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)
I minimize "Collateral Damage" by not renting the dam movie in the first place. Yet, it IS a bomb; this is not off-topic.
We've got politicians for that, silly.
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
At last... we can kill all the fucking arab and saudi terrorists without damaging the oil wells.
Allah be praised!
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!
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.
The defense establishment tried to sell the virutes of the neutron bomb with this pithy point: "It destroys humans but leaves buildings intact," minimizing collateral damage. Aping this thought, in college, some of my acquaintances developed a powerful alcoholic mixture that they dubbed "neutron punch." Their rationale? "It destroys your mind but leaves your body intact," they said.
A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).
A few months back, I saw a tech article about another type of bomb they are working on, that is very related - Small bombs!
Right now, the "standard" US bombs are 500 lbs, 1000lbs or 2000lbs. Bombs this big were needed so that the blast/schrapnel would take out the target even if you hit 10-20 yards from the intended target. (talking blast effect here)
As the latest generation of bombs got more accurate, they started to realize that this was SERIOUS overkill. If you can hit the exact building you want, there is NO need for a bomb that big. So, for the first time since Pre WWII, the USAF is working on designs for bombs in the 50-100 lb class.
It gives them a BUNCH of advantages
1)Less colateral damage - yep, I'll be blunt - we kill less of the people we don't want to kill
2)Less danger to our own troops working close
3)The odd one - if we develop new load racks, you should be able to carry approximately 10 times more 50 lb bombs than you could 500 lb bombs
You see, even back during "Gulf I", we had to send multiple aircraft against one target to destroy it - it didn't make sense to worry about it. Now, we actually task one aircraft to destroy multiple targets. If you can carry 10x more bombs, you could (in theory) attack 10x more targets per mission. In reality, the fact is that the bombs have NOT become so accuate that each 50 lb bomb will hit exactly on target, and the kill radius is small enough, that even a small miss wont work. So they will probably task 2 or 3 bombs to each target, so figure each aircraft can attack 2-3 times more targets per sorte
Like it or not, it's interesting technology. You may not like what it's used for, but it is "cutting edge"
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
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!
Very good, who told you that? Look there. Amazing technology. This shows what a bomb really does and the effects are very well known and intended. The damage to humans is so immense, would the real effects shown on TV, people in US would not support this.
Why do you think that napalm-like fire bombs are developed and used? Probably to surgically melt down bridges and buildings at night;)
I find it interesting that in almost all press reports in USA only US losses are counted and never the total count of injured and killed humans is mentioned. Could it be that the numbers would not look very good?
It is talked about 60-something billion $'s of cost for this war - the total material cost of destroyed infrastructure, building, bridges, equipment is completely unknown.
Human losses are not publicized either the www.iraqbodycount.net tries to get number but those are only civilian deaths. How many are injured and to which degree is unknown.
The total count of humans killed in this escapade is intentionally kept quiet, or maybe the corpses of "other" soldiers dug under somewhere are not even counted.
I guess, it would be simpler, to lock the "leaders" causing wars into a room and only let them out again, once they get along. This would save all this stupid and destructive war making and weapons developing.
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?