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."
"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.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Well from my point of view.. So.. you can blow your enemies to pieces, put bits of lead at mach speed through their bodies and hack them to death with your combat knife but laser would be too inhumane?
This world doens't make alot of sense...
With this giant "laser" I could mount it on the moon and then...
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
The New York Times had a blurb about this about three months ago. For the lazy, a chemical plant that fills about 3/4 of the cargo space feeds the lasing system in the turret. Desgined to be part of the "missile shield" for the US and allies. Seems like a boondoggle to me, but who knows? The article I read focused on the laser taking down cruise missiles and other aircraft. Not usable for ICBMs for obvious reasons. I didn't know that they were going to use these against ground targets. Yikes!
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?
don't shoot at houses with giant Jiffy-Pop tins in them!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The advantage of laser weapons is that they strike at the speed of light.
This way, we'll put even less thought into decimating villagers and frienly troops along with the meanies. oh goody.
on another topic: the USAF hopes to fit it to a whole range of manned and unmanned aircraft, such as the Predator reconnaissance probe, which is fitted with Hellfire missiles and has been used in CIA operations in Afghanistan.
didja ever wonder about data encryption, wireless communications, etc. with unmanned craft? yipes...
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.
So instead of half-inch steel armor, all the enemy needs is reflective armor? That's a camouflage problem for tanks but not a problem for missiles. Am I just being dumb?
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.
I agree. But the price of peace is eternal vigilence. And a couple hundred airbourne deathstars patroling the skies supported by AWACS is pretty vigilent.
Until the nanobots take over....
In all seriousness, you create a population inversion in a lasing medium by "hitting" it very hard. In a ruby laser, for instance, you can hit the ruby rod with the light from a flash lamp. In a CO2 or a HeNe you hit the medium with an electric discharge. In a laser diode, you pass current along a semi- conductor junction.
A chemical laser "hits" the medium by burning together two materials. The materials are chosen such that most of the combustion products are in an excited state, thus generating the population inversion.
The lasing effect, as you put it, only occurs when you put the population- inverted medium in a resonator chamber, i.e. between two mirrors. In that sense, there's no "radiation stimulus" in any laser. Instead, at some point one of the excited molecules will lose energy spontaneously. If it's lucky, that photon will hit one of the mirrors and be sent back through the medium. If it's real lucky, it'll interact with another excited molecule or atom, and make it release its stored energy. Then you have two photons, in phase. Repeat many times a second, and you have a laser.
FWIW, I heard a report about a gasoline-powered chemical laser made by the Israelis a couple of years back.
Where's Mitch Taylor and Chris Knight when you need them?
This tagline is umop apisdn.
The Air Force has been working on an AirBorne Laser (ABL) project for antiballistic missile defense for a long time. Hitting targets such as SAM sites has always been a possible use of this system.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that they got it working. I had a friend working on the project for a while, but the technical obstacles were large enough that the funding was getting shaky, so he moved on to much much greener pastures..
"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
Certain countries have tried peace, Switzerland for instance, Iceland, Eire others? You could also count countries that only use armed forces for defense of it's own borders.
The problem with the US trying peace is that it requires an intelligent, educated and compasionate population, the current population in America is none of the above.
The US also has the problem of all the acts of war it has committed and continues to commit. America is financially built on it's defense industry, look where the current administration is spending it's money.
In short America is never going to willingly buy into peace. Take a look at some of the comments posted to your comment, hardly full of the milk of human kindness are they?
That is the ABL program: A big anti-ICMB laser on a 747. This looks to be quite diferent. This appears to be an anti-Stinger missle solution: Meaning the ability to knock down a missle fired at the plane itself.
Hooray for the spooks!
What to do if you happen upon a peace rally hosted by some naive, objectors to the military movement in the Middle East:
1) Approach one individual talking about "peace" and claiming there should be "no retaliation."
2) Have a brief conversation with this person and ask if military force is appropriate.
3) When he says "no," ask, "Why not?"
4) When he says, "because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful, and we should not cause more violence"
5) Punch him in the face . . . hard
6) When he gets up to punch you back, point out that it would be a mistake, and contrary to his values, to punch you, because he would be just increasing the violence.
7) When he agrees that he has pledged not to commit violence,punch him in the face again . . . harder this time.
8) Repeat steps 2 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.
9) Move on to other people in his group until all have been converted.
10) Move on to other demonstrations and repeat steps 1 through 9.
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.
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
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.
I'm not raising moral objections here, but practical ones.
Yes, okay, we now have a laser which really can be used to blow something up. Yippee, us.
The people who spent truckloads of money to develop this turkey naturally want us to deploy it.
Ask yourself: Does it have any advantages over a missile? Well, it's bigger, it doesn't go as far, it inflicts less damage, and it costs more. But it is a Laser (therefore the weapon of the future) and it does work at all.
We could also outfit our ground forces with supersonic vibrating swords. This would work, you could kill people with them. Likewise, giant robots as were discussed in a previous slashdot article.
However, the fact remains that all of these technologies, while Cool, are very much NOT the most effective means of achieving military objectives!
These laser weapons are nothing but a white elephant for defense contractors, who have seen the end of the cold war erode their profits.
The idea of using one of these things to shoot down a missile - which is a very difficult feat even using inherently practical weapons systems - is absurd.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
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.
Is blowing in the wind.
Go smoke some pot and start a 'peaceful dialog' with Saddam Hussein. Let me know how it goes. The rest of the world has realities to deal with and work to do.
Frickin' hippies.
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!
Terrorists aren't interested in taking out one or two people, or hardened targets. They strike civillian establishments, which are not built to withstand a fertilizer bomb. Bunkers are. It's easier and cheaper to just buy the fertilizer, drive it into a parking garage, and set it off, rather than building a superlaser, mounting it on a plane, flying it into range, and setting it off.
Not every conventional warfare weapon is useful in the arena of terrorism, just like not every terrorist weapon is not useful in conventional warfare. How many car bombs did the US use in the Gulf War, again?
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").
Something similar is already in the works.
You're using her as bait, Master!
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
The advantage of laser weapons is that they strike at the speed of light.
Yay! Who gives a flying fudge?! At the ranges where this specific laser system would be used, the difference in speed between our plain old supersonic bullets and lightspeed weapons really doesn't matter. If they're actually aimed right and firing at you, you won't be dodging either.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Now I understand why all those futuristic movies in the old days had people wearing silver jumpsuits... to protect against the lasers!
Seriously, though, would a mirror-chrome covering be enough to deflect the beams off the tanks and planes? It would make for a cool looking army!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Go smoke some pot and start a 'peaceful dialog' with Saddam Hussein.
What sort of "peaceful dialog" are you refering to? The sort conducted in the 80's by the Regan/Bush administration that led to his being able to purchase large quantities of american made weapons, including so-called "weapons of mass destruction", such as poison gas?
You're using her as bait, Master!
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
From the Oregon Office of Energy.
...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!
Teddy Roosevelt knew the power of the bigger guns. He built up the United States into a world naval power by giving us tons of kick-ass (for the day) battleships, and then he sent them around the world on "courtesy calls". Or he'd just park a few battleships off the coast of a country, and ask them very nicely if they would please do as the United States wanted, and if they did that would be really nice. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Every new weapon we own makes other countries just a little bit more afraid of us, and a bit more inclined to listen when we speak ever-so-softly-and-respectfully.
I'm the stranger...posting to
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.
... early in vietnam, but i don't recall the outcome. they might have redesigned the ballistics, but i don't recall.
Here you go, an article talking about FMJ and the M-16
Snippets from the above:
The landwar convention from The Hague doesn't allow fragmenting bullets for purposes of war, so every army in the world uses FMJ bullets. Usually a hit from a conventional FMJ doesn't kill, but leaves a clean hole. No hunter will use FMJ, since they want to kill, not to wound.
[snip]
This, in theory is better for two reasons -- one, it creates a situation where instead of creating a dead enemy soldier it creates a wounded one, which must be cared for by his buddy, thus taking two men out of action with each hit. The second reason behind the idea is that it is more humane to wound than to kill. This type of ammunition was agreed upon by the Geneva convention, and both sides of the vietnam war agreed to it's use.
[snip]
So I think the difference is between temporary wounding (the above) and permanent scaring (say from blinding lasers, mustard gas, biological agents, dirty nukes). The Geneva Convention is for the former and against the latter.
What is music when you despise all sound?
They tried to do this back in the sixties with a cruise missile calles PLUTO - sucker woulda flown at supersonic speeds, treetop level, and be powered by and unshielded fission reactor ramjet. Air goes in one end, gets heated up and contaminated with radioactice byproducts, and goes out the rear. Thing would have had practically unlimited ranges, could carry and drop multiple individual bombs, and the sonic boom alone would have killed people on the ground, not to mention the contamination.
The problem, is, quite simply, nobody likes working with unshielded nuclear reactors, and shielding would made it way too heavy. Been there, scrapped that idea.
I'm the stranger...posting to
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.
"The problem with the US trying peace is that it requires an intelligent, educated and compasionate population, the current population in America is none of the above."
Obviously, you don't understand the United States...maybe you prefer intelligent, educated and compassionate European bloodlust?
The big problem with airborne lasers is usually getting enough pulse power, not enough energy flow. Various energy storage devices have been tried, the homopolar generator being the most successful. (There's considerable hype about homopolar generators. The basic idea is that they are spun up, then all the rotational energy is extracted in a very short period. Pulse power sources in the megajoule range have been built.)
When Kurt Vonnegut was first writing "Slaughterhouse 5", he told a friend that it was an "anti-war" book. The friend replied that he might as well write an "anti-glacier" book. War is inevitable. Sure, war sucks, I hate it as much as anyone else. But the fact is, as long as there are humans that disagree with each other (i.e. as long as there are humans....), there will be war. The interesting thing is that with the development of more & more powerful weapons (atomic bombs, smart bombs, bio-war, lasers, etc etc etc), the cost of a true, all out war like WWI or WWII is getting so ridiculously high that it will either never happen again, or if it does, that's pretty much the end of humanity. Einstein said something like: "I don't know what World War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones"
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
I was a field artillery forward observer (MOS 13F) and got to observe for an AC-130U... awesome plane... incredible accuracy considering what it does. Wish our the artillery was that accurate the first time.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
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
Troll?? Yes, only to the squeemish thumb sucking weenies. You forget the "bad guys" (your use of quotes) commited the crime of over 4000 innocent civilians - these people don't fight by any international conventions, not even Islamic law. I say bring on the advanced weaponry; anything to get the message across: fsck with the U.S. and you're going to get fscked right back. Any collateral damage, send OBL the bill for it. Or does it have to be YOUR family that gets its guts splattered over the street before you realize we're dealing with irrational suicide fanatics here?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Looks like a pitchfork pistol to me ;-)
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Because 8000 years ago, Og the caveman picked up a big stick and beat the living crap out of Ug the other caveman who didn't know what a 'tool' was. Since then, it's been the universal rule - he with the most guns rules.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Hasn't anyone heard of mirrors?
As much as I hate to say it, one day you're going to have to put aside your idealistic fantasies and come to terms with the world in which you live. War happens - it is inevitable. Fortunately, wonderful acts of kindness tend to be inevitable as well, so they sort of balance out.
Take some time and read through the history of societies - until a monolith comes down from on high an reprograms human nature, war is just going to be one of those facts of life.
This has nothing to do with me "accepting the system" or some other such nonsense. It's just the way humans are. Accept it, decide which side you're on, and make the best out of life - but don't go on with your head in the sand.
_sig_ is away
Firepower happens to be a pretty decent deterrent. I've never heard of a mass shooting in, say, a police station...
Ironic timing, that comment:
120 police and soldiers have been killed in a battle with Nepalese rebels (from CNN).
If firepower were truly a deterrent, wouldn't the nuclear weapons of the U.S. have been a deterrent against 9/11 ever happening? Or Palestinians attacking Israel? Yet those things happen.
This is getting somewhat off-topic. While I hope that the U.S. will not have to use such weapons, I would prefer to have them as an option. I just wish they'd spend a little more money on social services, protecting the environment or even space exploration.
Yeah, I did read that whole thread (and posted some un-answered comments as well). There was a good analysis showing -why- the metamods were the same.
/. editors" or "/. editors don't give a shit", and that just seems too anti-productive (as opposed to unproductive)...
Anyway, what should I change my sig too? If I give up on this, the only thing I can think of is "fuck
The enemies of Democracy are
Thoughts:
First, this laser works when there are no clouds. There is not enough energy in the beam to punch through the aerosol droplets of water in clouds. It is necessary to have a clear line of sight.
Second, lasers are VERY dangerous to use when there is a clear line of sight. The people at whom the U.S. government is shooting may have a mirror.
Remember, corner cubes are mirrors that automatically aim back exactly along the direction of the arriving beam. They don't need to be pointed. There are no moving parts. They work at the speed of light.
Third, powerful chemical lasers are very big and bulky weapons. They are also very expensive. Those who have the mental illness that makes them want to kill people like to try different methods. However, there may come a time when the citizens of the U.S. decide that they don't want to use their hard-earned money to support the activities of sick people.
Fourth, this laser is just one of many, many weapons designed by the U.S. government. It is a lot like angry children playing. They don't really care if the weapon is used, or who it is used to kill. They have never learned adult responsibility. They are mentally bound to their infantile conflict and have never learned to see other people as beings like themselves.
It just confuses the issues when people assume that the U.S. government has some kind of healthy rationality about weapons.
More on corruption in the U.S. government: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Group think is everywhere - religious cults are perhaps the most prominent example, but you don't have to try very hard before you spot it elsewhere. (it's an especially easy task here on slashdot! =) )
most individuals are not aware that they suffer from group-think.
Group-think is what gets lemmings to walk over cliffs. There are only individuals, everything else is just a convenient abstraction.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
While energy weapons can be pretty devastating and while they offer a number of unique uses, a physical round is usually going to be less expensive and more reliable. Especially in ground situations. My guess is that the only reason they'd bring such a dumb-ass device into a ground battle for a conventional, made for TV war (like this war on terrorism crap), is to affect the minds of the public back home.
And about this airplane mounted laser system. . .
I watched some bullshit documentary on 'cutting edge' technology a month ago, and the 'cutting edge' is apparently a jumbo jet with a big-ass laser good for about 30 shots using hopelessly out of date chemical fuel to direct power technology of some sort. The contraption is designed for use as an anti-missle defense system; part of Bush's highschool campaign/drama of unmaking every last fragment of stability in the make-believe world so's he or his people can declare military rule on home soil at a moment's notice.
As for the laser jet; the U.S. is supposedly putting a (small) fleet of about these expensive aircraft into operation in the coming months, with one or two already in service.
(All this from memory taken from a piece of P.R. crap full of lies and propaganda, so take what you will with plenty of salt).
-Fantastic Lad
The US military has FINALLY upgraded to the MDC battle system. It is about fucking time. They will however ph33r m3 in my Glitterboy Mk I power armor. I shall fuck them up railgun style.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Well, he's right, the Tommys developed those laser guns to fight the secret German UFOs, which we NOW all know were almost ready for combat.
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.
A well-aimed 105MM round will do the job quite well, however - and they're cheap!
That might be the problem. Remember the Korean War, in which our Army was pathetically supplied, to the point that some GI's scavenged boots off of enemy dead, while a huge part of the defense budget was going straight to Boeing. This wouldn't be the first time that a horribly expensive (read B-2., star wars, etc.) program was funded at the expense of things like more exercises, housing, pay, etc. for the troops. There's a reason why the Air Force is short on pilots, and it's not due to lack of prestige.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Is it just me or is anyone else getting flashbacks to the movie 'Real Genius'?
Popcorn anyone?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Really? How did you determine this? Did you use your tin-foil hat to magically interview the 300 people in custody in Cuba and determine that they were in fact obeying the rules for lawful combatants? Are you even aware of what the laws are, as stipulated by the Geneva Convention?
And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...).
Eh? The US established diplomatic relations with Vietnam about 10 years ago. Pay attention, skippy.
As for Cuba, it would take about 2 hours to overthrow Castro. But we don't. He has "stood up" to the US by bankrupting what used to be the richest country in Central America. And all he had to do was steal all the foreign aid given to the country, confiscate private property, lock up any political dissident he could find, lock up any homosexuals he could find, lock up any AIDS patients he could find, and generally run his country like a thugocracy. This is the country that you think is the moral superior to the US. Go Castro!
-jon
Remember Amalek.
where the enemy is unseen - has led the Pentagon to identify the need for a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system.
Okaaaay...
We can't see the enemy. We don't know who he is. We don't know where he is....
Therefore we need more a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system?
This thing sounds pretty cool, I just don't follow that logic.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The US never backed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, you idiot. They were Communists, and rabid anti-Western ones at that.
As for Cuba, sounds like yer typical Central American banana republic from what you are saying.
No, most of those banana republics are now democracies, with the Soviet-backed rebels (or ruling thugs, depending on the country) now without funding. Funny, that. Cuba is still a prison.
Do you get anything right?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
There were any variety of peaceful folks working and minding their own peaceful business. There lack of interest in things military didn't stop them from being vaporized. Grab a clue.
C//
...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.
I just did some Internet-based research on this topic, and as far as I can tell, there's exactly one source document that claims that the US aided the Khmer Rouge: John Pilger in Covert Action Quarterly (I don't have a date for the article, but it's some time before 1998). Someone scanned the article in and you can find it at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=us+support+khmer +rouge&hl=en&selm=v02130500b0e4411beba0%40%5B131.2 36.2.193%5D&rnum=1. You'd think there'd be more evidence that someone could unearth, but so far as I can find, that's it.
Now there is zero evidence that the US aided them before they were thrown out of power in Cambodia. And it sounds like all of Pilger's evidence is circumstantial. You'd think there'd be more proof; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For the US to support a genocidal Communist group (with the aid of China, no less) in order to defend Thailand is a pretty extraordinary claim. Of course, those who are anti-American in the first place are going to latch on to this sort of stuff, just as those who believe in UFOs will latch on to anything and call it proof.
Do you have any other sources that aren't derived from Pilger and his research?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
"Also, for a country supposedly lacking in education and intelligence, I think foreigners should stop and ponder the fact that the US has the best universities, is the current leader in technology, and has produced more than it's share of 20th century inventions"
As an American myself, I'd say most of us really are dumbasses. The reason we contributed more than our share of 20th century inventions is because there's 285 million people in this country and we don't need more than a few million smart people to pick up the slack and invent all this cool shit. Look here for the stats, about 1.5 million engineers, less than a million scientists.
Note: we didn't really carpet bomb anything in Afghanistan. Carpet bombing is done by squadron of planes with hundreds (or thousands) of bombs dropped. What we saw was "dropping a long stick" (I think). This is a single plane blowing up a line of ground. Carpet bombing is blowing up closer to a km^2.
With the recent actions of Bush (ignoring the Geneva conventions), I'm not sure this is a good thing..
I haven't seen or heard of any acts by the US which violate the Geneva Convention, could you cite some examples?
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.
This statement is a paradox. Geneva convention only applies between signatory countries. The whole point is that it represents a quid pro quo. It is very likely that the results of extending the benefits of the convention to terrorists, or non-signatory nations would actually be detrimental. If waring parties know that they will get the benefits of the Convention without signing, what is the incentive to sign?
Without a mutual agreement, it would be like saying, "We don't care if you tourture your POWs, but we are going to be nice to ours.
The Bush administration is absolutly correct. Extending Geneva protections to non-covered groups is a Bad Idea. We can still treat them humanely, but we shouldn't do it under the Convention.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
The journalists and the Christian missionaries captured in Kabul were treated quite well, all things considered. Just bringing a tiny piece of balance into the equation, folks.
BTW - It is interesting that nations that cannot afford to dress their soldiers up in proper military insignia cannot be at war, but must be harboring unlawful combatants.
And you would also admit that the enemy is allowed to torture your CIA undercover operatives by extending your argument to its logical conclusion. They don't wear insignia, they may not answer to a chain of command, and they may target civilians (unlawful combatants are civilians, though bad ones).
So - let's rather discuss a nice piece of thought experiment. If you were the enemy of the United States, who would be your best ally? That would be the Republicans, sir. By making sure the republicans go apeshit, they have also exposed not very flattering aspects of the current administration. The Al Qaeida could be winning the war as we speak.
American unilateralism has weakened popular support for continued partnership between America and its allies. The foreign governments are making sharper and sharper comments day by day concerning American unilateral interpretation of international law, and American willingness. You don't know where Osama bin Laden is, and none of your heightened states of alert have shown predictive power.
While Bush and Musharraf were shaking hands, Muslem extremeists were unhindered in plotting to attack the Indian parliament. Only after extended outrage and threat of war did Musharraf crack down on domestic extremism. Are you certain he is on your side in the war on terror? Could he be hiding the Taliban? Why or why not?
I think that's enough for today.
Stop the brainwash
Scorpio: Hey Homer! Which country do you like less, Italy or France?
Homer: France.
Scorpio: Hehehe, nobody ever picks Italy.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
It's a nice theory, but it's unworkable. When hit with the kind of energy we're discussing here, the water would vaporize explosively, very possibly blowing a hole in the tank and parboiling the occupants. At the very least, the explosive rupture of the water tank would remove it from the target point. You'd get an effect, but nothing near the stopping power you'd need.
Virg
Two points: first, tanks have far more than a half-inch of armor. Second, reflective armor is tough to build, because anything that wouldn't vaporize under the level of laser power we're discussing would provide very little protection against more conventional weapons, and would be mighty heavy for missiles.
Virg
From where I sit (.au) there are only a very small proportion of actual terrorists; the rest are genuine POWs.
From where you sit perhaps you might also notice that there are only a few hundred (if that) prisoners at gitmo out of many thousands taken. I suspect we only asked our allies on the ground to give us those that were either terrorists or fairly high up in the command structure which incorporated terrorists (a significant percentage of the Talibans armed forces was made up of foreign Al Queada fighters).
Most of the Taliban did not themselves wear uniforms and many did not carry their weapons openly - and so even in Afghanistan many were unlawful combatants. As it is we have in fact accorded Taliban fighters a different legal status than Al Queada fighters, though as a practical matter it is a distinction without a differnce.
Oh, I forgot. You're American and you make the rules. And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...)
Actually in this case the rules were made by an international convention in Geneva which pretty clearly defines the status of fighters dressed as civilians ("unlawful combatants" and when captured "war criminals" and NOT "POW's").
I suppose you could say that unfairly the western powers made the rules and there is certainly some truth to that. But I somehow doubt the rules would have been any more humanitarian if we had deferred to non-western standards. There are reports that Al-Quada prisoners are desperate to go to gitmo and be "abused" by western standards than stay in Afghanistan and be "treated well" by central asian standards.
Speaking of those our dislike of those who "stand up" to America. It's ironic that all of this concern is being focussed on the Al-Queada prisoners who are among the best treated prisoners in Cuba. We should make a deal with Castro to have the Cuban authorities take over administration of our prisoners. The prisoners would probably object (being opposed to torture when they are the object of it) but liberals around the world wouldn't (being opposed to torture except when a socialist is perpetrating it).
Let the will of user moderation stand! No multiple mods by editors, else we waste mod points! Show editor moderation!
That's exactly 120 characters. I happen to like it so much that if you don't chose something similar I just might switch mine to it.
Go ahead :)
I'll let mine stay awhile, until inspiration strikes.
The enemies of Democracy are
Actually in this case the rules were made by an international convention in Geneva which pretty clearly defines the status of fighters dressed as civilians...
It also clearly defines a due process for determining that status. Which is not being followed.
I'll give you that. A lot hinges on "shall any doubt arise" The status of Al Queada members is not in doubt as they manifestly fail to meet the requirments of Article 4. The closest they come is article 4.2 but fail to meet conditions b. (having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance) and c. (That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.) That being said I think the US should dot it's i's and cross it's t's and have a tribunal rule on the status of individual detainee's.
As for Taliban fighters they HAVE been legally granted POW status under the Geneva convention even though most of them also fail to meet the conditions in Article 4. And even the Al Queada prisoners are being accorded many of the rights granted to POW's - most importantly the right to be monitored by the IRC.
Nonsense. Not only is it questionable who's being better or worse treated,
Reports by Human Rights Watch, and the International Society for Human Rights sugget that it is not really all that questionable. The cells that the Al Queada prisoners are in are not as cramped as the reported 3x3 meters with 15 prisoners, they do have access to medical treatment, they are not being held in solitary indefinitely, they are not being held incommunicado, they are being monitored by the IRC and since they are being monitored I assume their guards aren't beating them.
We have several orders of magnitude less influence over how political prisoners are treated in Cuba.
I was responding to a Swede with about as much influence on either country who brought up Cuba as a nation we "don't like" just because they "successfully stood up to us." That statement and the coincidence of the detainees being held in Cuba caused me to muse on those critics of the US who's commitment to human rights goes out the window when the perpetrator of the abuses is fashionably left-wing. The hysterical tone from the left internationally about the prisoners of the US military in Guantanamo contrasts unflatteringly with the dead silence from the same quarter when the subject is political prisoners just over the fence.
another interesting fact: some of the d-boys in somalia were using the CAR-15 with carbide-tipped bullets, which penetrated armor, but wasn't particularly effective with unarmored personnel. it is nice to have your enemy catch some of the momentum from an incoming bullet. if it passes through, there's no real kick to the impact, so your enemy can keep running as long as their body will operate. if you have a thicker/flatter bullet, they'll be maybe bowled over by the impact.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Okay, think of it this way: is it easier to reflect sunlight using a mirror onto a moving target, use a rifle or pilot a radio controlled aircraft to that target?
If the target is moving fast and erratically, the mirror is the easiest option as the beam focus can move much faster than a bullet or aircraft.
Now the only problems are power and dissipation, and it sounds like they've been licked.
Cool!
I know this should go down in the relevent thread, but i didn't think anyone would read it. Someone said i made slashdot history by being the first user with a comment removed, can anyone verify this? also they said the secret service was involved (i find this hard to belive) can any check this too? i know this whole comment is way off-topic, but DUDE! i got a comment removed from slashdot! FREE SPEECH.. yeah
So how does it feel knowing you could be the first? - Well, we're still checking that, but if i am, obviously i will feel mighty proud, i might even auction my (low UID) account on eBay like Everquest etc...
Will the CIA catch you? - I would love to know if i have a warrent in America, "Oh, no, sorry i can't go to the US, i have a warrent out for my arrest lol)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.