Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Developing 100-Kilowatt Laser for Strike Fighters
redwolfoz writes "New Scientist reports that American defence contractors, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are developing a 100-kilowatt infrared laser weapon for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter that may be powerful enough to blind people on the ground, even if they are relatively far from the target."
Oh sure, operation "banana-rama" will be a big success...
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
from inventing the flux capacitor
flying cars can't be far away !!
woohoo !!
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
In a related story, American troops have been seen rolling large tinfoil balls filled with an unknown substance into strategic locations around France.
Never confuse volume with power.
but shooting stuff with the laser is pretty sweet...
Shagadelic !!!
George W. H. Bush - Not much
George W. Bush - Even less
Does this blind them permanently or temporarily? And what about the pain beam that they were developing?
We're Doomed
And when will the 'pocket laser pointer' version of this be available on ThinkGeek?
X
So is the point to hit the target or to blind the people who see it? Or both? What if the engineers look at it, will they go blind? Is this a masterbation weapon? :)
Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
Hi, this is site is all about airborne lasers, REAL AIRBORNE LASERS. This site is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about airborne lasers. They are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
Facts:
1. Airborne lasers are lasers.
2. Airborne lasers fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the airborne laser is to flip out and kill people.
Weapons and gear:
laser
Testimonial:
Airborne lasers can kill anyone they want! Airborne lasers kill people ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. They are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this airborne laser who was flying around in the sky. And when some bird crapped on it the airborne laser killed the whole flock. My friend Mark said that he saw an airborne laser totally evaporate some dog just because the dog opened a window.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't believe that airborne lasers have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
Airborne lasers are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. They are totally awesome and that's a fact. Airborne lasers are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start flying next year. I love airborne lasers with all of my body (including my pee pee).
Q and A:.
Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about airborne lasers?
A: Airborne lasers are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, airborne lasers are very careful and precise.
Q: I heard that airborne lasers are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?
A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other lasers, airborne lasers can be mean OR totally awesome.
Q: What do airborne lasers do when they're not vaporizing people or flipping out?
A: Most of their free time is spent flying around, but sometime they land. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)
you might go after the tyres because
What the fuck are these?
Do I dare imagine a Beowulf cluster of those?
Aren't blinding laser weapons outlawed by the
geneva convention.
Oh. I forgot. Internation law doesn't apply to the US Military.
--
cool what's next phasers....? Oh maybe photon torpedos.
So instead of the enemy of the week (OBL/Saddam/the French) using human shields to protect their super secret missile bases, they just cover them in mirrors directed at the local orphanage. Fire the laser, blind the kids.
A few trillion dollars wasted because some clown thinks ray guns are a neat idea. What's next Boeing announce development of Photon Torpedoes ?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
it is designed for use against troops, blinding them. as i recall the us was going to make one but stopped after strong internal opposition.
(if the latter, may I recommend Taco Bell burritos instead. cheaper, better, faster)
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
You could put an eye out with those things.
And hope they don't have blasters. :)
The idea of a clean kill is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. Bombs go astray, the jury's still out on the health effects of distributing DUP dust into the atmosphere from a burning target, and at least with lasers you won't have all that dreadful unexploded ordnance to clean up.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I'm extremely Worried, the ramifcations of this in terms of blinding soldiers, for all things soldiers are, no matter what nationality, they certainly dont deserve to live a life of blindness when having eye sight for so long, i find this disgusting, and just because its the USA doing it does not excuse it.
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
Laser weapons aren't banned, only weapons whose primary purpose is to blind.
... as they like to say, meaning, "Stuff that the weapon did other than what it was supposed to do." Like the article says, this isn't a blinding weapon; it's an honest-to-god laser gun (as opposed to the laser targeting systems we've been using for quite some time.) It's designed to blow up or disable vehicles, artillery emplacements, etc. Might people nearby be blinded by reflections? Sure, and people nearby when a bomb hits might be blinded (or worse) by shrapnel. I think this is much ado about nothing, to tell the truth. Battlefields are dangerous places. No amount of tech is going to change that.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Lets see here. This story is about big pulse lasers that will be used by the military to blow stuff up. The previous story was about a Battletech fan who built a 'Mech (albeit a fake one) in his back yard. If this isn't just an awesome Slashdot engineering project waiting to happen, I don't know what is! PS - If someone has already beat me to it and is already forming the engineering team, count me in!!
I thought the Geneva Convention specifically outlawed the use of lasers to blind people?
[o]_O
I wonder if it can be rented for laser light shows.
"Now everybody put on your welding helmets. <ZZZZaaappp!!> Uuuuuu, aaaaaaahhh...."
From the article:
"Laser-armed planes could pick their targets. "For example, instead of attacking the hood of the car, you might go after the tyres because the chances of a reflection hitting the driver are less," Burris told New Scientist."
Beforehand, we would drop a bomb on the truck, scattering the remains of the driver across 15 or 20 miles. That's O.k. But we wouldn't want to blind him. That would be cruel.
The world is a funny place. You just have to be really callous to realize it.
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
new favorite quote from fighter pilots will be:
:)
- Turn on *** THE LASER *** !!!
whilst I deftly dodge the obvious "Real Genius" and Austin Powers references :) ...
;) sorry...hehe
any optical engineers in the audience care to comment on the likelihood of these accidental reflections causing blindness?
to be sure, if this 100KW NIR laser was fired into the cockpit of a plane, and some of the beam were reflected into the line of sight of the crew...don't we think they've got some more immediate problems than blindness? no more flight electronics...plane going down...ahem.
I think that the article fails to address that accidental reflection would be dependent upon the material being hit. Certainly most glass substrates would reflect some, but the power behind that beam is enormous!
my math regarding optical incident and accident angles is a little rusty...can we have some factual analysis here?
"Will you and the "laser" get a friggin room?"
^^ obligitory reference
I have alot of time on my hand at night. And often lay awake in bed thinking of freaky things. And I have thought of lots of FUN stuff to do with lasers. works great on large group of people. Maybe fun with /bin/laden
Ok with a laser (and osme other technical stuff) we can hear sounds at the beams location. We should, I don't know if we can so correct me if I'm wrong, make a sound by directing the beam into a persons ear. ok he is the plan using only lasers.
Have laser reading all the sounds at the location. use scanning lasers to see what happining there in 3D. Then make everyone here in their own language. "This is bad, This is EVIL. the usa is trying ot help you..... I shall prove my power". and finaly to top it all off. Set some one on fire by directing all the beams on him or her. Hay it would freak me out!
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
I wonder what happens if enemy troops develop some kind of mirrors to reflect the ray back to its origin. The beam must be easily detectable once the fighter plane starts to shoot. With a quickly erected, computer-guided mirror one should be able to shoot down or blind the actual fighter pilot as well.
Now the enemy will just coat all of their trucks, cars and personnel with tinfoil to reflect the rays coming from above... (Tinfoil would reflect the laser back at the plane... even though it would also cook you.)
:-)
Perhaps those guys with the tinfoil hats at the hospital had a point.
~ kjrose
In recent news military analysts discovered new air to ground capability for the laser with the potential to destory an entire two story house. Said a bystander, "It was incredible, but the smell was overpowering." The smell, reminiscent of burnt popcorn, was detected as far as a mile away. Although environmental activists were busy protesting the demonstration, representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture were nearby explaining that the environmental impact was minimal, "After all, it's just popcorn!"
Or make a pop an entire house full of popcorn with Kent stuck inside Professor Hathaway's house waiting for God.
100 killowatts? *yawn* Wake me when they get near 1.21 gigawats -- That's when the fun starts!
I know more than you drink.
Laser-armed planes could pick their targets. "For example, instead of attacking the hood of the car, you might go after the tyres because the chances of a reflection hitting the driver are less," Burris told New Scientist. I am going to have to stop reading this article after that comment, way to funny.
So now we you cannot use a weapon that would not affect civilian 10 feet from it, provided were facing away from it, instead a explosive device would need to be used so that thier is less chance of a person being blinded? Killed yes, but a less chance of being blinded?
"We hope to bring a new level of cleanliness to the women of third world counties." So spoke Major Lee Incompetent. "We believe that this VWSP will help with that not-so-fresh feeling that occurs when the U.S. drops about a million kilotons of explosive material on a small village. It's also a tasty salad dressing!"
ISTR an earlier incarnation of this idea which was designed to vapourise the pilot of the other aircraft being engaged. (I think this was in New Scientist's Incarus column of fond memory...) The way it would work was that a computer would identify where the pilot was sitting in the other plane, fire the laser, then run the returned light (or flash from the impact) through a spectrometer. When you see carbon emission lines, you know you've hit the pilot...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
News times article from 1995.
Here's an interesting extract.
The most visible opponent of the proposed ban was
the Unite States. The
Clinton administration argued that a ban would interfere with the legitimate
development of the U.S. high-tech arsenal. The United States signed the
weapons convention in 1981, but it wasn't until last May that the measure was
sent to the Senate, where it still awaits ratification.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
spell defense defence. I mean, it's not like they post on slashdot...
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
pth
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
I have a question: how practical is this, really? The article tells us that you get two four-second shots, spaced four seconds apart, and the laser then needs 30 seconds to cool down. This is hardly what I'd call a practical battlefield weapon, especially given the modern war methodology of one well-coordinated, completely overwhelming attack. Why use a laser with such poor fire times?
Think about it. You go in and you can drop, depending on the fighter between 6 and 24 500-pound bombs, in more or less one go, which is going to pulverize everything in the area... Or you can loiter around as a sitting duck for anti-aircraft fire and pop off two four-second laser bursts every thirty seconds.
Now, the other thing, and IANALS (I Am Not A Laser Scientist), my understanding is that solid-state lasers are a bit fragile at the moment. How is this thing supposed to handle the G-loads experienced by a strike fighter?
Also, maybe I've been watching Real Genius a little too much, but I was always under the impression that a kilowatt laser wasn't that impressive.
There's no reason to adopt laser technology of the kind mentioned in the article, when bombs are safer for the pilots to use, have proven reliability, and are more combat-effective. This leads me to believe that this is either another money-pit for the Department of Defense, or the capabilities of this laser are grossly understated.
blog |
The reflected energy typically will cover large amounts of real estate..."
Now, I might be wrong, but the explosion from a missile/bomb covers a rather large amount of area, and does a whole lot more than blind. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with reflected laser light than with shrapnel (though I'd like to not be in the flight path of either, thank you very much!)
Now all we need is a big Jiffy-Pop.
So lets get this straight, under the Geneva convention its against the rules to build a weapon that can only maim or mutilate somebody, but its all right to build a weapon if it has a reasonable chance of killing a combatant?
... may be powerful enough to blind people on the ground, even if they are relatively far from the target.
I can see the late night infomercials now: Don't get blinded by those laser weapons! For only five easy payments of a low $19.95 you too can watch these laser weapons without going blind!
Blinding people is bad, but it brings definition of "stealth fighter" to entirely new level :)
Now I can get some sharks with fricken lasers attached to their heads!
Karma: Chameleon (mostly affected when you come and go, you come and go)
So that's a yes then?
Fully cook a microwaveable chicken pot-pie? Now THAT would be something...
This is not the sig you're looking for
They're gonna put a frickin "Laser" on the things? That's it I'm gonna get myself a battlemech and a rebel blockade-runner.
It seems that people are more worried about the possibility of going blind than the possibility of death.
Ok, a laser misses, and let's say, blinds 2-3 people.
A bomb misses and takes out a block.
I fail to see the problem with the laser. It seems like it would reduce colateral damage.
I remember a story from the early 90's where a helo pilot was flying in the Pacific and he flew over a Russian "fishing boat." He saw a red flash and was blinded(in one eye IIRC.)
...would be the portable versions, with their attendant tributes to Moonraker. Which the nice folks at Westwood Studios did tribute in the penultimate Soviet mission in Yuri's Revenge.
Humor aside, though, I think this makes the grade with respect to Pretty Cool Tech. Of course, it means that the real cutting edge is a bit beyond this already.
Whatever is publicly touted as state-of-the-art is at least a half-decade behind the really cutting-edge stuff. Makes you wonder how far off people like Dale Brown are in their speculations...
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
The real problem is getting the axis of evil to use blue lasers while the allies use red lasers.
Go Joe!
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Nuff said!
This reads as FUD to me. A bunch of unverified concerns regarding a weapon that isn't off of the drawing board.
And FYI, the purpose of the laser is to attack electronics targets not to blind civilians. Blinding is a side effect everyone is afraid of (and, as FUD is want to do, implied to be the real goal of this weapon).
Also the US, a country that has shown that even it is unwilling to disregard the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't be so stupid as to blatantly break the GC.
I know there are going to be people asking why is blinding worst than death according to the Geneva Conventions. Well the gist of the GC is that combat should be a noble enterprise: weapons should avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. It would be nice if wars could be fought kill-less. If not, then if injuries would be simple things that just disable combatants for a period yet don't leave them scarred for life. But since neither of these are too realistic, it is best to make sure that we are not just going out and crippling people (combatants or civilians) en mass. That is why biological, chemical, blinding weapons, and non-Full Metal Jacketed ammunition are illegal under the GC.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I imagine we could also help out Israel and depopulate the West Bank - or at least blind them all. We could start by blinding the children at a young age. I mean, how many blind kids will grow up to be terrorists? Most likely just beggars.
I can't wait for the handheld version. Imagine in China, when some little Chinese girl isn't making my Nikes fast enough - ZAP, there goes your eyes, you little commie beeatch!
Go U.S. Space Command! If you think about it, this just goes to show that the US is the best country in the world.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
They were supposed to have 5 megawatts by mid-May.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
What about popping popcorn from 30,000 feet?
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Where are my Fsckin' Hillarious mod points?
Think about it. It's infra-red, so you can't see it. You could potentially filter the harmful rays IF you knew the wavelength of the laser AND you knew it was being used, though that's not likely to happen. So basically you could be Joe Afghan tending to his goats and minding your own business, when suddenly a truck 2 or 3 kilometers away explodes and takes your vision with it. No warning, no defense, just blindness.
Think about the potential for abuse if it falls into the wrong hands. Wanna bring down a couple jetliners, but don't have 19 hijackers to spare? That's easy! Just point one of these lasers at the wings of passing planes and watch the fuel tanks explode. Since the beam is invisible, nobody would know what hit them or be able to tell where the attack came from. You could probably drop 3 or 4 planes before you'd have to move on to another location.
Maybe the purpose of the weapon is to pop large quantities of popcorn to distract enemy soldiers.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Troops just need to wear Laser Gogle with Infrared
protection, and take cover.
Big deal, the Russians already have a portable laser that can blind people! Their police use it. They are also developing hot plasma weapons that heat up the atmosphere above a battle field and destroy any incoming missiles and aircraft! Weapons are the one thing the Russians are still good at. What are the advantages of a laser over a high powered cannon? I dont think lasers really make much sense since at 10,000+ rounds a minute todays M-61 series cannons can destroy ANYTHING!
can't i get some sharks with frickin' laser beams?
But...if this tech gets advanced enough (give it time) you could disable a tank/fighter/bomber/SAM(probably work good for those) a lot quicker and more accurately. Maybe even take out a whole army with very few casualties. A worthwhile goal?
Error: Success
torturing people violates the geneva convention
Only if that was the intended effect of the electrocution. If it can be shown that it was actually a proactive form of self-preservation (ie: part of the Defensive War strategy), and that it was actually meant to make a pilot incapable of flying a plane, it's considered legit.
Great, we've found a loophole to create a large scale blinding weapon. We call it a weapon for destroying hardware, but we are also embarking on sister program to create special protective goggles for our soldiers. Why on earth would we need those if the danger of blinding is so small?
Lets revive the microwave beam weapons while we are at it. We'll pretend they are for disrupting electronics or radar mapping, but they also do a great job of interfering with brain activity. (You only have to head the brain a couple of degrees.) We'll make protective headgear for our soldiers.
How about poison gas? I'm sure flourine and chlorine gasses do a great job of disrupting (corroding) electronics. We already have protective gear for our soldiers for that.
Or better yet, we could use tiny, indiscriminate robot devices that detect humans and explode and cripple anyone that comes near them for years to come. Oh wait, we already have that one and refuse to join in a ban on their production and use.
I'm glad we are the good guys.
Still legal in 5 states!
Use the Amazin' Laser on grass clippings. [ demonstrates ]
[ SUPER: "Warning: Do Not Fire Amazin' Laser At Police Officers." ]
Get rid of brushpiles and branches. [ demonstrates ]
[ SUPER: "Warning: Do Not Fire Amazin' Laser At Military Personnel." ]
And what about this 1,800 lb. granite boulder? [ zaps it with the Amazin' Laser ] Gone in a minute, with Amazin' Laser.
[ SUPER: "Warning: Do Not Use Amazin' Laser When Drowsy Or On Medication." ]
How accurate is Amazin' Laser? Accurate enough to hit a man in a moving automobile, from up to 3,000 feet away! Is that accurate enough for you?
[ SUPER: "Warning: Do Not Fire Amazin' Laser At The President." ]
And Amazin' Laser won't rust or corrode like metal gardening tools, 'cause it's made out of 100% durable Lexon plastic. Just watch it go through this metal detector! [ walks through, no problem ]
[ SUPER: "Warning: Terrorists, Please Do Not Buy Amazin' Laser." ]
Make your yard look its best, with the Amazin' Laser! [ zaps a truckful of wood out of his yard ]
[ SUPER: "Warning: Amazin' Laser Can Be Used For Good Or Evil, Please Use Only For Good." ]
The Amazin' Laser. It's amazing!
[ SUPER: "On Second Thought, Please Do Not Buy Amazin' Laser." ]
Its obvious Bill Gates made all of his money off of the Vegas version of Windows Solitaire.
And everybody laughed at my mirror hat...
I was always under the impression that a kilowatt laser wasn't that impressive
you have been watching too much real genius. one of my friends works with a multiple-laser mass spectrometer over in atmospheric sciences (the Single Particle Laser-Ablation Time-of-flight Mass Spec, SPLAT-MS, if you're curious) - they have a 1.5 watt, 20ms pulsed CO2 (infrared, same wavelength range the military wants to use) laser that will cause third-degree burns if you put your hand in the beam for *two pulses*. now this laser they're talking about is a 100kW; i don't know if the solid-state is less efficient than the gas laser, but either way there's still going to be a lot more than 1.5W coming out, for a lot longer than 20ms. i'd like to see what happens if you blast a chunk of asphalt with that sucker - the SPLAT laser makes little firepuffs of burning tar vapor; the military laser would probably "ablate" (vaporize) the entire rock. and to ice the cake, IR laser emission is totally invisible, even the scattered stuff...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
get ahold of one of these babies and point it at our aircraft from some mountain valley in Upper Allahjallabadallastan? Don't these morons ever learn? "Gee, Dr. Schnitt, what can you build us that we can use exclusively against our enemies for two years before it falls into the hands of our enemies?" Of course, now the defense industry can justify the production of a $100 Billion "Metropolitan Shield." Don't want any of the poor school kiddies getting blinded by the Red Chinese version of this.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Aim and fire..
you cant miss
It's amazing, isn't it, that we would ratify a treaty that we knew that would could get around anyway.
Man, I'm all for laser weapons (higher precision and lowered costs), but where do you draw the line on cruelty?
Is it any wonder that we are the most litigious society?
Read some more critical thoughts.
With modern computer aiming technology, you could take out an enemy plane with one shot of this sucker (assuming it's powerful enough). You get on his tail, get him in the reticle, and boom. 1 second later he's got serious airframe damage. 4 seconds later he's a rapidly expanding ball of vapour and titanium shards.
If it's powerful and accurate enough, you could hit him before he's more than a blip on your radar screen. Just like a missile, except that all the chaff and flares in the world won't save him.
War sucks. If we put half as much $ and effort into figuring out how to cure diseases and end poverty, as we do into these fucking Dr. Strangelove, penis-waving weapons systems...
Freedom: "I won't!"
Here. Also being considered for the AC-130 gunship. Explanation of aiming problems, one turret or two, etc. Much more detail.
Infuriate left and right
Given the United State's lack success with "remote" warfare in Afganistan, Iraq, Lybia and numerous other squirmishes, I would suggest that money is invested into more pertinent technologies.
How about feeding the children of Africa rather than blinding an enemy you are too cowardly to fight face to face? Is the peurile interest in warfare more important than the maintenance of your nation's humanity?
We can strap this 100kW laser onto a plane to blind the bad guy, or..
We can strap a smart bomb onto a plane to kill a bad guy.
Am I the only one who thinks that the military's job should be killing people, not blinding them? Or am I missing out on the hip new expanding role of the military that everyone's talking about?
Finding God in a Dog
Am I the only one who sees the obvious application for this technology ? <g>
I want 5 MEGAWATTS by mid may!
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
To show how fascist geeks are
...be mounted to an ill-tempered sea bass?
For the past several weeks, I've had a perplexing but cool mousepad advertising "AIRBORNE LASER" (@ http://www.airbornelaser.com/, fancy that). It seems a goofy idea, and it has a really awful website. But, I dunno, it seems somewhat relevant to the discussion.
In what year were we supposed to have orbiting phaser platforms, again? I left my Star Trek Chronology at home for some reason.
(Oh, and my mousepad is even weirder when you consider where I'm working (I deny any connection to that site, yech).)
Karma: T-rexcellent.
And you can figure what means to be blind... God damn morons...
I have a friend who has been working on this project for a couple of months now. He is moving to Albequrque NM to begin actual production on this weapon. Too bad he has top secret service and won't tell me a damn thing *sigh*
Nice banner to go with the story..
Lasers are common in the military, primarily for range finding and illuminating targets for laser-guided weapons. Although these lasers are not powerful enough to destroy objects, they can cause serious eye damage. In at least one case they were used by a Russian ship in American waters to damage the eyes of a helicopter pilot observing the vessel.
Also, the US Armed Forces have researched this issue extensively, and most aircrew helmets and visors are now designed to protect the wearer from laser-induced eye damage - accidental or otherwise.
1: why the hell is everyone so worried about blinding people? has anyone ever seen any realistic war movie? a 9mm bullet does a hell of a lot more than blind you. and bullets and bombs don't just hit soldiers. maybe we all just play a bit too much counterstrike around here.
2: the only way something is illegal is if someone can enforce it. there is no one enforcing the geneva convention, and the us can do just about as it damn well pleases cause theres not much that can stop it (yes i am american, and this is simple fact.. the us is a superpower and it is in the drivers seat right now, deal with it)
3: this is completely off topic, but what i was wondering if there is some easy way to determine the natural frequency of an object, and then send out a wave of that same frequency, i bet that could really screw up a plane.
i'm done here.
Hm, nice weapon. Especially for the local wildlife, they'll truly appreciate being blinded.
--
While the rest of the civilized world is trying to ban land mines because of their devastating effects on civilian populations that lasts decades after the intended conflict, the U.S. is busy designing a weapon that has the (un?)intended effect of permanently blinding people. Great.
Given a choice, I'd rather lose a leg than go blind, wouldn't you?
I do realize that weapons that injure are far more effective against an enemy that cares for its wounded. However, there's a difference between a bullet wound, which can heal, and being blinded for life!
On top of this, the U.S. has a reputation for hitting civilians and friendly troops recently. Is this really going to be an effective weapon for U.S. troops to have on the battlefield? I hope we're also trying to perfect occular implants at the same time.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
So, I can understand how many fascist assholes use slashdot. Ah, Taco.... Make my "karma" -2000, who fucking cares?
I don't like to be on userbase neighbouring such fascists anyway.
In related news, the Pentagon has revealed the location of the first test target.
what I want is a weapon that would make the target evacuate their bowels
We already have one of those. You just walk up to someone and tell them "George W. Bush has control of 1/2 of the world's nuclear weapons."
I want a blind guy/gal comment about this story. They could describe what blindless is anyway.
...so I'll be able to change my TV channel from the other side of the room properly now?
Goggles may work for *reflected* laser light, but if you actually get hit by that sucker, forget it. Remember, a laser of just 50W could burn holes in a piece of wood (or your flesh).
Or did you not notice that the US and Russia have THOUSANDS of them?
Now of course using something that powerful would require rather extenuating circumstances, but that would be true regardless of treaties.
By teh way, conventional bombs do a great job of disfiguring, blinding, deafening, and (of course) killing people that happen to get caught in their blast radius. A laser would offer far greater precision and far less risk of incidental damage.
Modern technology rocks.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but nowadays that -2000 would translate to a less impressive "Bad" or "Poor"... or perhaps even, horror of horrors "Terrible".
It just isn't as impressive.
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
I mean like I fucking care... :*)
This is hilarious, someone mod it up
"I was aiming at his brain, his eyes were in the way"
Secondly, there's no philosophical error.
The motivation behind the Additional Protocol (IV) on Blinding Laser Weapons was not to turn eveyone into teletubbies, the geneva conventions are on limits to war. The convention is thus crafted as a means to eliminate weapons which can cause massive suffering without removing by the same token our means of defending our counties.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
>You may find this hard to believe, but our military is actually one of the most principled in the world when it comes to the Geneva convention and other humanitarian considerations.
THANK YOU for saying that. I'm sick of all the whiney communist liberals on Slashdot. They don't realize that other countries are now developing weapons of mass destruction.
These countries - unlike the USA - have shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. Unlike the USA, they would use these to target CIVILIAN POPULATIONS instead of military targets (killing civilians is bad, it unfairly restricts commerce).
Unlike the USA, the alix of evil have even used weapons of this type ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE (Saddam). We would never engage in that kind of reckless GENOCIDE, nor would we ever target civilians.
It really ticks me off to hear these flaming liberals; all of whom would rewrite children's history books given the chance.
I didn't see anything in the article mentioning refraining from using it because of civilians. The car reference you have seems like it'd be from the context of stopping the car, not killing the driver (like if you watched Black Hawk Down I think it was, they shot the engine blocks of the cars to capture the passengers).
Seems like this being an infrared laser would make it much harder to (1) find; and (2) reflect. I assume infrared mirrors exist, but I suspect reflecting back this pulsed laser wouldn't be trivial.
i think you're missing the point of this important research. the benefits of working on such a project include, but aren't limited to:
- creating the ultimate peacetime weapon
- hanging out with the ultimate geekgirl, jordan
- hanging out with jordan
and uh
- hanging out with jordan.
oh, and before i forget! TONS and TONS of jiffypop popped from space!
Yes, but what about the poor trolls?
I mean, they used to be able to say "I have -2000 karma" and all the other trolls would oooh and ahhh at the accomplishment.
Now they have to say "I have 'terrible' karma". In a troll community, what does that mean? Does it mean that the troll in question actually has good karma? (A negative karma being a status symbol). The confusion that the system change has caused is really quite disorienting. Poor trolls, they really don't have the mental facilites to deal with such things.
Of course, this message is quite off-topic. So um... how about those kW lasers!
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
It's funny. I see startwars and future sci-fi movies all using rockets or short lasers and stuff. The future will probably be an automated battlefield where the weapons are only lasers. It'll look more like a rave party than anything else. This is just a small step in that direction.
You may say rockets will be always there. But what would would a rocket be if a laser can bring it down in miliseconds, just after leaving a launcher bay. And automated targeting system in this era will probably have 100% precision and near lightspeed rotators.
The only other weapon i can think may be effective are balistics (sending 1 gram of something at near lightspeed towards a target).
Everything else will be "historical movies". I say funny, because when I see sci-fi (like ST or SW) it always looks to me like a historic movies with sci-fi look and feel (like a theme or skin).
unfinished: (adj.)
Frankly I think Real Ultimate Power is getting kind of old. But maybe that's because I've got friends that make references to it every five minutes...
The point is the definition of "large."
If you think about it, there are only two things that will stop a laser: your head or something opaque between your head and the laser. You lose some power to dispersion through the atmosphere, but even at a couple kilometers, you apparently still have enough power to blind. With shrapnel, it's a simple matter of kinematics - the odds of shrapnel carrying enough energy to hurt you drop off with distance orders of magnitude faster.
This requires great precision of aiming from the air. Unless you have some super-great auto-aiming device, this is IMHO quite difficult.
Well, looking at the number of civilian deaths caused by some US pilot's mistakes, many of the pilots don't know how to read the map correctly, or to aim accurately.
Secondly, there's no philosophical error.
I don't think you understood what I was talking about.
I was talking about the parent post. He had a -factual- error in that the GC doesn't prohibit laser weapons in general. The -philosophical- error I was talking about was -his- error in thinking that the U.S. just ignores international law. It does, sometimes, but that is not its primary modus operandi. Primarily, it tries to make it so that it doesn't need to violate international law by ensuring when the law is created such that it doesn't prohibit anything the U.S. would want to do.
I was not, in fact, making a point about the Geneva Convention at all. Instead, I was making a comment on the character of the U.S. government, which I believe he has mischaracterized.
The enemies of Democracy are
Or better yet, we could use tiny, indiscriminate robot devices that detect humans and explode and cripple anyone that comes near them for years to come. Oh wait, we already have that one and refuse to join in a ban on their production and use.
I'm glad we are the good guys.
Of course, our enemies refuse to join such a ban either (Afghanistan has something like a million landmines already laid), so we are evil for not agreeing to deny ourselves a weapon our enemies use in quantities we've never even considered deploying? Whatever.
We may or may not be the good guys, depending on your point of view, but the hypocracy of such a stance ("deny yourself the weapons of your war-time enemy") is pretty pathetic (and I say this as someone who quite often posts scathing criticism of my government here on slashdot and elsewhere).
I am, however, very glad the people inventing these weapons are on my side, regardless of whether or not I approve of the weapon in question (and, quite frankly, I'd rather be blind than dead, so until the use of lethal force is banned in warfare I think complaints about non-lethal weapons like this are particularly absurd).
So, "let's go get some lunch and watch that movie on blinding techniques."[1]
[1]superfilous Real Genius reference
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yeah, I saw that movie too.
It was very inaccurate. So were the bombers.
-flippant, I know.
I think suitable applications of subsonics will have interesting effects on your target of choice. Such devices work better as a remotely activated device than a beam, though, as they don't aim well.
... Boeing announced today that all their new planes will be coated with a perfect mirror surface... and cost $1 billion each.
"And like that
since dude.. they're RED! ;)
In other news...
Sales of Vuarnet mirrored sunglasses have risen dramatically over last year's figures...
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
This sounds stingily familiar
Ninja's are funnier
Did you sleep through your history classes?
The US has frequently used reckless and indescriminate weapons against people that it claimed were under it's protection. If they were obstrepous. If they objected to being killed. Or even if it just wanted their property.
And it has done it in peace time against "friendly foreigners". (They're only indians!)
Intentional propagation of smallpox can hardly be considered a "peaceful" act. But the calvary sold blankets known to be contaminated while officially at peace.
You can, I suppose, claim that we aren't doing anything as bad as that right now. The trouble is, most of this only comes to light decades later, so why should we believe that it isn't happening now?
You can say that all weapons are gruesome (true), and that we must be able to defend ourselves. I see. That's why there are aerial assaults being carried out in the Afganistan. Most of the people who have been harmed weren't our enemies, before we attacked them. And the people that we are ostensibly after can't be shown to have been there anyway. (I feel that Bin Laden probably went back home to Saudi Arabia before we ever attacked Afganistan.)
I see no justification for this. Hitler was, I admit, an extreme case. But if I were looking for his parallel in today's world, I wouldn't look in the middle east.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Do you need a memory treatment or an history lesson ? Maybe you should take a look at those children's history books you're talking about !
0 3/bush.int ernational.court/index.html0 02/US/07/12/us.international. court/index.html
"our military is actually one of the most principled in the world when it comes to the Geneva convention and other humanitarian considerations"
Sure, and that is just why the USA recently refused to back the new international war crimes court...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/
http://www.cnn.com/2
And to finish keeping the tone of your post : Unlike the USA, no nation, ever, used mass destruction weapons.
God bless the whole world for once...
not only America...
I thought he did a good job as Madmartigan in Willow.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
'Nuff said.
Remember that old (and very fine) SF novel of the 1950's?
Story opens with narrator in a hospital with bandaged eyes, recovering from an eye operation. Outdoors, people are stunned by a mysterious, worldwide, unexplained, beautiful display of bright lighting effects in space that look like fireworks. Everyone is going out to see them and raving about their spectacular beauty. Radio programs urge everyone not to miss it.
Narrator understandably feels left out.
After a while he notices that hospital has gotten very quiet and that nobody is coming around to take care of him. Eventually he can't stand it, gingerly takes off his bandage, his eyes are OK, and... it gradually emerges... everyone who has looked at the display has gone blind.
Narrator speculates it's a case of space weapons gone amok, but that since they weren't supposed to be there no government was willing to admit it or warn anyone...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
According to another piece of propaganda, (A 'documentary' on one of those so-called 'learning' channels), as of last year, these types of lasers worked in the following way. . .
They install in a large passenger style aircraft a huge chemical battery which operates on a principal similar to the 'fuel-cell'. The laser system itself is huge, taking up about half the length of the plane. The beam, when fired, is redirected through an X,Y, rotating nozzle in the nose of the plane. The system can shoot 30 times, (or so), before having to land in order to refuel the battery cells.
The whole kit & kaboodle is designed to knock missiles out of the air. A second or two of focused beam is enough to vaporize a section of missile chassis. It can be fired quickly at lots of different targets, and can sort of just 'roam around' the skies waiting for the rebel forces to launch their painfully overdue attack against Death Star America. If you are the sort to believe this kind of tripe, at the airing date of the 'documentary', there were supposedly two working prototypes of these aircraft, and everybody seemed fairly pleased with the results. That was last year sometime.
The 'New Scientist' was either too dumb to report it with any brain-power, or (as I'm guessing), was putting out enough fluffy dots for all the American geeks and twerps to connect on their own, thus allowing them to speculate and 'discover' the 'truth' on their own, thereby making them believe in it and cling to it with the crab-like tanacity which comes, for some reason, when people think they are discovering something on their own. . , thereby legitimizing whatever bullshit truth the Powers That Be want installed.
And to connect those dots. . .
I'm guessing that the advantage of a fighter jet equipped with a smaller version of one of these laser thingies means that it can instantly take out a target. A beam of light is instantaneous. No more Tom Cruising around for a weapons lock, (though the recruiting department will probably make up for that somehow. "Now Even Pathetic Tech Geeks Can Become The Jocks Of The Sky Through Wonderful Technology. Get Laid Just Like Those Movie Stars With Big Penises!", or some shit. Look within. It's all pre-programmed into you by the fun, fun televisioin you watch and music you listen to.
Anyway, the computer controlled eye in your fighter scans the target 'enemy' jet, matches the profile in its memory, decides which one of thirty prime spots it wants to hit, and FLASH, a fuel gasket turns to ash and down goes your opponent. I'd rather have two shots every thirty seconds from a system like than a dozen lousy air to air missiles. (If I died, went to hell, and became a fighter pilot, that is.)
Whatever.
Aside from the fact that far better technology has been around for decades, any such crap which makes it to television or the 'New Scientists' of the media, is all just advertising to make people believe the whole war charade isn't as unbelievably retarded and back-assward as it is.
It's all just for show and sale.
Yours in a bitter frame of mind,
-Fantastic Lad
More geeks would like weapons if it wasn't so stuck on old technology. Just like a geek doesn't want a car that doesn't use antimatter propulsion, a geek doesn't want a weapon that doesn't use lasers! Geeks will place a satellite in space (with LASERS) and use it to destroy everyone else. Geeks don't like slaves either.
And FYI, the purpose of the laser is to attack electronics targets not to blind civilians.
Excuse me while I take no comfort in this. The purpose of your war in Afghanistan was meant to oust the Taliban and disrupt Al Quaida, only it's ended up killing more innocent civilians than were murdered on Sept 11th.
It's all well and good to say that the purpose of action X is result Y, but when side results P, Q and R happen all we get is a whole lot of hot potato out of the USian hawks.
Also, as a Canadian, who watched as more Canadian soldiers died at the hands of American incompetence than Islamic fundamentalists this past year, you'll understand if I think twice about advocating getting involved in any of your conflicts.
Thanks for helping repel Communism. We've been your economic serfs for the last three decades. Debt's paid in full -- time for the US to start acting like world citizens for a change.
"Also the US, a country that has shown that even it is unwilling to disregard the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't be so stupid as to blatantly break the GC."
The US is one of the few countries in existence not to ban the use of landmines.
Ironically, we're usually the country that ends up cleaning them all up though.
-- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
You are exactly right.
And for those who don't see it let me explain...
Why do you think the military is so hot for precision weapons nowadays? Because during the Gulf War (true) precision weapons like the Tomahawk and other fun laser guided goodies accounted for something like 3% of the tonnage of munitions expended, BUT they accounted for something like 90% of the targets destroyed.
That's efficient. Efficiency is a "force multiplier". And force multipliers are what win wars, because you either don't have to try as hard as your enemy or you can try just as hard and get more results.
So now they are deploying the ultimate in precision munitions, the laser. All this bullshit about people being blinded is stupid. These weapons will make many current tactics in warfare completely obsolete. If they work.
"I'm about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice!"
china,North Korea, iraq,iran,egypt,saudi arabia,pakistan,vietnam,mexico,venezuela, the rest of the african and south american continent?
really nice.
OK, does anybody know if an INFRARED laser can blind you? Burn perhaps, but blind? They dont provide a frequency range, but I would assume near infra-red (1000 - 1200 nm?) for maximum atmospherice penetration.
While I am neither a mathematician nor laserologist, I know some arithmatic. The concern is that the weapon will hit a curved surface and reflect off in many directions. ok, at that point, the coherent light is no longer spatially coherent, thus I would think it would follow the inverse square law. so if I was 1 foot from the impact, i'm screwed, but at 50 feet it's like looking at something like a 100 watt lightbulb.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
There are two arguments to your claim that we are "completely ignoring" the treaty. First is the fact that we are not ignoring it, we are withdrawing from it, in accordance with the procedures specified in the treaty:
A link to the full text of the treaty is provided at the end of this post.This paragraph gives us the full authority to withdraw from the treaty at any time, so long as we provide an explanation and six months' notice of intent. When Pres. Bush announced our intent to withdraw, Pres. Putin called it a "source of annoyance" for Russia, but acknowledged that we were, in fact, within our rights.
The second argument is slightly shakier, but does have some validity. The second argument is that the treaty does not apply. From the preamble to the treaty: "The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties...." The signatories include the USA and the USSR. The USSR doesn't exist anymore. That being true, a case can be made saying the treaty is null and void, because the opposing signatory no longer exists.
In either case, we are not ignoring the treaty; we are in full compliance with it. Whether or not that is a good idea is a matter of debate, but no party claims we are ignoring or breaching the treaty.
As promised, a link: ABM Treaty, as published by the US Department of State.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Why not follow your convictions fully and go ahead and move somewhere else now?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
...battlemechs armed with lasers.
I once shot a man in Reno 'cause they cancelled Firefly.
Solid state lasers aren't all that fragile. Nd:Yag lasers that emit in the 1064nm range are the standard in most military applications although there is a big shift to the 1540nm "eyesafe" range. The US military is also looking into dual wavelength lasers that include both eyesafe and non-eyesafe modes. I guess the risk of eye damage on this proposed 100MW laser would depend on the wavelength being used. Although a hit by a laser of this power would be able to burn the skin.
To me, it sounds like a really cool engineering program, but I don't think it's that practical right now.
Dude, your links are 404.
Bush: U.S. personnel will never face global court
U.N. agrees to U.S. peacekeeper exemption
Everyone knows that these frickin' laser beams are being developed for mounting onto sharks.
"You know, I have one simple request, and that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now, evidently, my cycloptic colleague informs me that that can't be done. Can you remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly, throw me a frickin' bone here!"
Offtopic... But you know its funny. Plus, its in honor of Goldmember.
I'd rather be blind than dead is my motto!
"My eyes! The goggles do nothing!" - Ranier Wolfcastle
I once shot a man in Reno 'cause they cancelled Firefly.
It is God!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Well I pretty much agree, but I think you've missed the big picture.
Wouldn't lasers work rather nicely in space? All that physics stuff having to do with intertia and momentum goesout the window when you deal in energy only (well, at least in the small amounts we do at this point). Plus, the cooling times can be much shorter, the energy supplies much bigger, and cleanup somewhat simpler as most of your target burns up in the atmosphere.
This is just a warm up for orbital combat. I'm sure the USAF is waiting with bated breath until they can take out other nations' comm satelites with lasers.
I'm waiting until coporations start taking out each others' systems in orbit. That's going to be a real show.
....this laser will be obsolete pretty fast.
Wait until Christmas, Plextor will make a 2x version and it will come with the black bezel option (for $13.3 million more)
Will these be available for "self defence" purposes? Just a thought.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
They didn't get bored, they were kicked out, or left before they were about to be. They avoided the French mistake of sticking around, and so didn't get whooped like the French in Algeria and Vietnam.
One possibility is that these countries establish governments and economies like ours. The other is that one or more Western powers simply conquers them and establishes an Empire.
./
You are what is politely referred to as an imperialist, and commonly referred to as a fuckhead.
I can't believe this is what passes for sophisticated political commentary on
The Chinese have a deployed laser system in their most modern battle tanks that is meant to blind and in general disable enemy targeting systems. Probably very much like this is meant and able to do.
Here is a link to a picture and description of the tank: Type 98 MT. On the top of the turret you will see a rectangular apparatus. That is the laser system.
I will have to get a really good pair of Raybands then!
2) lasers are generally grossly in-efficient when the power gets high; putting 1kw into a laser (i am drawing info from CO2 lasers, which is one of the easiest high-power infrared laser you can make) -- would yield a beam of ~ 100W. I am curious when they say it's a such such power rating -- is it the CONSUMED power, or DELIVERED power?
3) unless the IR radiation is really on the brink of visible, glass does not pass it. so, while your window might melt etc, you don't have to worry about getting blind *so* much. but indeed NIR passes through glass -- so there is still a danger, depending of what frequency the damn thing is -- if they want to be humane, however, it is easy to make the laser not pass through glass, though. however, with a high powered laser shooting down at me, i am somewhat certain that the first thing i will worry about is the melting metal and scorching skin.
p.s. IR radiation causes sub-surface burns -- so technically you won't have "scorching skin", but erm... die from IR laser is not something pleasant... FYI.
*lastly: i know i linked it before, but it's such a good site on lasers: Sam's laser faq
My life in the land of the rising sun.
we need the flashy thing
Moving at the speed of government.
There's a huge glut of C-130 cargo planes, because the factory is in Newt Gingrich's congressional district. Really. So the USAF has been looking for other things to do with C-130s.
The "AC-130", A for Attack, is a 4-prop cargo plane with armor and guns. The guns point sideways, so the plane banks or circles over a target and fires. It's a big, slow cargo aircraft that can carry a huge ammo load. The usual application is that, after any enemy air defenses have been suppressed, the AC-130 moves in and fires 1200 rounds per minute into enemy ground forces until they're all dead.
Adding a laser to the AC-130 would give it some air-to-air capability, so it could deal with unexpected incoming air threats and then return to its mission, extermination of ground troops.
Saddam Hussein has reportedly spent $3.4 million dollars outfitting Irqq's elite Republican Guard with mirrored sunglasses.
Upon hearing the news, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer issued the following press release on behalf of the Bush Administration:
"D'oh!"
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
All militaries do things that are reprehencable! That's the nature of their job: the enforce the political will of their leaders through force.
And the US Military does have a very good, and deserved, reputation for being more huimanitarian than most. We havn't always been that way with all "enemies", but it's hard to be humane when your leaders tell you to exterminate the Amiercan Indains; which is not a black mark against the US Army so much as it is a black mark against the President of that period of US history.
Consider WWII: When Germany was falling, who did the Nazi's walk MILES to surrender to? The Americans. When Japan fell, who did the the Japanese in China and other contested areas flee to surrender to? The Americans.
War is hell. It is organized and legailzed murder. It twists and corrupts all involved. But we've managed to keep our troops relatively sane and under control. They are not always perfect. The reason we know what's happened is that the US news media has the freedom to tell the world about every fuckup and abuse incident that they find out about. The press of most other nations do not have this freedom.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
The US does not honor the Geneva Convention with regard to prisoners of war (Guantanamo Bay), so why should they do so with regard to laser weapons?
Your logic is shitty.
The US refused to back the ICC because it felt it would give undemocratic, repressive states a platform from which to attack/discourage US military action against anyone (any state that signs on the treaty can vote for the 18 judges and 1 prosecutor). It felt that it would be used to prevent Israel from defending itself against Hamas terrorists. And it felt that it would bypass due process for US citizens.
Yhe US did not support the ICC because the ICC is flawed, not because it isn't among the worlds' most principled militaries.
And many nations have used weapons of mass destruction. I assume you mean that the US is the only nation to use thermonuclear weapons against another country. This is regrettable and true, although I find it interesting this is focused on so much more than the firestorms in Tokyo started by US bombs that killed more than Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined. Furthermore, I suppose you don't feel that chemical weapons count as weapons of mass destruction, because Germany used them in WWI, and Iraq used them against the Kurds. If you count death by inaction, the failure to act by the UN in Rwanda killed upwards of a half-million....
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
I think you were educated in the 70's by a bunch of anti-american communist sympathizers.
The US has certainly made mistakes, but to suggest that the US is supremely inhumane is to be blind to the immense good that has come to this world because of the US armed forces.
Also, as far as the blankets, I have no doubt that happened, but do you think that was really something advocated by the president and congress at the time?? Sheesh, think for a second!
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Does the term "prisoner of war" require that an actual war be taking place? Has congress actually declared "war" in the last few years?
In the same vein, you should think about the rights that are being trampled on because we are "at war"...
According to the US Constitution, the leglislative branch of the Federal Government has to declare war, not the President, not his staff, not the military, not the media.
--Joe
If it hits a nice shiny polished target at just the right angle, will the JSF shoot itself down?
it is hoped that this new flag that is so large it can be seen from geosynchronous orbit will let the world know that they have surrendered in order to make it easier for enemy troops to storm their cities. It is rumoured that the flip side of the flag contains a set of universal 'FU you bloody bastards' for those that inevitably save France from its own peril. In small print it says, "we the sovereign only in name French, shall snub any and all who bleed and die for us because we cannot fight our own wars"
I'm pretty sure that I've heard of an incident where US forces just slaughtered a convoy of people and part of it was using the laser that they use to guide bombs to blind people.
Mini-Me, stop humping the "laser"...
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
...ever thought about the efficiency of Lasers, that is converting the energy to pump the Laser into radiation with the intended wavelength? Roughly spoken, around one percent for a Carbon-Dioxide system, maybe three for a solid-state Laser. Now if we want to emit 100kW we just need some small 10MW. No problem. Not even thinking about thermal problems, like getting rid off the thermal energy after the shot.
So if the military is talking about cooling down in 30 seconds something is fishy here. As usual.
Well, currently one can buy a commercial 30kW Carbon-Dioxide Laser from Trumph to cut ones steel. But this isn't the small geek toy to carry around -- your floor should be strong enough to carry these beasts. Now imagine putting a 100kW Laser on a plane...
Probably the military either meant 100kW for a realllllly short period of time, or someone sold them total crap. With the current state of mind of generals in view, probably one the second case holds.
I am well aware of many of our military's abuses of power. I was really just trying to get two points across:
1) Though it is inevitably flawed, our military tries as hard or harder than any to avoid unnecessary damage. We invest more effort than our forerunners or contemporaries in techniques to avoid collateral damage. It is far from perfect, but we are long way from Dresden and similar horrors.
2) If we don't try to give our commanders new options for achieving their objectives, our ability to avoid collateral damage will not improve.
Mini-me, stop humping the fricken' laser...
Domains for only $8.75/year! Transfer your domain for on
Arghh... My Eyes!! The goggles do Nothing!
Ouch. Don't test.
The probably isn't intended to replace the bombs or missiles - it's intended to try to give the pilot something in the bullet/cannon range that will effectively never run out of ammo.
The M1A1 tank's _laser_rangefinder_ for the main gun carries a warning (paraphrased) 'Warning: Immediate blindness can occur at out to 8km' [OSHA + military = interesting interaction ;)] It's a LOT less than 100kW. Just guessing I'd say 10W with a sensitive CCD should do the job.
If you're at the focal point of this beam, the fact that you are now blind is preempted by the boiling & burning occuring on the rest of your body.
n/t
I'm fairly sure this will be a turreted laser that deploys from one of the JSF's munitions bays to fire, and should have half a hemisphere at least of engagement. Or you could have two turrets, one on the bottom of the aircraft, one on the top.
They are already fielding a lower powered laser meant for blinding heat-seeking missles, (a pod or external turrets currently) that for the F-22 will be internal, with turrets that extend out of the fuselage for brief seconds to fire, then retract.
Engaging an enemy aircraft assuming there are no clouds in the way, you get a radar fix on him, and the resolution of the JSF's radar should be down to counting the rivets on the wing of an enemy fighter, or have radar data from a AWACs or Jstars relayed to you, the turret extends and fires a low-intensity guide laser at the opponent. say 40 miles off in clear conditions. The guide laser illuminates and flashes brilliantly off the opposing fighter, confirming to your sensors that the radar is indeed on target, and then switches to high power mode, for the aforementioned 2 or four seconds. I'd probably work him up with two 1 second bursts, then a full 2 seconds.
the effects on an laser unprotected aircraft, immediately blind the pilot/set him on fire, smoke all of the HeatSeeking/IR/Optical Rec guided munitions he's carrying externally and burn out laser-LED proximity fuses, smoke any optical/IR scanners on the aircraft, vaporize paint off the nose and char the windscreen with it, and potentially if you're lucky set off his fuel-tanks.
Anti-laser protection would include having a shielded cockpit, with no glass canopy, or a fast-opaque LCD coating, carrying munitions internally, painting the aircraft with gloss white ablative paint, multiple redundant optical sensors, and having perhaps a long boom sticking out in front of the aircraft that could instantaneously spray a slurry of silica and water in a fine mist back into the slipstream and over the rest of the aircraft, which would diffuse and or steam-ablate a laser strike.
Why not call them what they are: arms
producers. Everywhere in this world we find
'defence' forces, defence industries, defence departments.
You might wonder why there are so many wars in
this world, when people are defending only.
Learn to recognize newspeak.
If, as you say, Jesus, Allah, or whatever "happened." Then:
Think about it... Or would you like to deny that "shit happens..."
I'll be honest with you, I haven't read the rest of the replies. As soon as I saw this article I was shocked. If it can blind people who are not in the direct line of fire I think the weapon is cruel and should not be implemented.
What would happen if they used it on some suspected Palestitian terrorist at his home? Then what? If his neighbors are home and looking around they can get blinded also? Thats wrong, I have enough problems with what weare doing over there as it is.
same shit, bigger explosions
I just happen to agree with one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite quotations:
"War is an atrocity and the agressor sets the rules."
Doesn't seem like a bad place to start looking, Middle easterners themselves seem to see parallels. - To quote the Egyptian government supported newspaper Al-Akhbar: - Al-Akhbar (Egypt), April 29, 2002.
emphasis mine
And more examples from other countries
Cool! BoengNasaAolTimewarnerAdelphiaAppleMicrosoftKensik o
Inc has just invented a stun ray that targets
enemy troops while being careful not to hit our own!
If we crank this baby high enough, I wonder if we can fry
the Halibon in Artrinisuzbekastan off the face of the Earth?
Flying cars can't be that far away!
I think you may also have slept through history.
First of all, I know of no time that we "uused reckless and indescriminate weapons against people that it claimed were under it's protection." So lets leave out the silly "under it's protection" farce and just address the issue of reckless and indiscriminate use of weapons by the US:"
Sure, you can go far enough back and find all sorts of nonsense. There was one known case of providing smallpox laden blankets to kill Indians - of course this was before the US was a country (you didn't know that, did you?), but hey, what the heck!
And the US indeed did slaughter a lot of Indians (not friendly foreigners, but hostile people whose land we were stealing). But that was a long time ago.
The real lesson of history is that the democratic western powers have become very mindful of civilian casualties since world war II. During World War II (the last one that the left in the US felt was "noble), we intentionally killed civilians with the reasoning that they were enemy combatants indirectly through their jobs in the enemy economy. Hence the firebombing of Dresden (which, of course, was far more deadly than Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Of course, the US was not exactly alone in this sort of behavior. Every country that could, did.
OTOH we did not engage in intentional atrocities (other than mass bombing) the way the USSR, Germany and Japan did, so even then we were acting a bit more civilized.
Since then, we have always cared about civilian casualties. For example, in the Vietnam war, we could have ended it quickly by bombing the dikes in North Vietnam (please, no horrible puns), and bombing Hanoi indiscriminately, but we didn't do that. Sure, we still used terrible weapons (napalm, which you probably don't realize is not even in our arsenal any more), and civilians got killed; but at least we tried. And of course our enemy, not nearly so civilized, had intentional programs of civilian slaughter (10,000 village chiefs in one year, for example), and also hid with unwilling civilians so we would be less likely to attack them. Sort of like the Palestinian terrorist the Israeli's blew to hell the other day.
Since WW-II we progressivly more careful about civilian casualties, so that now only our vast technological superiority has allowed us to win. If we had fought the Gulf War by WW-II rules (remember, the last noble war according to the american left), we would have carpet bombed Baghdad, or just nuked it.
Of course, you allow yourself a great escape (oh, it's going on now, but we won't know for decades). Nonsense! The western democracies are IMHO *overly* careful about civilian casualties. This includes Israel, which could trivially destroy the Palestinians if it wanted, but instead inflicts minimal civilian casualties (yes, including the 2000 lb bombing of the terrorist leader and his neighbors the other day).
As to the issue of the laser weapon... hey... guess what... weapons kill and main. And they don't always just get the bad guys. War is not pretty, and not to be engaged in on a whim. It is the *duty* of democratic countries to have enough military power to protect democracy, freedom and human rights from those who would use force to take it away from the whole world. And if that means having lasers that might blind people inadvertently, then so be it.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Lasers are kind of a hobby (http://lasers.757.org). There is a few nasty issues with this.
First off, to burn with a laser in industry you normally match the laser with the material. Different color materials absorb different wavelengths of light better. Black surface gets warmer in the summer than a white surface. The enemy could easily paint their equipment so that it doesn't absorb IR light well. And yea, they could chrome out the military vehicles so they bling the laser pulse light everywhere and absorb very little. Blinding everyone around and taking no damage.
Next, whenever you "improperly terminate" a laser beam you end up with scattered reflections. When I put my 100mw argon-ion laser up against a slide projection screen it is _BRIGHT_. With small lasers it isn't an issue until you hit a screen with gain (beaded) or highly reflective surface.
The next thing is the fact that the gyro system on the plane that stabilizes the mirror would have to be MEGA MEGA MEGA MEGA stable. If you have a laser sitting 1 foot from a mirror, and the beam pointed at the roof of a neighbors house 500' away... and you move the mirror the slightest bit, your no longer pointed on the roof of the house. If you a mile up in the air, it is going to be VERY difficult to keep the laser on the target.
And couldn't the enemy set off a "smoke grenade" to cloud up the air so that the IR light is diffused?
The Military (and I presume other goverments as well) have been messing with High energy radio frequency and laser weapons for a long time.
Then again, with all the ravers in the air force I wouldn't be surprised if they put a KTP crystal infront of the plane, end up with 300kw of 523nm green laser beams running a rave in the desert while bakin their brains on E.
Does the CIA count as military? MKULTRA was all about the CIA giving civilian and military personnel drugs such as LSD without their knowledge or permission. Why? So that mind control drugs could be found to make soldiers / activists more docile / willing to obey authority. This was in the 60s and 70s. The military also exposed personnel to hazardous levels of radiation when it knew about the dangers.
I don't think communism is all that bad. Its human nature that is the problem. Human nature is all about hoarding goods and services, trying to get rich for doing nothing, and not thinking about any generations past potential grandchildren. If the wealthy nations in this world quit being so protectionist of capitalism, they could agree to grow all the food needed to end world hunger. Then they would send 500 billion condoms all across the world along with family planning information so the poorest families in the world would stop having the most kids. While doing this there would be a massive education program to build schools in poor countries.
The problem here? Money. Who would pay for this. Well I don't know if I just described communism or what, but its BEING NEIGHBOORLY WHEN THE WORLD IS YOUR NEIGHBOORHOOD. If a friend gets sick, you go out of your way to do his shopping while you do yours. If a stranger gets sick you let the System take care of it.
One statistic I've read says it would take the equivalent of eight earths to raise the standard of living for the entire world up to that of Americans. Well we don't have eight earths. So either Americans have to lower their standard of living, or we agree to let the third world rot in poverty. Meanwhile their population continues to grow. They will run out of food and water, get into massive civil wars, or fight other countries for resources. In Africa that means Egypt becomes a target, then Israel, neither of which will go down without a massive fight. I won't even speculate on China and south east Asia, but you can be sure when shit hits the fan there, your cheap made in Indonesia Nikes and Singapore TVs are history.
Capitalism is flawed as it exists anyway. Its one big pyramid scheme. If the world population slows companies can't continue to grow except by purchasing other companies. There goes the stock market. It will have about 10 corporations controlling everything. If the standard of living is raised for the entire world that means Nikes and TVs will cost more, making then too expensive for many more Americans. With less buyers the corporations lose money, people are laid off and that's one more person who can't buy a TV.
What's the solution? As I see it, MODIFIED Communism. The world agrees to help every person on the planet improve their life. If people won't do their job, they only get minimum assistance from the world. Meanwhile every person making Nikes eventually gets a TV and the people making TVs eventually get Nikes. I don't have all the answers to every scenario, but I have yet to hear someone explain how to deal with the faults of the current system.
First you have to disperse the triffid seeds.
This should be posted at k5.
Picked on? Oh please. You act as if those governments were acting in a vaccume and out of no where the US started torturing people for money and a sense of self-statisfaction. In many of those cases the governments in question acted directly in opposition to the interests of the US. When you steal from the US, expect a response. You would think a single object lesson would be enough. But no. Time and time again, you see these people rise to power on platforms that were little more than, "We'll just take back all this capital investment from companies that enjoy the protection of 'The ARSENAL of Democracy', the beauty part is we just take it, and don't offer any compensation, what are they going to do? Kill us?" The answer, unfortunately for them, was unsuprisingly affermative. Picking fights with superpowers right out of the box with a newly minted democracy is a difficult proposition at best. You'd better be prepared for significant suffering, and have a damn good reason for taking the gamble. Witness the success of Vietnam. They got what they wanted, at a truly horrible cost.
BTW Toss Nash's idealistic formula back in the drawer. It has a certain utility, but not all people are rational, and everyone knows it. Other methods of accounting for this game are more useful, for rational players, like The West. But feudal warlords who seem to be confused about what millenium it is, they aren't always rational.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I don't know a lot about lasers, but there are military scopes for snipers that have some type of coating that protects the user's eye from a beam. I believe it's mainly to protect from small, weak lasers such as a laser designator on an assault rifle, etc.
This one they're talking about is obviously more powerful, but could something like a contact lens (easier to wear and less obstructive than glasses) be developed that would provide some protection from the reflections?
Just pull the trigger comrade.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Now be helpful and tell me what you really think, redneck. In fifty years the way humanity is going we're all fucked. What's your solution? At least tell me you believe in every-person-for-themselves, screw the third world, God said procreate until there's no more room to move, and all that.
Knowing that the opposition has a weapon that will blind you if your eyes are open, who wants to be the one to carry the stinger missles? Soldiers already have some fear and will want to run. Now they will want to cower and shield their eyes as well on a flyover.
You _laughed_ on 9-11? What the hell kind of sick fuck laughs when thousands of innocent people die because some towel headed, Koran-beating Habibs decide that flying planes into stuff and killing thousands gets them a one-way ticket to their version of heaven, where however-many virgins are waiting for them? Show some class. If you can't do that, then get the fuck out of my country.
Besides, America as a whole isn't evil, just our government. Get your facts straight before you go mouthing off. If I were Taco and crew, I'd trace your IP, track you down and castrate you.
And for someone who thinks we're so "evil" you sure do like to abuse our 1st Ammendment Rights. Make up your mind...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
redwolfoz scribbles "Fresh Scientist reports dat American defence contractors, Lockheed Martin an' Raytheon, be developin' some 100-kilowatt infrared lasa' waipon 4 da F-3-fuckin'-5 Joint Strike Fighta' dat may be powerful 'nuff t' blind sucka's on da ground, even if they be relative-like fah' from da target."
Tell me when the start using Excimer Lasers, or get X-Ray lasers that can be used more than once.
Well, this new IR laser beats the hell out of the old Nuclear Armed Jeep .
What the hell were they thinking of when they made that?
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
All I want is SHARKS with FRIKKIN laser beams on their heads. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?
We can buy one on thinkgeek?
I think you are forgetting the spy - spoof "Top Secret" in which Val outshines all of the Loaded Weapon / Naked Gun comedies that came later.
... also has a nice shockwave that blows buildings like they are decks of cards. Just like a big HE bomb. Its a shame it has that radiation side effect. Maybe we can issue suits for the troops too?
Libertarian == personal AND economic freedom.
Planned Economy == Authoritarian economic system.
Double Think == The ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Orwell also stated that it ammounted to protective stupidity.
So which is it, are you too stupid to see the contradictions involved in being a Libertarian who beleaves in a planed economy, or a con artist trying to convince others that you are no different than thugs like Hitler and Stalin by tacking a Libertarian label on an Authoritarian economic system.
A Planed economy involes forcing people to obey YOUR will in the economic sphere. So Mr Planned Economy which economic model are you planning on enforcing at the point of a gun? The Stalinist model where you openly steal private properity, or the sneakier facist model where you allow meaningless ownership to be retained as long as your orders are followed? Which flavor of economic statist is hiding under the oxymoronic Libertarian Leftist label? Facist or Stalinist?
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
You believe that the USA forced the rest of the world into adopting a flawed treaty. Having lived for 20 years in the USA & 20 ouside it, I believe this position to be a USA-centric position. As I stated in my original reply, the geneva convention has always been a consensus between nations on the limits of warfare. The USA may not have wanted a total ban on blinding lasers, but neither did the any of the other nations which have adopted the convention. Laser designators (which can blind) are too useful for any nation to abandon.
If the "flawed" character of the geneva convention being the fault of the USA is no longer an issue, your "philosophical error" is groundless (on this point at least).
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Oh I did understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
No, you don't. I wasn't talking about the Geneva convention at all. I was simply talking about general methods of the U.S. Government, which may or may not apply in any specific circumstance, and I was making no claim as to whether they did or not in the case of the Geneva Convention. Clearly the U.S. Is not going to be able to manipulate international law in its favor in every instance.
I hope that clears that up.
The enemies of Democracy are
Seriously?
You didn't know why Iran's great experiment met with such dissapproval? They didn't want to tax the oil the US was pumping out, they wanted to just take the capital investment. They called it nationalization, but they were taking what someone else paid for without compensation. What would you call it? Did it warrent destroying a democracy trying to pull itself on to its feet? Probably not, but they still had to expect some kind of retaliation.
Same with Guatamala, and Cuba.
At some point the leaders of the US, and more broadly the West, needed to, and eventually did, come to the realization that the world isn't a chess board. It's time the rest of the world learns they don't have an equal say. It's not one person one vote, as nice and egalitarian as that sentiment is, it does not, and probably should not, represent the distribution of power.
Funny you call me a rightwing nut. I vote consistantly democrat, but consider myself an independant. Why? Nearly everything done well and worth doing was done by a democrat. As for the robber barrons, they've existed a long time. They came back into vogue when the saw what kinds of accounting tricks the Reagan administration used.
In the end, it all comes down to one word. Integrity. And that's not a virtue that's respected anymore. Finding people with it, is rare, and to find it in people in power well that's almost shocking. And sure I'm more affected by robber barons than feudal warlords. But in the sceme of things I know who's more evil.
What I love best is I've been reading how you've gone on chastising someone for jumping to conclusions about you, and then you jump to even more ignorant conclusions about me.
And again with Nash. I'm going to refrain from insulting your intelligence here, as it's already been done to death elsewhere. But rest assured, it is deserved. Nash's formula ASSUMES all players are completely rational. We know for a FACT that people don't play games rationaly. Because we all know not all people are rational, and we play the game accordingly. Is this really so hard to understand? There are models that build and diverge from Nash's work and try to account for this, some with more than a small measure of success. Was Nash's insight worthwhile, or even something of an achivement? Yes, in spite of a flawed assumption. Is it the best tool now available? No!
As for MY oversimplified world, please. You're embarising yourself. I'm not the one claiming all people are rational. (And your holy invocation of Nash, especially in your reply, implicitly states just that).
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
As this assertion is false (as explained previously), so is your conclusion unless you come up with another justification. You cannot refute "Internation law doesn't apply to the US Military" logically by stating falsehoods.
Again, I get your point: "USG sneaky/nasty", do you get mine now?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Philosophical error doesn't belong in quotes, because it is the accurate term for what I was expressing.
The original statement, that international law does not apply to the U.S., was factually false, since in this case the U.S. was in compliance with the Geneva Convention. Similarly, the statement that we ensure that the law is crafted to our own criterion is factually false, as you pointed out.
However, for the purpose of establishing philosophy, this is irrelevant. Simply because the philosophy of the government is to do this or that does not mean that it always does or that it always succeeds. The original statement was thus capable of being philosophically correct while being, in this particular case, factually incorrect. I do not, however, believe it was philosophically correct, and that's why I addressed it specifically in that realm.
Thus whether or not the Geneva Convention shows the successful pursuit of either philosophy does not prove either philosophy true or false. That's why I said I was not making a point about the Geneva Convention at all, which you seemed to have missed again. But the upshot is that you have not, in fact, explained previously that the assertion is false.
Lastly, my point is most certainly not "USG sneaky/nasty". Yes, the USG is sneaky/nasty, but trying to use its size and clout to influence international law in its favor is not an example of such. That's just normal negotiating strategy, and if everyone who simply tried to make agreements favorable to themselves was labeled "sneaky/nasty" then there would hardly be anyone that didn't fit the bill, thus rendering the words meaningless.
The enemies of Democracy are
We've agreed that the the post you originally replied to was factually false.
Lets pull out your first post on this thread ok?:
Others have already pointed out the factual error involved here, so I'll simply point out the philosophical one: It's not so much that teh law doesn't apply to the US Military (which isn't to say that it always does), so much as that we work to ensure that the law is crafted in a way that allows us to do the things we want to do.
1) there is a philosophical error
2) we (clearly the US) make sure that "our" viewpoint gets imposed
further on: :)
Isn't being a superpower great?
3) We can do this because we we are a superpower.
I adressed 3 repeatedly in my previous posts. You pointed out that 2 is irrelevant in the last paragraph of your latest post.
1 stands alone unsupported. If you want to justify 1 by stating that "well yeah, I'm always right except when I'm wrong" while refusing to give any instances in which you are not mistaken, then the only debate in which you have any relevance is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In light of this, I concede that there was no "philisophical error", but only because it's philisophically irrelevant. I'm done here.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
1) there is a philosophical error
Do you know what philosophical error I was speaking of? I did directly refer to it in the last post, but it rather strongly seems that you are not clear as to this. Your first post made it look like you thought the philosophical error was some incorrect philosophy in the wording of the Geneva Convention, which is utterly false. Your second made it look like you thought I was implying that there is a "flaw" in the GC, which is also utterly false. Thus, let me be extremely specific.
The "philosophical error" I was referring to was that of the top-parent post -- that the U.S. acts as though international law does not apply to it. I believe he is incorrect -- "in error", if you will -- on a matter of "philosophy", and thus had a "philosophical error".
Not anything in the Geneva Convention, nothing regarding any Additional Protocols thereof. I hope that clears this up.
2) we (clearly the US) make sure that "our" viewpoint gets imposed
Or rather, it is the philosophy of the U.S. to endeavor to do so.
3) We can do this because we we are a superpower.
Yes. You understood point 3 completely. Congrats.
I adressed 3 repeatedly in my previous posts.
Except you didn't. You simply argued that the GC, particularly the AP(IV), was agreed upon by many nations, and that the U.S. contested it. You never at any time addressed whether the status of the U.S. as a superpower granted the U.S. any additional leverage in deciding what these laws will look like. You are only stating effect, not cause. Is it not possible that U.S. does have significant advantage, but in this case it was insufficient? Maybe not, but you didn't address it.
You pointed out that 2 is irrelevant in the last paragraph of your latest post.
Because my point isn't that the U.S. is sneaky/nasty, that makes it irrelevant? Is it not relevant to characterize the philosophies of governments? Just because it isn't damning it isn't relevant? Are you a tabloid reporter or something? If this isn't what you are saying, then I'm baffled, because that is all my last paragraph said.
1 stands alone unsupported.
If 2) is true, then 1) is true. 3) is simply an enabler, whose importance to the matter is that it makes 2) an effective strategy.
then the only debate in which you have any relevance is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Who is having a debate? You can't have a debate until both participants understand what is being debated. Until you grasp what it is that I am stating is true, you cannot possibly argue that it isn't true. Since you did not, have not, and continue to not understand what it is I am saying, there can be no debate.
In light of this, I concede that there was no "philisophical error", but only because it's philisophically irrelevant.
There is no philosophical error. Thus, you agree with the original poster that the law does not apply to the U.S. military.
Or, and I'm guessing maybe this is the case, you don't know what the hell I'm saying.
BTW, don't you mean "conclude"? "Concede" would imply that you are conceding to one of my points, but what you are "conceding" is the opposite of what I'm saying (that there -was- such an error).
Also note the quotes in that paragraph. They are used to indicate inappropriate wordings. You don't use them to just indicate that you don't agree.
Bad Example:
A: That is a cat.
B: No, that is not a "cat".
Notice how it makes no sense to use quotes here.
Good Example:
A: I support the Patriot Act.
B: I'm strongly against the "Patriot" Act. It is not patriotic at all.
Notice how here, quotes make sense.
This example:
A: There was an error.
B: There was no error.
You decide.
I'm done here.
I'd ask if you were done trying to understand, but you never did. I'd ask if you were done debating, but we never were. I'd ask if you were done because you realized that, in the unlikely event that you ever did understand and thus enabled a debate, I wouldn't be interested in debating due to the obvious labor involved in explaining every point, but that'd be rhetorical.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I do like your sig, however.
The enemies of Democracy are