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.
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.
Does this blind them permanently or temporarily? And what about the pain beam that they were developing?
We're Doomed
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.)
In other news, Foster Grant's secure $100 Million contract to provide mirror shades to 'Far Eastern Military Supplies and Used Camels Inc'.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
You could put an eye out with those things.
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.
blinding people violates geneva convention
Only if that was the intended effect of the weapon. If it's a laser weapon that is designed for use against planes, anti-aircraft installations, and ground vehicles that could accidentally blind someone standing nearby, it's considered legit.
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision." But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
... 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.
I wonder if it can be rented for laser light shows.
"Now everybody put on your welding helmets. <ZZZZaaappp!!> Uuuuuu, aaaaaaahhh...."
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
And this is intended to ... what? Blind the people, burn a wee little hole in the side of a tank, or cause some kind of explosively violent reaction with the target?
The article states (we did all read the article, didn't we?) that they are trying to determine what locations on a target would be the most advantageous. Uses they cited were possibly targetting a fuel tank, an area with a high concentration of electronic equipment (like the cockpit of a plane) or an communications array.
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!"
100 killowatts? *yawn* Wake me when they get near 1.21 gigawats -- That's when the fun starts!
I know more than you drink.
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.
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!)
The Geneva Convention is something diplomats agreed to during peacetime. Once a real war breaks out, it goes out the window. Both sides blatantly violate it, but only the losing side gets prosecuted for war crimes. The Geneva Convention is a piece of paper, nothing more.
How ya like dat?
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.
:)
Same diff really, but obviously this way is vastly superior since you can always end up on the side of law (which you crafted to favor yourself). Isn't being a superpower great?
The enemies of Democracy are
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?
Blinding people is bad, but it brings definition of "stealth fighter" to entirely new level :)
Argh. I hate wading through all the "jokes" from the peanut gallery.
:
Ignoring the legal ramifications (and frankly, nobody can stop a powerful country if it wants to ignore any convention) there are two interesting effects of non-lethal weapons
1) injuring one person removes at least two people from the battlefield, because one other has to care for him. This is why it's considered more desirable to maim than kill.
2) the effects of the weapon last for decades. If you blind 10,000 enemy troops, they will then be an economic burden on their country for the rest of their lives.
Nasty thing, the military mind.
read the article.... they explain the loop holes in the Geneva Convention ban on using lasers for blinding.
Rip form article follows....
Why the Geneva Convention will not stop blinding by laser
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision."
But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
Big question is whether the US plans to take advantage of this loop hole to blind enemies on purpose (excluding the usual collateral damage and "accidents" that occur).
- HeXa
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.
I would think this would be dificult for several reasons:
1. the fighter plane will not remain stationary in the air while it fires the laser beam
2. it's not a continuous beam
3. the people on the ground shouldn't have the accuracy that a fighter plane with targeting equipment does
In all likelyhood, reflecting the beam back is a very slim probability, most certainly until ground troops get man-mounted, extremely accurate targeting systems. Which I don't think they have now nor do I think they will have for a while. Especially since one small movement places your point of aim onto a point in space much farther from where it was before, without the stability of the plane, a human couldn't reflect that beam back very well.
Insert mind here.
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.)
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
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?
They were supposed to have 5 megawatts by mid-May.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Well good then. My nuke that's designed for destroying strategic military targets but has the unfortunate side effect of poisoning people, as well as blinding them, causing them to grow extra limbs, and making the surrounding area uninhabitable for the next century should be perfectly legit as well.
do not read this line twice.
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
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.
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
Obviously, you don't want to
- Read the article that explains it, or
- Read the hundreds of other responses which address this as well.
In case you haven't gotten it yet, this weapon does not affect treaties against using weapons to blind, because blinding is not the primary purpose of the weapon.Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Only if that was the intended effect of the weapon. If it's a laser weapon that is designed for use against planes, anti-aircraft installations, and ground vehicles that could accidentally blind someone standing nearby, it's considered legit.
It's entertaining, but a little worrying to see how military lawyers interpret things like the Geneva Convention and other documents supposedly governing the acceptable conduct of war. One example is the use of White Phosphorous, a powerful incendiary distributed over a target area using explosives. It comes in everything from grenades to mortars to bombs. Due to the horrific burns it causes, it is prohibited for use against personnel, but can be used against materiel, i.e. equipment. This is a matter of interpretation, after all, rifles and backpacks are equipment, they just happen to often be found in close proximity to enemy soldiers!
It's important to understand that the West is supreme in battle not because of divine right or objective moral superiority, but rather because our culture has elevated warfare to its most efficient. It is debatable whether wholesale blinding of enemy soldiers (and indeed, any civilians who happen to be in the vicinity) is more or less humane than the traditional form of battle, in which some individuals are wounded and killed, but the majority, even in the defeated army, escape more-or-less unscathed.
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.
It's the British spelling baby... smashing!
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
My, my... quite the little tirade you had there.
First of all, anything on that list would be easier to do with conventional weaponry. If we felt like invading Iraq and taking all their oil we wouldn't do it with a plane-mounted laser that can only fire twice without a cool-down period. We'd roll over them with tanks and machine guns. It's tradition after all.
Secondly, providing that the link that you provided wasn't a sham (Which it probably is), bombs would -still- be a more effective way to go about it. The lasers could certainly -blind- everyone in the convoy, but killing them would be more difficult. And holding one on a manaquin for long enough to get that particular toasty look from the photograph would be damn difficult indeed.
Continuing on. Depopulating the west bank with lasers. Funny thing really, the world has these things called "Nuclear armaments" they would do a far better job of clearing out an area than a mere beam of light (So far).
Your last statement is just hilarious. If some little Chinese girl were making Nikes slow, they certainly wouldn't blind her. What use is a blind worker? Perhaps they would beat her, but that is another story.
So... all in all... you made a series of poorly thought out, stupid comments. Then you tried to use emotionally charged subjects (Chinese labor, West bank territory, terrorism) to support these stupid comments, but you really didn't even do a good job of that.
Come back when you have developed a brain.
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
WP is currently used by the US and NATO for "marking targets".
Foreward Air Control OA-10 Warthogs, Kiowa Warriors, F-18s and other types use WP fired from 2.75 inch rockets to establish smoke on a target as a visual identifier for follow-on Close Air Support from fixed and rotary wing aircraft. WP is used because it burns well, and burns even in damp conditions.
...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.
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.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
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
In related news, the Pentagon has revealed the location of the first test target.
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).
Using the M82-A1 Barret .50BMG sniper rifle against personnel is also against the Geneva Convention, so the weapon is listed as for use against materiel only.
As one Marine Sniper-School instructor was quoted saying, "Yes, it's only for shooting equipment and vehicles, so don't shoot people with it... Shoot their uniforms."
- Jones
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
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.
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.)
At least I hope so.
So why do you expect /. users to be in favor of trying US citizens in an unaccountable court which is not bound to follow the US Constitution or observe rules of due process and does not even have a clearly defined set of laws it is enforcing, just because the UN says so?
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, like those huge mirrors won't be one big fat target for the smart bombs the fighter also carries.
Anyways, the laser is more intended for destroying sensitive sensors and whatnot - like infrared tracking systems - than for attacking hardened targets. It's not incredibly powerful or anything.
Proabably because the rest of the world thinks the UN has a better idea of justice than the US does...
Oh arse
... Boeing announced today that all their new planes will be coated with a perfect mirror surface... and cost $1 billion each.
"And like that
Dumbshit... if you'd read the article as you claim, you'd have seen this:
But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
In short, Article 3 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons establishes a loophole for just about any laser weapon - just say it was designed for something else.
It's just like there are rules against weapons designed to maim - you can certainly maim someone with most guns (50 cal bullet into your shoulder would do the trick) - but that's not their express purpose and thus they're exempted.
It isn't the military that interprets and administers the Geneva Convention. They are held liable to its strictures, generally after the fighting/war has ceased and the winner, a Geneva Convention signee, takes action. In any case, it is irrelevant that a laser weapon might be able to blind/dazzle unintended targets nearby. Similar collatoral damage comes with ALL weapons, from dumb bombs, to precision munitions, to rifle bullets. A weapon CANNOT be made to strictly keep casualties restricted to lawful combatants. If civilians are in the vicinity of a fight, they WILL get hurt or killed amongst the chaos of the fight. Shrapnel, never INTENDED to kill them WILL because one cannot control shrapnel. A rifle bullet can pass through the correct and intended target and fragments or the whole bullet could strike a passerby. A precision munition may well hit exactly its intended target but the shrapnel and debris cannot be controlled and any nontargets in the area are in danger.
All that is required to meet the strictures of the Geneva Convention is to keep to the rules in good faith. Soldiers/armies cannot be held criminally accountable if they make a true and good faith effort to obey the Convention. War kills more than kill or destroy the intended target soldiers and machinery. Innocent bystanders always get nipped too. That is the nature of war. If you INTENDED to hit the innocent bystanders THEN you are acting as a criminal. That being the case, it is reasonable for countries to take responsibility for unintended casualties and apologize and compensate surviving victims as soon as the situation permits. This is reasonable and helps prevent the creation of ever more hate-filled enemy soldiers/terrorists that must then be dealt with.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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.
If `the rest of the world' felt that US citizens in US courts should not have the protections of the US Constitution, we would not then scrap those protections on account of this. Why should we be willing to do so in any other court?
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
Most wars since the invention of the Geneva Convention have used that convention somehow. Gas wasn't used much in WW2, and there were taken a lot of prisoners during WW2, too (instead of just killing them).
Wars are about showing power. It only escalates if the loosing part really believes that it might win the war by escalating it.
This new weapon can make a war keep very "clean" if the one using it will win no matter what. Like USA vs. Iraq.
Dybdahl.
"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!"
Well, lasers are used to burn CD's. Therefore, the laser cannon is protected under fair use.
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
It has been remarked in other posts that most shrapnel doesn't travel for kilometers, yet the reflections of these beams could blind others in the single digit kilometers, which probably makes the area at risk of collateral damage radius 10x + and an area and 100x + that of a regular explosive.
From that, I'd rather deal with the risk shrapnel than the risk of blinding by IR laser.
The justice of a UN Human Rights Commission with Cuba, China, the Sudan, and Syria?
I'll take US justice any day over what the UN calls justice. And by the millions of people who want to come TO the US from these countries that you are holding up as the light of the world, I don't think I'm alone in my opinion.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Dude, your links are 404.
Bush: U.S. personnel will never face global court
U.N. agrees to U.S. peacekeeper exemption
No, you idiot, the reason why the US doesn't want to have anything to do with the ICC is because "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" are bullshit charges. You just pick someone you don't like and accuse them of it. Here's an easy one: there's a country where thousands of Muslims have been killed in revenge attacks just this year. Hundreds of thousands have been made homeless, their homes destroyed and their lives threatened if they return to rebuild. Can you name the country? If you guessed Israel, the current whipping boy of Liberals world-wide, you'd be wrong. I'm talking about India. While Israel is accused of "crimes against humanity" on an hourly basis by Arab thugs and European inbreds, the Indian government is turning a blind eye on some horrible crimes. We're talking children being raped and then burned alive. Somehow, no one is calling for UN troops to intervene or condemning India in the UN or talking about bringing Indian officials before the ICC. Apparently, that honor is reserved for Jews only. When the world is a fair place, with everyone judged by the same set of standards, America will let itself be judged by the world. Until then, it is rightfully telling everyone else to piss off. -jon
Remember Amalek.
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.
>
> So, what if you're trying to burn off their eyebrows?
Certain types of .50 caliber weapons are also against the Geneva Convention when targeted at personnel, but OK when used against materiel.
Thus, "Officer, during the firefight, I was shooting at that backpack radio that guy's carrying! Danged .50cal round went clean through the radio and out his chest, and through the three guys standing behind him!" (Good shooting! Carry on, Corporal! :-)
More seriously -- the 100kW laser would make a pretty lousy battlefield weapon for ground troops. If someone's pointing a 100kW laser at the barrels you're hiding behind, you've got more to worry about than blindness.
Finally, and most importantly -- this weapon still reduces casualties. Suppose you're targeting a 5-ton truck with a squad of troops in the back. You can do it the laser way - burn through the tires or engine compartment, and risk blinding the driver, or you can do it the old-fashioned way - lob a 500lb bomb at the truck and blow everyone to hell.
If the truck's carrying reinforcements and is half a mile from an ongoing firefight, the 10 soldiers in the back are still a danger to your troops on the ground, and the 500lb bomb may be the right weapon to use.
But if the truck is 20 miles away from the front, the laser might be the better weapon to use - immobilize the truck, neutralizing 10 enemy troops without killing anyone. (And you can fire the laser as many times as you like - no need to turn around and load up with more bombs for your next sortie!)
And that is precisely why no General will ever use such a weapon to cause mass blindness.
1942: Germany, Japan: Evil bastard countries we were blowin' up.
1972: Germany, Japan: Half of Germany was an important military ally, and Japan was teaching us how to build cars that didn't suck.
2002: Germany, Japan: The rest of Germany is now also a great trading partner, and the Japanese sell us Vaios and Aibos.
A good General thinks of the long term, even if the war is for a short-term objective.
Um, skipping over the fact that you think that Arizona is a city in Texas, you make no sense.
If the UN is US-controlled, then why does Israel, one of America's closest allies, keep on getting condemned by the UN? If the UN is US-controlled, and since India doesn't supply oil for Bob's SUV, then wouldn't India be condemned?
By the by, Israel doesn't have any oil, either. In fact, as natural resources go, Israel doesn't have much of anything.
I know that you're spouting an irrational conspiracy theory, but try for some internal consistency.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
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.
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.
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.
and commonly referred to as a fuckhead.
Been looking in the mirror recently? Everybody was being civil - untill you decided to open your mouth.
Sigh. I guess the Chomsky classes diden't teach you civil respect, for yourself, or for others.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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!
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
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.
Arghh... My Eyes!! The goggles do Nothing!
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
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.
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.
So they are Military and they are lawyers. Hmmm interesting. Since you kill all the lawyers when you have a revolution, should they kill themselves?
This inferred laser may be able blind people for a kilometer radius, but it can deafen people at least a 3 kilometers away when it turns up the volume on everybodies tv set.
I bet if you tuned it right you could change everybodies channel to pay-per-view WWF, sign them up, and give them really big cable bills.
I love modern warfare.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Alternatively, now that you've got me thinking about it, maybe they can just teach their kids to do it, same as the Palestinian suicide bombers in Jenin. I remember seeing his Mother on BBC, "One of my sons is a martyr, he will set an example to my other sons to follow until we are freed from Israeli oppression" yada yada. They could say, "I was blinded and my face was burnt to a crisp by these terrible Americans, but no my children, it's cool don't worry about it, peace out." I don't think so
But seriously do we want these laser weapons in the hands of people that have committed these crimes? People like this?
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Who needs com-pyu-ter-guided mirrors? Trust in the Force you must!
All it takes is one good Jedi, and all your lasers will be obsolete.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
Actually most of the people who beleave this kind of "history" are just disapointed that the USA dared to stand up against Soviet Imperialism insteading of ceding victory to the "Worker's Paradise"
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Please give some examples about those government that actually "stole" from the US. All I hear from you is the same old right-wing propaganda, which is just a way to divert attention from the real-life abuses of democracy commited by the US over the past 50 years.
What did the government of Mossadeq do to the US that warranted a coup d'Etat in favor of a monarch and religious scholars? Ask yourlself what the "aggressors" of Nicaragua or El Salvador were "stealing" from the US. But when asserting your national sovereignty and standing up to multinationals based in the US becomes "picking fights with a superpower", I guess anything's possible...Or perhaps you don't consider proxy wars to count!
Don't bother answering, my time is too valuable to argue with right-wing bots who just repeat the trusted party line, who like to think they're capitalists when they're just being fscked by the system like everybody else. "Feudal warlords" may be less rational than robber barons, but who's eating away at my mutual funds now? One thing's for sure, it ain't OBL, it's Dubya's friends of yesterday, whom he must now chastise before business goes back to normal. Continue living in your black-and-white white, oversimplified world. It's no wonder you can't appreciate his contribution to conflict management!
Reminder: find a new sig
Ah, yes, the good old trick of trying to pigeonhole those who disagree with you. Of course, it works better if you don't actually make three severe spelling mistakes in the same sentence. Instead, it makes you look like a bit of an idiot. Since I don't like uneven matches, I'll simply state that, as a Libertarian Leftist, I'm opposed to authoritarian forms of government, be they communists, fascists, monarchists or simply brutal. So there. Now piss off.
Reminder: find a new sig
A "Libertarian Leftist"? A Choamskyite calling someone an idiot? Someone befuddled enough to swallow CHUMPsky's addled drivel calling someone an idiot?
A "Libertarian Leftist" ,eh?
Well it's a Well known Secret that the Worthless Riches amassed by Poverty Stricken Billionaires on dark days is used to purchase Jumbo Shrimp!!! This proves the Socalist Capitalists are waging a Peaceful War against the Idle Workers.
Since this likely went way over your head, consult Websters for "Irony" and "Oxymoron".
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Not only against equipment, but at concentrations of troops as well- to disperse them. I believe a .50 round or two will do a splendid job of dispersing a guy. And the guy behind him. On that note, remember; napalm is a defoliant. You were trying to remove the brush to get a clearer shot.
The bottom line for this laser is not tactical or strategic, but grammatical and economic. It's a new weapon, yay. It doesn't change anything, it just makes fires more efficient and effective. To a revolutionary degree, yes, but that's about it. What will need change is the term we use. The Air Force will need to come up with a phrase that is somehow more final than "air supremacy." We already have that term and achieve that state, so we'll need to come up with something different to call what we will have. The other big change is economic. Yes, buy Ray-Ban stock. More importantly, the third world can shift all their capital away from military aircraft production. Maybe spend it on literacy or flood control.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
The rest of the world, huh? A large part of the world is continually in conflict with the US. They attack with trade disputes, rude waiters and well built cars. They are fundamentally rational, civilised people that we get along with just fine. I still would not willingly place myself under their courts. The "rest of the world" is scary. It's made up of people who spend all their time at protests waving silly posters. It's made up of people who have been called terrorists for so long that they think the word "terrorist" is just what you call someone you don't like. It's made up of people who think my wife deserves to die because she doesn't wear a veil. Those people control governments, and votes in the UN.
I won't submit to their idea of anything. The government knows that they'll have serious problems with the military if they allow this. We've already got bullshit SOFAs to deal with. Voluntary subjection to an international court will be too much of a sellout.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Amen. Except for the deranged and Harry Truman, nobody fights a war for the sake of fighting a war. Fighting is a constructive act, intended to achieve a goal. Whatever terms get used, the goal is invariably for the peace after the war to be better than the peace before the war. No peace can exist, much less be improved by wholesale gratuitous maiming.
The reality of this weapon is that it is more precise than current ones. While the collateral damage is unsettling, it is less. Warfare is being refined continually- we don't bomb cities any more, we bomb targets. Soon the efficiency of laser targeting will be brought to the effects delivery. If the laser is painting the target, there's no bomb to go off course- the target's already hit. I think it's a good move.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Yeah, you're an idiot. You're an idiot because, instead of trying to disprove someone's argument, you simply try to ridicule them (I say try, because you fail miserably). Case in point is calling someone a "Choamskyite" (making yet another spelling mistake). Sure, I've read Chomsky. I've also read Boudrieu, Petrella, and John R. Saul (who's now the consort to my Governor General...oh well, nobody's perfect!). I've also read Milton Friedman and laughed at his "invisible hand", which has no basis on scientific fact but his rather a profession of faith for capitalists wannabes. I read a lot. So, yeah, I'm a Libertarian Leftist - I took the test. So, we know what I am, and we know it threatens you and your black-and-white view of the world (hence your derisive but falsely confident reply). Now what are you, apart from an idiot? Can you actually formulate an argument, or are you only capable of...whatever nonsense it is that you write.
Well it's a Well known Secret that the Worthless Riches amassed by Poverty Stricken Billionaires on dark days is used to purchase Jumbo Shrimp!!! This proves the Socalist Capitalists are waging a Peaceful War against the Idle Workers.
Going over my head? Don't flatter yourself. I already understood that your extremely limited view of the world doesn't recognize the Libertarian Left as a possibility, and yet it is. Since I'm feeling generous today, I'll enlighten you: the Left/Right dichotomy mainly concerns itself with economic matters, i.e. laissez-faire economics vs. a planned economy. Of course, there are many degrees in between each extremes, but we'll leave it at that for now (I wouldn't want your head to explode). In addition to the economic aspect of politics, though, there is also a social dimension, represented by another axis, Authoritarian/Libertarian. Therefore, you can have a Libertarian/Right form of govt. (something a bit like the U.S. today, but with less govt.), Libertarian/Left (that's me), Authoritarian/Left (that would be the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, for example) and Authoritarian/Right (Nazi Germany is a good example). I disagree with all except my own, though I'm more strongly opposed to Authoritarian regimes than to the Right (even though I still am), something which was reflected in the test - you should take it, you might learn a thing or two about yourself.
There, you'll go to bed less of an idiot tonight. No need to thank me, I have absolutely no more time to lose with the likes of you. Goodbye.
Reminder: find a new sig
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
And just where do you get this? The Geneva Convention specifically protects POWs against such behavior. It doesn't matter whether it was us (the USA) or anyone else that does it, it violates the intent, spirit, and letter of the Geneva Convention. I see no where in my original post where one could possibly construe that what you describe (machine-gunning POWs is Okey-dokey regardless of who does it ... I certainly do not recall any such incident from history myself, but I DO recall more than one such incident, clearly documented, where the Germans did this to US POWs). No matter, it was a violation of the Geneva Convention, period.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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
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
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