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

[zerocool^]

Dr. Evil: Back in the 60's, I developed a weather changing machine which was in essence a sophisticated heat beam which we called a 'laser.' Using these 'lasers' we'd punch a hole in the protective layer around the world which we called the 'ozone' layer. Slowly but surely ultraviolet rays would pour in, increasing the risk for skin cancer, that is...unless the world pays us a hefty ransom?

No. 2: Ahem....that also already has happened.

Dr. Evil: Shit!

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.

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

Re:Only for physical targets, not people

[los furtive]

To the best of my knowledge that's not true. And although I can't back it up with fact (and that link reference hardly points to fact) let me point out a few things to support my argument.

The .50 is designed for "soft" targets such as trucks, jeeps, APCs, LAVs, bunkers, bivouacs, buildings etc... but is also designed to be used against the people that occupy them. I can assure you that those trained on the .50cal machine gun (at least as far as NATO countries are concerned) are also told that it is to be used against groups of infantry.

This having been said, as a rule of thumb the person aiming the .50cal won't use it against individuals for the same reason that you don't aim the APFSDS round of a tank against people: waste of valuable resources.

Might I also remind you that the caliber of choice for sniper rifles world-wide is the .50 caliber. A seldomly discussed fact is that snipers don't always go after people, but quite often are used to destroy equipment such as radar, generators or vehicles, the .50 cal does a great job of slicing through an engine block, but it also kills a person in a single shot, hence it's use. Range is another reason why.

Now, speaking from my years of experience in the Canadian Armoured Corps, I can assure you that soldiers are trained to use .50 cal against infantry when required to do so, but usualy that's the job of medium machine guns (at least in NATO the .50inch is Heavy machine gun caliber, 7.62mm is medium machine caliber and 5.56mm is light machine gun/rifle caliber (yeah, the M16 in vietnam was 7.62mm, but all the barrels have been replaced with 5.56mm for years now)).

I hope this clears things up a bit. Oh, and about those comments concerning the "wobbling" of the M16 round, that's not accurate either. The M16 (and all the variants that I'm aware of) have a rifled barrel, meaning that a high degree of spin (clockwise, if you're curious) is applied to the round as progresses through the barrel. This rifling effect causes the trajectory of the round to be less succeptible to wind and small branches, it also eliminates any wobble. On the other hand, as soon as the round hits something reasonably solid, such as a human bone, it will start to "tumble", causing further damange. The whole wobble argument was about fragmentation of rounds, which the metal jacket eliminates.

One last piece of information, at lot of tanks out there have a special round designed for them that looks like a really big shotgun round, which is used against infantry at close range (it is also often used to remove infantry that are mounting a neighbouring tank). It's range is under a couple hundred meters, but I've seen it cut up 50 wooden targets in a single shot. Now that's scary! Feel free to bring up any questions you have to that above info.

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

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.

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].

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.

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: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").

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.

Full Metal Jacket

[sielwolf]

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.

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: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.