Slashdot Mirror
Building a Better Bomb
dr who and the darlix writes "There is a nice article here about carbon composite warheads being tested. They destroy their targets while minimizing collateral damage."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...when human lives are abstracted almost entirely out of the discussion of weaponry. What makes it so difficult for them to say, "a bomb that kills the enemy more efficiently and minimizes the loss of innocent civilian's lives?" Guilt, perhaps?
but
a) It doesn't do any good if you hit the wrong building.
b) It doesn't do you any good if you mean to hit the 'wrong' building.
Furthermore, if a civilian happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, this still won't help... such is the nature of war I guess, though.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Does "collateral damage" still mean maiming and killing people these days? If so, why is US media so afraid of saying so? Or is that just something the evil doers do?
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
The best bombs in the world are pointless if they're "accidently" aimed at a foreign embassy or the pilot misidentifies his target. Personally I'd rather see the money spent improving America from within.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
don't take it from me. eisenhower said it first:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
president eisenhower
2 1337 4 u!
An improvement would be a reduction in bombs, not an improvement in technology.
shameless plug: join the grapevine !
MP3 Search Engine
Nope. Sorry, doesn't work that way. As long as there are people out there who can think independently, there will be some who want to kill you, take your home, rape your children, whatever. As long as human beings have free will, there will be people who wish you harm.
This has nothing to do with what you do or do not do. You can make more people dislike you through your choices, but you can never make no people dislike you. You can never be loved by everyone. Sooner or later, somebody's going to come along who hates you, hates your way of life, and wants to kill you.
Societies that fail to defend themselves from these kind of people inevitably fall to them... or wake up and start hammering their plowshares into swords.
The best way to guarantee a war is to be unprepared for one. And the best way to prevent a war is to be absolutely, undoubtedly ready to wage one if called upon to do so.
Welcome to Earth. Enjoy your stay.
Nope. Collateral damage means just what it says: damage that's collateral, in other words damage that wasn't intentionally caused, but rather came as a side-effect of whatever caused the damage that was intentional.
Sometimes people, such as yourself, like to paint military jargon as being full of euphemisms for killing and whatnot. Ain't so. Military jargon is exactingly precise. We say "collateral damage" because that is precisely what we mean. We say "civilian casualties" because that is precisely what we mean. ("Casualty" means a person killed or injured. Which is why we don't say "people killed.")
It's just precision of language. I'll give you a non-military example. My wife's a surgeon. Sometimes she works in the emergency room. When somebody wrecks their car, the incident is referred to as an MVC: motor vehicle crash. It used to be called an MVA, for motor vehicle accident, but the fact is that when somebody comes in from that kind of thing, you have no idea whether what happened was accidental or deliberate, act of God, whatever. So "motor vehicle crash" is more correct.
Why not simply "car crash?" Because a boat wreck is an MVC, too. So are motorcycle accidents. MVC's aren't limited to cars.
It's about precision of language, not euphemism.
Thanks for trying to slip a shallow and thoughtless political remark into the discussion, though. Appreciate you trolls keeping the rest of us on our toes.
if we never built a bomb or a tank we'd be hungry and cold and speaking japanese, or german, because they would have kicked our asses.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
every bomb, whether dropped or not, has collaterol damage: the citizens of the nation that decided to spend tax dollars on weapons of mass destruction rather than on meaningful social programs.
That's only true if you believe it's not possible to have a justified war. Your "meaningful social programs" wouldn't be so meaningful if the world had allowed Hitler to take over... Especially if you're jewish.
as being very expensive, implanting this technology into every bomb *will* become painful to us tax-payers. And we are not getting these money back just because of a decrease in collateral damage.
And how bad is really some collateral damage?
A decrease in collateral damage means fewer innocent civilians getting killed or wounded. How much money is that worth?
Casualties makes the enemy frightned and less willing to fight.
Really? Sure doesn't look that way...
And the enemy should expect some collateral damage when they start a war, collaterall damage will in fact make them less willing to start a war next time.
Who exactly started the war with Iraq?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
That isn't strictly true - guns bought by individuals are the same as any other hobby.
By that logic, one might conclude that every computer purchased is theft from those who hunger. Or perhaps every dollar spent on social programs is one less dollar spent on space research or national defense!
In other words, silly nonsense. I might add that most social problems are only hurt by greater spending. We don't need more $$$ in worthless programs... we need more PEOPLE who can care for other PEOPLE and form a lasting relationship and help them. If you look at the "social" programs that work, they are the programs where volunteers or workers take the time to form a relationship with those they help and simply love and care for them.
Of course such an approach isn't suitable to mass-produced, government-managed, lawsuit-proof methodologies, and such isn't encouraged nearly as often as it might be.
Eisenhower did warn us about the military-industrial complex though, and I agree with some of his ideas there. Just don't push the cutesy little saying too far as a philosophy or it falls apart, as those funny little sayings always do.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
And the enemy should expect some collateral damage when they start a war, collaterall damage will in fact make them less willing to start a war next time.
That's funny. ~3000 pieces of "collateral damage" a few years ago didn't seem to make the US less willing to start a war.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
This may have been modded as funny, but I reckons it's very damn close to the mark!!
I agree completely. Ever considered yourself to be one of those exercising that free will?
Just a thought.
if your government is indulging in "hobbies" you need another government. i think ike was referring to the military, not private gun owners. in which case, the purchase of armaments takes tax dollars which could be used for:
- more or better programs
- tax reduction
or some combination thereof. you obviously, would prefer the later - but that does not invalidate the original statement.you look at the "social" programs that work, they are the programs where volunteers or workers take the time to form a relationship with those they help and simply love and care for them.
ah, yes, the "thousand points of light". remember that? great. let's give those people some tax assistance or direct funding to buy materials or specialized services.
that would be a better use of cash than coming up with more efficient ways to kill people in countries where the "elite guard" means "soldiers with shoes". dontcha think?
2 1337 4 u!
Actually, bombing some people is a "meaningful social program." Perhaps you need to live under tyranny for awhile to understand, but sometimes blowing some person/government to little pieces is just about the best thing that can happen. We don't live in a world where everyone agrees to sit down at a table eating danishes and sipping tea while discussing ways to feed the poor. And no matter how badly lots of us want others to be peaceful, it simply isn't ever going to happen. As long as humans have free will, some of them will decide to inslave/persecute/destory other people. That is life, war is life, and ignoring those facts while speaking of a magical world where everyone helps everyone else won't make this a better place to live.
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
And if you look at any other recent, "real" war, you'd see how amazing that low a figure is. Compare that ~7000 figure to pretty much any other ground campaign in recent history - you'll see that it's really quite low. That's assuming their figure is accurate, too, which there's no real proof of.
War isn't safe. It isn't fun. It's hell for everyone involved. But the fact is, sometimes, it really is the last option left (in this case, I'm not sure it was, though). Would you prefer to go on living the dream that war is just something that the evil US is responsible for, or would you like to try to save innocent lives through better weapons technology?
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Economics is not zero-sum. A large defense expenditure, like any other large government infrastructure project, acts like a tax increase on the sly - it pumps money into the economy which eventually comes back as increased tax revenues from a larger economy. More money for social programs. This is incredibly oversimplified, but it makes the point. The economy is not a fixed pie.
Derek
A little philosophy for all the kneejerkers decrying the focus on guns instead of butter, on swords instead of plowshares: life is a struggle, and utopia's are always the abodes of the dead. It is the power of the procreative urge that ensures there will always be more hungry mouths to feed than there is food to go around. If the money spent on defense, which employs many people, were simply given away to 'the poor', you only get more poor families. Believe it or not, we actually want more self sufficient famlies, not more beggars who don't know how to raise responsible, self sufficient children.
It was once the religious rationalition of the industrialist that mass production was the solution of mankinds neverending poverty: simply make more things cheaper and faster and everyone can enjoy plenty. Now we live with that legacy as industrial waste and environmenal degradation, shipping factories off to developing countries and let them deal with the runoff. However, the lesson learned is that whenever you produce n amount of goods, humanity produces n+1 people wanting those goods and squabling (ocassionally going to war) over how to obtain those goods. Also, on the economic treadmill, poverty is always relative - people under the poverty line in one country would be considered well-to-do in another. A person with a low-status-symbol automobile might be pitiful in one land, but envied in a land where few people at all have autos.
Now, the eternal question is: Am I My Brothers Keeper? The well off say no, those in need say yes. The well to do can give away everything they have, and the needy will only consume it and come back for more - except there isn't any more, and now there are more of them hungrier than before (including the formerly wealthy one who just gave up everything he had).
Say two farmers own the same amount land and produce the same amount of the same crops. Each one produces enought to feed a family of 8. One has 12 children, and the other has 3 children. One is needy, and the other has a surplus. Is it the social obligation for the one with a surplus to just freely give his surplus to the other? Or should he just sell it and buy a new tractor, to heck with the other guy?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Most would agree that, in all nations, a certain amount of military expenditure is necessary to national defense. How much depends on the threats a nation currently faces. What I think you are concerned about is the effect on a society when military spending exceeds what is needed for national defense: when it becomes part of the leadership of a nation's attempt to project power outside its own borders. In the short term, this is mostly detrimental to both the citizens of that country and the citizens of the other nations the military power threatens. Paradoxically, though, I think excessive military spending and international adventurism act to sap the economic strength of countries that undertake it. In the long term, this has the beneficial effect of tending to prevent those countries' ability to indefinitely control the destiny of others.
One of the finest books ever written is Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. In it, he clearly demonstrates, based on historical experience, the importance of economic power in being able to maintain military strength (and thus the means to project power outside one's own borders).
Thus, while sorry for the citizens of any country whose lives are damaged by their leader's power ambitions, I recognise that the consequent damage to their countries' economies is in the world's long term best interests.
Less chance of being hit with optically guided missiles was probably a reason why we contacted a lot of activity at night, but there were other signifigant reasons.
The war was conducted in a way that was designed to try to make the enemy give up and run as quickly as possible. Constant neverending attack is an important part of this stratedgy. Never being able to sleep because of constant bombing destroys morale alot faster then actually trying to kill them. Bombs that target at night just as well as they do during the day make every strike seem guided by a unstoppable force.
The morale reason was probably the biggest reason for strikes all throughout the day and night.
Einstein once said something like this: I can't predict what they will be fighting with in World War 3. But in World War 4, they will be fighting with stick and stones.
So, tell me, where do you find these PEOPLE who help other PEOPLE for free?
There are several places. Charitable organizations, community volounteers, churches...
I am not religious myself but my father is a Reverend and he DOES help people during the week, I've seen it firsthand.
The unofficial
That's right, the solution to Saddam cooperating with the weapon inspections was to blow him to oblivion. I guess next you're going to say that he wasn't enthusiastic enough when we supplied him with the poison gas that he used to gas his "own" people. Oh, but gee, Bush found two tractor trailers that might have contained weapons of mass destruction. And, I need to remmember that we weren't there for WMD's, unless we find them, then of course we will be. And, our goal is to find Saddam, unless we don't, of course. Just like our goal in Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, unless we don't, then it's still victory, since the goal of course was destroy the Taliban, not find Bin Laden. I guess you just can't lose a debate when lying is not only an option, but also policy, right George?
If you were the one disabled and thus stuck trying to live on the $300/month the government offers to "support" a disabled adult; if you were the one trying to help desperate disabled friends figure out the convoluted application process so they won't become homeless or kill themselves...you would not be talking about needing more parent-type caregivers and less money.
The disabled have a rate of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse that is (statistically speaking) 150% higher than that of the non-disabled. Interviews with a large number of Deaf children in particular showed that virtually all of them had been the victim of sexual or physical assault by a caregiver. What we *don't* want is more caregivers -- we don't want more average-bodied folk assuming they know what is best for other intellectually-capable adults. No matter how nice they may start out or seem, for every 1 wonderful person doing it there are 99 monsters.
What we need are reasonable amounts -- at *least* at the national poverty level or preferably above -- of financial support for those disabled who have been too screwed up by the system to ever work. We need support programs in the educational system (K-university) and employment systems set up so physical anomalies won't make it impossible for somebody with intellectual ability to succeed.
We want to support ourselves, or at least live a financially tolerable life volunteering in the community to make our contributions. Adding more abusive caregivers that hide their need for dominance in sweet lovey language will only pull power away from the disabled, not help us compete. Adding money to the amount given out so it is reasonable, adding money to SSI coffers so people in need aren't constantly turned away as they are now, and adding money to set up a proper support system WILL help, and will prevent more people from needing SSI in the future.
It's funny because it's mocking a view that is unfortunately held by too many U.S. citizens.
In the real world, Saddam was capitulating to every single request.
The reasons for war in order..
1. To get Saddam to comply with Weapons Inspections, of course, he did that, soo....
2. To get Saddam to destroy his WMDS', of course, the inspectors couldn't find any, so...
3. To get UN approval to let us go in so we couldn't find them, but we had no suppport, so....
4. To go in and find WMD's, unless, of course, we don't, in which case, we bombed them because we love democracy so much..
Did I leave anything out?
`` No, actually the United States hired the top Nazi scientists and engineers...''
Yes that is how the progress was achieved in the area of missile technology and aircraft technology.
(Ignoring the bigger questions about war and just following the dollars here.)
Take $1B and employ a whole bunch of people to make 1000 cruise missiles. Now shoot those missiles somewhere that we don't really need to shoot them. So now the missile makers have the dollar bills, but there's no product to show for it. It does nothing for the GNP. The potential of those dollars has been wasted.
Now the missile makers bring the dollars back to the market, but there are fewer goods to buy because instead of making useful stuff themselves, they were making noisemakers. So we end up with too many dollars chasing too few goods, inflation. Not that the fatcats care, they took their bite right off the top.
However, all readers should be aware that most posts are made by Americans and the views of Americans, for better or for worse.
I think that the interesting thing is that the nation state standing army concept is a relatively recent phenomenon (ok so the nation state is pretty recent but even so...). I was as recent as the 17th century when the standing army was not a familiar concept, indeed it was an actively discouraged thing because of the negative imapcts.
I think the critical problem is that since the industrial revolution it has been, to paraphrase Churchill, that never in the field of human endeavour have so few been able to kill so many with so little. And this principle has become even more pertinent in our current world. As such a standing army is a necessary thing and whilst I agree with the sentiments of Eisenhower I find it difficult to reconcile the disaster that would result from an inability for the "enlightened" to protect the weak from the evil. And you can take that anyway you like.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Do you even know who Eisenhower was? Here's a hint: before he was a President, he was a General.
Yes. That's the point. Real generals don't love war -- notice that the only person in the Bush admin that wasn't too keen on the whole Iraq fiasco was Powell, who realized that it was going to be another Vietnam-style guerilla war. It's easy to support war when your only experience is watching CNN.
Before you try to play the history card, make sure it's in your hand
This is just too funny. Really, had you never heard of the Eisenhower's famous "cross of iron" speech? Here's a longer quote which brings in the stupidity of wasting scientists on designing weapons, thus tying it to the article we're discussing
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Reducing collateral damage is becoming more and more important as military planners realize that the war is not over once you capture the territory.
You want to win over a people's hearts and minds by changing the regime but not levelling their cities a la carpet bombing Dresden in WWII. Killing citizens does not shorten a war and the London Blitz and Berlin showed that enemy soldiers will fight harder if they know their families are being killed too.
There are lots of different types of bombs that try to reduce collateral damage. The most infamous was the Neutron bomb that limited a nuclear bomb's blast and heat damage to a few hundred yards but killed people through the use of radiation.
The electric power distribution munition(ph), can knock out a whole power grid. This bomb scatters spools of carbon strands over a target. In Vietnam the US developed Hyper baric Fuel Air bombs that used a high pressure wave to kill people in tunnels or create helicopter landing pads in the jungle. The latest improved version is the thermo baric bomb that uses extremely high temperatures to create a blast wave and also suck the oxygen out of enclosed spaces.
War is not glorious but it is necessary from time to time and if you can defeat the enemy without killing non-combatants, I am all for it.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Germany had very few divisions in the west to send eastward. I think something like 10-20 divisions in the west vs a couple of hundred in the east (and I'm sure some slashdotter will correct me if I'm wrong). I have heard that the allied bombing campaign diverted a lot of resources to protecting the Reich that could have been used against the Russians, but it's not clear that that made the difference.
Although expensive, the Apollo program generally wasn't used to destroy goods elsewhere--the designed purpose of cruise missiles.
Cynics might note that the destruction of property in Iraq is ultimately good for the U.S. economy, because it will be largely American companies that rebuild Iraq...so the missiles are potentially good for the economy, as long as they're used to blow up other people's weath.
~Idarubicin
Smart economists call this the "broken-window fallacy." A man throws a brick through a window, and argues that he benefited the economy - the store owner bought a window, paid someone to install it, etc. The trouble is, if it weren't for the window, the store owner could have spent his money on something else, probably something more productive.
Government is a man with a brick. It breaks a lot of windows and creates work for lots of people, but chances are we could do a lot better.