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

Only for physical targets, not people

[mikeage]

"The special operations AC-130 Spectre gunship, whose conventional weaponry has been used to devastating effect since the Vietnam War, is to be fitted with a laser that can shoot down missiles, punch holes in aircraft and knock out ground radar stations."

IIRC, 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. Besides, the article only says it'll be (intended to be) used against hard targets.

Re:Only for physical targets, not people

[thelaw]

the geneva convention's intention is to encourage "humane" warfare, or something in that vein. so, as we all know, you're not allowed to target noncombatants explicitly. but the weapons that you use on combatants during warfare have to be designed for the purpose of a "clean kill", i.e. not meant to maim. i guess the idea is that being maimed is like torture, so weapons that intend to maim should be banned, like torture should be.

when the m-16 was first introduced, there was some controversy over the design. a bullet, when fired from an m-16, would tend to wobble as it flew, making it more messy when it hit a target. when it entered the body, it would tumble, rather than simply spin right through. i think there were some questions of geneva convention-compatibility early in vietnam, but i don't recall the outcome. they might have redesigned the ballistics, but i don't recall.

that's just one example of the kill/maim distinction. hopefully someone else has another example.

jon

With Radar and Nearly Instant Re-Positioning...

[Ieshan]

Isn't this the most powerful weapon we're ever going to see on a battlefield?

Think about it. The time to take to shoot down a wing of jets - five of them, say - is five times the time it takes to reposition the laser, fire, and acquire a new target. Maybe a few seconds.

The Airforce might be useless. This would completely change warfare - obselete the modern armor which is dominating the battlefield; make the shield against the laser more neccessary than standard metal plating.

It's scary, guys. The United States Military might become obselete by the technology it's procuring.

Re:With Radar and Nearly Instant Re-Positioning...

[IronChef]

It depends on the range of the weapon, which they are not saying, and the range of air-to-air missiles that can splash the plane, and the quality of the tracking system... I don't think this will be a superweapon. Just a super COOL weapon.

This is just rehashed technology from the Airborne Laser anyway. They've been putting giant chemical lasers into Boeings for a while now, and the intention is to make it a widely-deployed weapons system for theater missile defense. Can't say for sure, but I bet the ABL has a much more potent beam.

Not that the Spectre version isn't hella cool! Gives a new meaning to "light 'em up."

Re:With Radar and Nearly Instant Re-Positioning...

[Chris Burke]

That's probably true.

There are a lot of specs missing from the description, things that are rather key to knowing what the thing could even be used for. Range, energy disipation over that range, maximum sustained rate of fire... Given the amount of energy it takes to make a truly dangerous laser, I wonder if the thing wouldn't run out of fuel after killing one or two tanks. That would make it pretty useless for that purpose.

Re:Is this good or bad?

[RazorJ_2000]

I don't think that Bush has ignored the Geneva Convention. I do think that Bush has recognized the simple reality that adhering to the Geneva Convention does not make sense in the modern world of terrorism and unseen enemies. How can you expect to defend yourself if you're playing by your old set of rules and nobody else is bound to follow them as well? Simple, you can't.

Now, without getting into a political debate, the reality of the situation is that the Geneva Convention was signed by a group of nations who formally recognized each other and formally agreed (generally) to be bound by a set of "honour" rules of engagement and warfare. Do you see any of the so-called terrorist organizations stepping up to the plate and agreeing to be bound by those rules? Heck, do you see any of these terrorist organizations actually having a majority representation in the countries that they are apparently trying to liberate (or whatever they're trying to do)? Simple answer, no. They know that they can't win by playing by the formal rules of engagement, so they don't bother. Why should the USA allow it's hands to be bound? It shouldn't.

In a nutshell, if you want to hit somebody who's big then you can now expect them to hit back. The rules of engagement have now changed. Good for Bush. He's a dumbass, but a dumbass who's stepping in the correct direction.