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."

Comments

Just remember...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

use of lasers to kill/wound/maim/blind soldiers is illegal under international law. Not to say it's never done, but as a recongnized capability-- I doubt it.

Now that it's a crime to have a Death Ray, on criminals will have Death Rays...

Something to think about.

Re:Only for physical targets, not people

[hs81]

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.

Re:Peace

[Waffle Iron]

Why must the US keep spending money on bigger guns?

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.

Re:Only for physical targets, not people

[Salamander]

IIRC, use of lasers to kill/wound/maim/blind soldiers is illegal under international law.

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.

Flawed logic?

[CaptainPuppydog]

"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.

Re:Flawed logic?

[sigwinch]

So.... what they're saying is "We didn't see them coming, so we need bigger guns".

Did you even read the article? Did you even know there was an article? The laser does almost nothing compared to, say, a 20mm Vulcan cannon that fires 2500 rounds per minute, or a 105mm Howitzer. To say nothing of a B-52 group loaded with daisy cutters.

What the laser does is hit extremely specific targets. In asymmetric warfare--say, a guerrilla radar installation in the middle of a city you'd rather not carpet bomb--the laser lets you win with greatly reduced carnage. So instead of blasting a couple of city blocks to flinders, there's a loud bang that puts a hole through the radar antenna and breaks a few windows. Instead of carpet bombing a suspected missile installation, just plink them as they launch.

Remember that improvements in force projection almost never come by increasing the total amount of force applied, they come by concentrating the force into the smallest ever-smaller areas. It was true of the first iron sights on rifles, it was true of the first radar fuses on WWII missiles, and it is true of modern battle lasers.

Re:Flawed logic?

[sigwinch]

B-52s don't carry daisy cutters. A daisy cutter is dropped by a C-130 using the regular parachute cargo delivery mechanism.

I was sure I read that they could on some .mil web page, but I can't seem to find it now. The do have the weight capacity, but I guess they lack the appropriate mechanisms in the bomb bay to carry one. In any event, C-130s are only useful against very, very low tech enemies. They're sitting ducks for people with good missiles.

You don't carpet bomb a radar installation. A single HARM missile will take out a radar site.

True, for a classical radar site that has a single antenna/transceiver/signal processor.

But then you have to ask "Why do classical radar systems have single vulnerable sites?" The answer is that RF electronics used to be extremely expensive and rare. That has changed. The price has fallen through the floor, while the capabilities have flown through the ceiling. 2GHz frequency-agile radios can be had at any department store, and 50GHz stuff will be cheap in 10 years.

That means the enemy of the future won't have centralized, expensive radar installations. He'll have radars or decoys on a 300 meter grid across major cities, with plenty of hot spares sitting around in warehouses. So you either have to carpet bomb the city, or you have to precision zap each antenna as it goes active.

Another thing to keep in mind is that classical radars were one of the only things using their frequencies. When every building in the city is full of cheap, crappy GHz radios (which is a certainty), your HARMs have to deal with much more background noise, potentially at the same frequencies as the radars. Hitting targets and avoiding needless casualties might be much more difficult in 10 years.

Carpet bombing is done to take out large numbers of enemy soldiers dug into wide areas of the surrounding terrain. Carpet bombing is done to supplement artillery or used when artillery is not available.

Or against pervasive high-capability enemies, when you don't have the right kind of weapons to be precise.

A supplement to Aegis/CIWS?

[Styx]

From the article:

"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].

Line of sight

[Brian Stretch]

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.

Re:MIrrors?

[rcs1000]

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.

Re:Peace

[MAXOMENOS]

Why must the US keep spending money on bigger guns?

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.

Yep

[Ghoser777]

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

Close Air/Fire Support

[Greg151]

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.

Re:Can != Should

[mikec]

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.

What about a diffuser?

[Robber Baron]

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?

Re:Peace

[Babbster]

I hate to respond to such silly hippy tripe, but since you got modded up...

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").

Re:Can != Should

[MAXOMENOS]

These laser weapons are nothing but a white elephant for defense contractors, who have seen the end of the cold war erode their profits.

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.

Geneva Convention only works if used all the time

[ColGraff]

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.

So who is punching who back?

[Robber Baron]

...that's the question that I'm sure you (and most other) americans are afraid of asking (or answering).

Hyperventilated Reporter Sells Copy!!!

[PHAEDRU5]

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.

Re:Only for physical targets, not people

[TWR]

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 [amnesty.org].

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

Obviously the USA was wholy out of order...

[arthurh3535]

...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.