair game, but the main target. Somehow, I don't think anyone should be wondering if Al Qeida (or Iraq or Iran or the Taliban) will follow the Geneva Conventions; we know they don't. We could be placing captured terrorists into penthouses at Trump Plaza; Al Qeida will still treat any captured Americans as cruely as they can imagine.
Secondly, only an anti-American troll would think that terrorists are anything but illegal combatants. They don't wear insignia, they target civilains, and they don't respond to a chain of command. FOLLOWING THE GENEVA CONVENTION, the US has ruled them illegal combatants and not prisoners of war. The US could legally shoot them on sight; it's a damn bit kinder than how any US troops would be treated, and a hell of a lot better than the people working at the WTC were treated.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Second, the attack was not unprovoked--or rather, if you think our response was provoked, than by the same standard, so was the attack. Its victims had much more responsibility for international crimes than did the 4,000+ innocent Afghani citizens which we killed in our raids. (Many more were maimed.) After all, WTC victims are overwhelmingly citizens in a democracy, and as such had the power to stop their government in the atrocious starvation of Iraq, the destruction of the only medical supply factory in Sudan (which meant tens of thousands of Sudanese people died from treatable diseases), the arming of Israel, ... well, I could go on. The American people are not innocent of these crimes. It was in our power to prevent them, and we chose not to. On the other hand, when the leaders in Afghanistan acted criminally, the ordinary citizens had no recourse. Thus, they were innocent in a way that the even the WTC victims weren't. I'm not a fan of revenge killings, but our brutal actions don't even rise to the level of revenge. Revenge requires that we cause suffering to the people who wronged us. So far, I see no evidence that this has happened. We did cause a lot of suffering to people who did no wrong at all, and upon witnessing the destruction, found it somehow gratifying. That's not even taking an eye for an eye; it's just plain sick. I've never been more ashamed to be an American. Shitheads like you with comments like the above certainly don't help.
...in attacking Afganstan *after* verifying facts well enough for 3/4's of the world, *after* demanding the surrender of the peoples that we felt were responsible. After all, we didn't just fly in there immediately and started killing *everyone*! Right?
The Taliban kept putting up rediculous road blocks while saying that the US would drown in our own blood.
The Taliban and its ilk are terrorists who would love to see the US and anyone who is like-minded to us brutally killed.
Did we have to attack Afganinstan to oust the Taliban and the Al Queda? Yup, because they were more than happy treat their own, deprived, *downtrodden* people as a shield in their war against the hated 'satan'.
But in a war like that, the US played the *moderate* card. We didn't aim at civilians if we could help it. We minimalized the deaths (and if you don't think we did, you haven't checked your WWII battles.)
The US, if it had wanted to, could have wholy depopulated the entire country. And we would have been rightly called barbarians for doing it that way.
Now the US and Great Britan are helping to rebuild that country as best we can under the constraints of international law.
It sucks to be the US. We're the bad guys even when we're doing the right thing. Just because we're on top.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Thank you for this post.
At least now I know that there are a few americans left that don't share GWBush's "Wild West" mentality. Maybe there is still some hope.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
I personally do not want you to be the world's cop. I can safely say the same is true for most people in this world.
I would be perfectly happy if no americans went to Bosnia, Kosovo or Somalia.
As far as i am concerned the military should stay here, protecting the US.
Of course i would agree to wars like WW2, but most wars after that (and i apologize if this truth offends you) have been the result of US imperialism, and have not benefited the world at large or most americans either.
And if you believe that politicians send you out there because of the pictures on TV, you are quite naive, my friend. The pictures on TV come only after the politicians decide to send you there.
Thats why you werent sent to Rwanda, or East Timor, or Turkey where some grave human tragedies (much worse than the balkans) happened.