Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested
xPertCodert writes "A latest attempt to build a futuristic laser weapon appears to be a success.
Joint Israeli-US developed laser destroyed a large caliber rocket in a latest New Mexico test. The press release also contains links to some interesting video and photo material, related to THEL (Tactical High Energy Lasers) defense systems."
The test went fairly well, but it wasn't without incident. After reviewing the field test, the project lead recommended adding the following warning label:
:)
"Do not look into laser with remaining eye."
Sorry, it had to be said.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
now all we need are the sharks...
I'm glad they figured out how to balance the phase variance in the polaric energy they had to run through the deflector array to fire up the phaser arrays. Ver admirable work, but it's no match for my Klingon Disrupters!
Why do peace-types protest defense systems like this so much?
I've never understood the logic. Defensive weaponry helps reduce the threat of war.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Major Carnagle: Where's the laser? Professor Hathaway: It's coming. Major Carnagle: It's coming? It's not even breathing hard.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Crispin
Pfft, anyone could have guessed that this would have been a success. Everyone knows that a laser can shoot anything! Oh, unless the laser is being held by, or possibly just anywhere near a stormtrooper, in which case it can and will shoot everything except what it is being aimed at.
Oh dear. By that argument, Ashcroft's stormtroopers really are a threat to national security. I should never have doubted... we're all gonna die!
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
why some small towns have suddenly disappeared outside the test area.
are here.
WMP or QT are availabe.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
So that's what happened to my missile.
Most of the pictures are dated 2000. I suspect that in four years since those pictures, the project has made significant advances. However, those results and pictures are likely classified.
Oh, by the way: FIRE THE FEAKIN LASER!!!
They will be touted as the perfect solution to a problem with heretofore only imperfect solutions (until, say, a passenger aircraft is accidentally shot down of course).
The biggest differences between this and previous missile defense systems are cost and multiple-use capability. You're not talking about using multi-million dollar missiles to shoot down incoming missiles, so you don't need to be so selective about when firing the thing off. And if you miss, you can try again ... and again.
As a defensive tool, these are, quite honestly, awesome. As an accident-waiting-to-happen in the hands of an overly-enthusiastic operator, they are, well, a little bit scary I guess.
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Well, I guess we WILL get to see a $10 million missile fired at a $10 tent protected by another $10 million laser.
In the end the guy with the explosive beatup mercedes still wins.
...this means world peace for our and all following generations, right?
Both Soviet Russia and the United States had comparable amounts of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the other several times over by the late 1960's. What was preventing them from simply firing the missiles and ending the war forever was the fact that the other side could, and would retaliate. Even the Soviets were not willing to spend a significant amount of their population concentrated within urban areas for the chance of total victory.
When the Soviets announced development into an ABM (anti ballistic missile) system in the Stragetic Arms Limitatons Talks in 1969, it was not well recieved by the United States. The existance of such a system would mean that there would be no imperiative at hand for one side to annihilate the other and claim victory. The US, at this time, put research into such a technology as well, though notably less advanced than today's (it was called "setinel," and consisted of a pair of missiles designed to intercept), it was scrapped because it could not guarentee that major urban areas could be protected.
Such a situation still exists today. The number of nations that have nuclear weapons is higher than ever, not just the Soviet Union and a handful of other nations outside of the US. To think that the United States would never do such a thing like annihilate an entire population is to be naive. There were such plans during the Cold War to literally wipe Russia off the face of the planet. To other nations, this system poses a greater threat than nuclear proliferation, as it nullifies their political leverage in the world arena.
It isn't. Neither is an F-16, does that mean an F-16 is worthless? The weapon isn't meant to counter car bombers, obviously.
This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.
The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.
I have a question: From the video, it appears that the beam is invisible. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. I just wanted to ask, is it possible for a laser beam to get so hot that it causes the air inside of it to turn visibly vapourous? Just wondering if we'll ever see a beam like that so powerful it leaves con-trails like plains leave or something.
"Derp de derp."
I feel so safe. This is being built right across the street from where I live.
Oh yes, I feel safer already! My neighborhood is not a terrorist target at all now. F%^&kin press releases!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
youve missed the point. How the hell are they going to target a car/person/whatever in the middle of a city intent on blowing up a part of the earth? Sure it can shoot down anything, but the fact remains that you still have to know what the target actually is.
We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
Now all we need is an Anti-Monument Laser and we'll be good to go!
What do you mean, "large caliber rocket"? Is that how they are going to be rated from now on?
Will we also see "assault rockets"? And "machine rockets"? And "rockets of mass destruction"?
Couldn't you just coat or plate the missles with laser quality mirroring to get past the laser defense?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
This is a tactical defensive weapon for use on a battlefield, not strategic defense. This is a mobile system meant to protect against small rockets like Katyusha class weapons. To understand why Israel is involved, you only have to look at the map on this page.
They would also be useful in defending targets against rocket attacks like the ones that have occurred in Iraq.the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Oh, grow the hell up. I lived during the Cold War 2 freaking miles from the Pentagon. Nothing like having a couple dozen multimegaton thermonukes aimed in the general vicinity of your apartment.
Geeze, kids today just don't have what it takes, anymore!
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
this is the threat, at least in israel (shihab 4). the latest israeli anti-missile system "ha-hetz" (the arrow) was designed to handle only singleheads. obviously it's not enough.
The coolest thing about a laser weapon, IMHO, is not the power or range or even its technology..it's the accuracy.
Aiming is the same as hitting with an energy weapon in most scenarios, the lightspeed lag only becoming a factor at high speed/long range, light an orbital target. Even then, a computer-aided targeting system should be able to compensate.
Imagine if such a weapon system were mounted in a vehicle (I think I read something about a prototype of a different laser in a 737) where just having the target in the crosshairs is enough to guarantee its destruction. Gives a new perspective to sniping. Should also reduce civilian casualties.
We're not talking about ICBMs here. This is aimed more at Katyusha batteries, a WWII truck-mounted launcher for 48 tube-launched unguided rockets. Those things had a range of about 5Km back in WWII. Their accuracy is poor, but they're cheap and can fire many rockets in the general direction of the target. Syria uses Katyusha batteries, and has been developing improved versions.
Patriot anti-missiles are too expensive to use against those things. The defenders would run out of Patriots long before the attackers ran out of Katyushas. So there's a real application for a laser weapon here. It won't stop all the incoming rockets, but cutting down a few thousand to a few hundred is a big win.
Thats like saying that because a handgun cant be effectively used against airborne targets, its useless.
You need different defense systems for different offensive systems.
This is for use againt missiles, mortar shells, and the like.
When will the US learn that trying to remove the "mutual" from mutually assured destruction will earn the hostility of any number of military powers the world over?
You are being very inconsistent in your statement.
The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm.
As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories.
Having a nuke, say Pakistan or Israel, is far different from being able to hit a particular spot on the globe with it.
I'm glad I live in a country that's not run by a power mad dictator with a hard-on for World War III.
too bad development on this was started long before Bush became president. Kind of blows a hole in your 'power mad dictator' theory.
Just the other day one of my professors was talking about experiments done on monkeys using very short duration but very high intensity laser pulses(I forget how short, but something like femtoseconds). Anyway, I guess they would shoot these pulses at the monkeys' eyes and they would literally shatter from mechanical stress. I suppose the same thing could happen with a rocket.
If the missle was kindly feeding the defense system it's GPS coordinates, like the last missile defense test that hit the news.
include $sig;
1;
It's pretty obvious YOU missed the point. This is not designed to do that. Terrorists aren't the only threat in the world today.
That's really swell for Isreal, but what about North Korea raining down fiery death from above with ballistic missiles that can hit Alaska? Also, I'd like to know how the laser would operate in more realistic conditions, like say, with multiple rockets... what's the firing rate? The way our money's being spent, we'll all be eating dog in a couple of years...
So picture this... Ground forces are stationed outside a small city (to protect the civilians). An incoming missile is detected and they shoot it down as it approaches with the laser. Unfortunately, the missile was a delivery system for chem/bio material and they just caused it to be release in the air above a populated city.
That'll make a good press release! But at least the troops were safe.
Come play Moral Decay!
So, following your logic, I strongly suggest you to remove the locks on your doors.
And, BTW, don't bother with the insurance company, after all they are useless to protect you against anything, even theefs like them.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Not so much for a ground based laser, it just keeps going and picks off Hubble, or the ISS or (God No!) Fox. But mounted to an aircraft, if it either misses or punches right through the target object, anything within range before the beam hits it's dispersion threshhold could be toast. Homes, office buildings, people spontaneously combusting, yada yada... You get the idea. The tinfoil hat just don't cut it anymore I guess. Eep. jm2c
"The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm."
When will people learn that being righteous is not always a good enough reason to do something. Pissing off someone with nukes and reasons to use them is a bad thing. Being right wont matter when you're dead.
"As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories."
MAD is irrelevant, eh? What about china? What about power shifts in unstable countries,like Russia. Some intelligence even says North Korea has ICBMs capable of hitting the west coast. even if they dont, you should never bet your security on the delusional hope that the other side will never make any progress in their weapons systems.
Oh and its a good thing we're building down those inventories, now we'll only be able to kill each other 2 or 3 times over, and not 6 or 7.
I went to school at Utah State University. The Physics department had a green laser that they used for atmosperic research. It doesn't heat the air to do it, but it is certainly visible.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
The THEL was not developed with anti-nuclear capabilities in mind. It's designed to protect cities, troop movements, bases, etc from cruise missiles, artillery shells, and the like.
Now, the Airborne Laser was developed as SDI, but it only covers an area of a 100 mile circle around which it's deployed. That's not going to generally help against a large country...but instead was designed for actions against megalomanical 3rd world dictatorships, like say, North Korea.
"Aim missile away from face"
(from the one where Bart spots a comet headed towards springfield)
My other sig is funny!
If the US wants to pay for things like SDI (or whatever Star Wars is being called these days), you guys should offer an ASP defence solution.
Like, say, "we'll shoot down missles going from Korea to Japan for you.. $500,000,000/yr maintenance fee plus $1,000,000,000 per incident".
I guess the QoS SLA might come back to slap them in the face. Think they can kill four-nines worth of missles?
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
All very true, but I think you missed the word 'presently'.
Your point seems to be that if any one defense isn't good against all possible threats it is useless. By your logic, body armor is pointless because it doesn't protect against poison gas.
And they are working on it. They are trying to develop an AC-130 gunship that uses one or more lasers instead of cannons. The reason is as you noted, greater accuracy to reduce the occurance of misses and collateral damage. However ther problems in this case are not only techincal but political as well.
There is fighting going on because people claim that laser weapons are forbidden by the Geneva Convention because they could blind people. Now never mind that bombs can blind, deafen, maim and oh yes, KILL people, they are up in arms about this. It may get blocked for that reason.
Ok, so the hexadecimalists are at war with the decimal-lovers (who are currently in power). So what do they do now? Are there materials that resist the wavelengths used in these lasers? A laser should give away your position rapidly, which could be transmitted for immediate retaliation. It should be exciting to see what the response will be. Nothing quite as interesting as a good weapons technology race.
-I am an elective eunuch.
On the whole, Preperation-H was a success!
Goatse will be estatic!
Table-ized A.I.
Did any of the missles have radio beacons or other tracking devices as in previous test? Until missle or laser defense systems can shoot down a missle without onboard beacons to help with aim the damn things seems prety useless to me.
How does a hiking boot protect your hands?
How does your car bumper prevent a flat tire from a nail?
To put it another way, you are a fucking dumbass.
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/media/SiteFiles/ mediagallery/video/MTHEL_m.wmv
And see who is the punk that's gonna say no to my sales presentations. :)
the suicide bomber won't win because he'll be dead. in fact, he makes it much more likely that people that support him will lose. because of his actions, a bunch of $10 million missiles will eventually be on their way to roast some "tents." what alternate reality do you live in that you can interpret this as winning?
the suicide bomber will only win if you want him to.aperture of less than a metre. Even in near-IR, that gives it a divergence of about one part in a million, meaning a kilometre away the spot is going to be a metre or two wide.
:).
Don't mind me, I just tend to mess up math past my bedtime...
At 1.0e-6 divergence, a 1m beam won't diverge significantly over 1 km. However, it's still a 1m beam.
Try to make it narrower, and it diverges. Widen it enough to not diverge much, and it's big enough that you won't be able to do fine targetting on the missile.
My point holds, even if my first try at the math didn't
Someone will probably chime in now suggesting a 1m aperture that focuses to a much narrower beam waist, but there is no way in heck you're getting optics that good (_adaptive_ optics that good) for a weapon that has to operate on the field, in real-time.
Why would a defensive weapon consititute the start of an arms race? Who can out-defend themselves?
The fact is, Israel is surrounded on all sides by sucicidal people who would happily snuff it out given half a chance. Why wouldn't a weapon like this be a good thing?
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Trigger? Are you sure you don't mean "win?"
Ever since one caveman picked up bone club, and another caveman said, "Damn, I need one of those," there's been an arms race. There always will be an arms race. So, how about we win it? Or is there some reason you'd rather not see the United States win the arms race?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Do you honestly think that there isn't an arms race going on right now?
What do you mean, trigger?
China, North Korea, Lybia, Pakistan, India, etc., etc., etc.
The arms race never stopped, it just switched focus. Sure, Mutually Assured Destruction is a great way to deter a strike, but should we rely on it? What happens when North Korea decides that they have nothing left to lose and attack South Korea? Do you honestly think that they are going to hold back because the US might retaliate with nukes? We would certainly retaliate with overwhelming force, but the political climate in the US would almost certainly not allow us to retaliate in kind with nuclear weapons.
It sure would be nice to have another option and possibly avoid those millions of deaths in the first place.
Well, your argument is still wrong. Let's see...the United States has an issue with the rulers of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has no nuclear weapons. Yet, they invade with conventional forces, attempt to minimize civilian casualties, and set up a democratic government.
The United States has an issue with the government of Iraq. Iraq did not (yet) have nuclear weapons. Yet, the U.S. invades with convential forces, attempts to minimize civilian casualties, and sets up a democratic government.
So, according to you, the only reason the U.S. doesn't nuke people is because of MAD. Yet, the U.S. doesn't nuke people who pose a threat, despite the fact that they don't have any nukes. Hmmm, why could that be? Could it be because the U.S. isn't a bunch of dicks? No, of course not! The U.S. is totally evil, and Bush is the devil right? What was I thinking! Thanks for setting that straight for us!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
there is a small flaw with the idea of a missle defense system: The laser is pretty much useless against any attack that uses "dummy" missles (and any one that can build an active missle can build dummies). During most of the US govt's tests the "active" missle was lit up a bit more then the dead missles. Which of course helps the computer decide which missle to take down. It's a decent idea, but it's not feasable just yet.
"That's a hell of a sunburn Ralph."
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
...I see Bush on TV...
...addressing the nation...
lasers....
satellites...
Oh wait, my bad. That was Reagan! Or was it?
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Yeah, well I have an anti-anti-missile.
-Obscure reference.
That's not what is intended for. You could use the same argument about bomb detecting devices and say "How is that going to stop someone with a Samurai sword chopping people up in a local mall.
Creative Demolition
I wonder if the missile used in this test had a finishing that easily absorbs the laser energy. If it would be made of a highly reflective material, almost all energy would be reflected, and it would not be affected.
Screw large caliber rockets. I wanna laser that can blast an asteroid at a great enough distance so that it's remnants burn to dust in the atmosphere, or elude our orbits totally.
Preferably mounted on a large shark that won't eat LL CoolJ if given the chance.
If the missle reflects or otherwise renders harmless 90% of the incoming energy, that means the laser has to be ten times more powerful to be effective. That's good enough.
Geez! 90%! That's a huge fraction. Think of getting a 90% pay cut, or losing 90% efficiency in your car's usage of fuel, or anthing else cut by a factor of ten.
If they thought the laser weapon would be good enough with one tenth the power, they would have designed it that way, saved a bundle of money and deveopment time, and have fielded the weapon years ago. The fact that it is still experimental implies they have a ways to go, and no doubt would love to have more power.
90%! Sheesh.
Infuriate left and right
Actually, lasers are really an "old" technology now. There is very little room for minaturization. Lasers require a LOT of power to do the damage this current breed does, and they require one-use fuel canisters of exotic gasses for each shot. The energy required to make a laser an offensive weapon is unbelieveably high. You can't sweep one of these across a battlefield because the fuel charge will last only a few seconds as it lases. The power comes from a storage device like a capacitor, and there is a recharge period for re-use.
The arms escalation that would result will likely be better missles, smaller missles, smarter missles. Reflective coatings and decoys are a better investment. You will probably see more types of terrain-hugging missles with longer ranges and cheaper production costs. The only way to defeat an anti-ballistic system like this is to be able to send an overwhelming number of cheap, hard-to-hit cruise-type missles. A crude $5000 cruise missle is the best weapon. For a million dollars you can send 200 at your enemy en-masse. Try shooting down 200 targets that are only 3-400 feet off the ground and moving erratically. If all you need are 10 to get through, you have a very good chance of success.
You are correct that this will lead to an arms race, but I think you are wrong in the direction it will take. These types of defense systems will be passe' in 10 years because it is too easy to counter them with non-ballistic alternatives.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Existing THEL is about six buildings, and that is not quite a mobile platform.
THEL description
Mobile THEL prototype is not close yet (2007 optimists telling ) and will take about three trucks. Looks like existing THEL could be useful only for static defence positions in Isreal and South Korea.
The US government will probably mount one of those on a "weather" satellite.
"Suspected terrorist spontaneously combusts outside apartment. Authorities baffled."
It depends how you define "winning".
700 american soldiers have lost (their lives) in iraq, but america hasnt lost.. yet.
No side really wins in war - but the objective can fail. In iraq and other occupation situations the occupying army will always fail their objective of occupying, look at vietnam and israel. Israel is only still standing because of the regular injections from the US and look at the meagre resources of those who are against them.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
Has the success of this test been verified by any third parties? The US Military tends to declare every test a success, regardless of the actual results. Sometimes the tests are rigged to create an illusion of success and other times they just simply lie.
The guy who told the suicide bomber "Deliver this package and I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when you get back" wins. He'd be extremely unlucky or clumsy to get caught if the bombing went as planned.
That's actually a good point. However, it still means that the LASER was worth developing. If reflective strips can be developed to protect against attack by this weapon, then - to account for the extra weight - those rockets must (in addition to the cost of those reflectors):
In all these cases it becomes more expensive (per weight and hence destructive ability) to wage war. That's a good thing, as it lessens the chance of it.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Let me get this straight... a laser article with no references to a big friggin' shark, and just this one reference to Real Genius? What's become of /.?
All's true that is mistrusted
You're making this about who's right again, not about reality. MAD means the nuclear-armed "evil" countries have a good reason not to launch their nukes, because they know that both sides will be wiped out. Like in the cold war. Or are you saying that we wouldnt respond with nukes to nukes? Lets say we make this shield, or are about to make this shield perfect. THEY see that the US has no reason not to nuke them. So they act. Christ, just because the you're righteous doesnt mean you are above simple logic. And i guess you dont have a problem with arms races either?
Cost of developing anti-missile laser? $50 billion
Cost of building anti-missile laser? $10 million
Cost of deploying anti-missile laser? $15 million
Cost of mirror fitted to missile? $1.99
Effect of reflected laser on defending forces? priceless.
A reflective tin foil hat...
Is there a working missle based system for deployment of chemical and or biological agents on a scale such as you describe?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Most missles (ICBMs at least) would be flying above an airplane so the plane wouldn't be angled down when it fired. And these systems are designed to focus on the missle, if they miss, the beam would diverge just past where it expected to hit the missle.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Read the article next time.
This is not a strategic ballistic missile defense system. The word TACTICAL is in the name for a reason......
Just because you disagree with me does not make it flamebait or a troll you retards. I hope you're meta-modded appropriately.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
I thought slashdot was full of nerds? What kind of nerds don't understand simple physics?
These lasers emit energy in the megawatt region. A mirror takes photons - absorbs them - and then reemits them. There aren't many mirrors that can absorb 10 million watts of energy.
In fact, that very problem is what makes laser weaponry so damn expensive and difficult to do. They need very heavy, exotic and expensive mirror systems to focus and aim the laser energy without being destroyed by the laser themselves. You can't just go down to home depot and buy a big mirror. You can't just coat a missile in some silly bike reflectors or shiny foil.
Even if you were to somehow invent a reflective coating that could handle megawatts of energy - and still be light enough to just paint on a missile - you'd have to deal with the coating becoming marred in flight, as anything the laser comes in contact with (ie, birdshit or what have you) its going to superheat to thousands of degrees and burn right through and destroy the missile.
-
Meagre resources? You mean the entire Arab world and their sympathetic allies in Europe? Yes, two continents is pretty meagre vs. a super power like Israel.
Or were you talking about the Israelis having meagre resources as the only democracy in the Middle East surrounded by hostile states intent on her complete destruction, only held at bay by fear of nuclear annhiliation?
Damnitt, that's not flamebait, it's informative..
It's been a while since I've seen a troll with so much false psuedo logic. Unfortunately it's still a pretty obvious troll.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I remember reading some time ago about the possibility of using pulsed high intensity lasers to ionize a path through the air that could then be used as a guide for charged particles to follow. Particle beam weapons don't have the inverse square law working against them, although I imagine there are a number of other problems.
Haven't heard anything about this in a long time..
..don't panic
Now all we need is a little laser to intercept them right before launch, then we'll be all set!
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
Phalanx only works if you are in range of the target. In other words, they are great if you want to stop 4-5 missles and you know the target (like a ship). They don't work on large area targets. If you want to defend a building or ship, they work fine. If you want to protect a city (say Los Angeles) you would need to place one Phalanx every 3-4 miles along the coast. Further, the system can track a maximum of 64 targets for each turret, so numbers would win again.
The cheap, plentiful cruise missle is the most effective non-developed vehicle out there, it is only a matter or time till some smart government figures that out.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Strangely enough, body armour and bulletproof vests actually are illegal in Australia, with some exceptions, ie police and armed forces.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
If you're gonna be ranting against american defense policy, at least get the terminology right!
Last thing I knew nobody sends billions of dollars of military aid to palestine, hence meagre resources.
What resources are you talking about mr Cowardly anonymous right winger?
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
It already IS working. Where did I say it wouldn't work? All I am saying is that these systems are built to defend against a ballistic trajectory (where targeting is much easier) and that it won't take long for hostile nations to find ways around it.
A spaced-based system would be equally ineffective against ground-hugging systems because they still have to punch through the atmosphere if you keep your missles in the atmosphere. One other issue, a space based platofrm would be almost impossible to maintain. The fuel for the laser they are using is in a cryogenic one-shot tube. A new tube must be put in the chamber for each shot (like a bullet). This means there will be a limited number of shots from any satellite. Further, the power required for one of these systems would be astronomical from space. Not only are you still trying to hit from range, but you now have a 380mi elevation. Gravity does not help a laserr beam. You have just increased the needed range by putting this system in space.
I'm not against these systems, nor am I saying they won't work. All I am saying is that they don't provide a long term solution. Frankly, I think the money would be better spent on our international intelligence. If you never want to be attacked by suprise, have a damn good intelligence agency. You can always respond if you have enough warning via spys. You can't do squat if they overcome your missle defense. There's no backup, and no time.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
The article fails to mention much about the Katyusha ("Little Katie"). It's a 60 year old rocket platform used by the Soviets in the second world war, later redesigned by the Israelis after they captured some Arab Katyushas during the Six Day War. These things aren't accurate worth a damn in comparison to modern rockets - the Germans had much better 50 years ago. :P Supposedly we're about to start testing this laser on captured SCUD missiles from Iraq. It's still going to be some time before this is going to be any much use in defending Taiwan.
Ok, lets ride with this..
Osama Bin Laden gets hold of one of those suitcase nuclear bombs that the Russians mislaid at the end of the Cold War.
He *could* build/buy an ICBM, put it on top, find somewhere to launch it, etc.
Or he *could* (for instance) get hold of an old cargo ship, get some phoney pretext to deliver goods to the US, kit it out with suicide bombers, and just sail right in. Or one of another 100 similar possibilities..
Now which scenario is currently most likely?
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
What nobody else seems to have mentioned is that the lasers make use of hydrogen (or deuterium) fluoride. From what I've read, this is pretty nasty stuff. See Northrop Grumman's page on chemical lasers and then check out the some info on HF here or here. You won't catch me working near one of these things!
Karma: Nonnegative
Obviously what we need at the moment is some more Yankee justice.
And what better way to grace the world with such an experience, eh? The best God-damned technology energy weapons.
Thanks again, USA, for saving the world from those who have weapons that you gave them last year by bringing tomorrow's warfare into today.
A new device to keep prisoners of war awake.
Bet it really tickles.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
... there are no other problems to solve first. But yeah, the U.S. military budget always comes first, right. Great work guys. Kudos to them that they joint develop with the Israelis! Keep the irony if you find it...
> No side really wins in war
Ummmm, aside from the comic book/high school sophomore philosophy class-level thought this represents, "we" did "win" World War II. We beat the bad guys (note: no quotes around that).
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
OR
Value of life within tent: worthless
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Does it work in rain? Obsession with high technology could be bad sometimes...
side...
Never assume that who you marching for has your best interest at heart, let alone your way of living. Many protest marchs are funded by groups that if the protesters knew they would hopefully not march.
Just slapping a "sounds nice / feed good" name on a group seems to satisfy most peoples needs. I guess it goes to show a lot of people feel the need to show they care even if they are not willing to go to the effort to find out why.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I am not coming out of my Y-2-K bunker until we are safe from all meteor/comet impact.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Actually, the Palestinians have gotten billions of dollars/euros in humanitarian aid, much of which is suspected of actually being diverted to the extremists in their society.
While no one I know of has outright public proof this is happening, one Reuters piece suggests that over $900 million in aid over five years dedicated for humanitarian purposes was not used for that purpose . To be balanced a bit, it is also worth noting that the Israelis might not be considered playing fair in some circles because they charge the Palestinians for security procedures and hampering UN teachers's movements.
Play around with Google or your favorite search engine a bit to find out more; I really do not have the time this morning to go into the details.
[best Dr. Evil voice] Finally, I can complete my dream to put a laser on the moon. I will call it the, "Death Star".
Yeah!! What the hell?!?! Now I fear the Israelophiles will reply with arguments about stopping Terror (or, as Bush says, "tearr"), and about how Israel is the only democracy in the middle-east, blah blah blah blah. How it is our 'friend' (bombing of USS Liberty anyone?), blah blah blah.
Honestly why do we give so much money to Israel? Can anyone explain this to me? Why is US press coverage so clearly pro-Israeli and one-sided, rather than being fairer? Why is the entire United States brianwashed daily with anti-muslim propaganda?
It all makes me sick. Plus, if you go around saying this stuff in New York, you get labeled an anti-semite. Which is worse than being a Commie back in the 50's...
"The tinfoil hat just don't cut it anymore I guess. Eep. jm2c"
Yeah, because we all know how effective it was against misdirected bombs or anti-aircraft artillery shells falling back to earth.
Maybe at the momeht they are, but they're not very "close" friends! Remember the surveillance plane they harassed, crashed into and then hung onto? That was just a few years ago...
This isn't a case of preparing to fight the *LAST* war, it's preparing to fight the *NEXT* war. Technology like this takes a while to develop; if there's, say, a 20-year lead time, how confident are you other countries missiles will not pose a threat for 20 years?
According to an article on the Laser Focus World website MTHEL system is chemical powered, deuterium fluoride to be exact. I don't imagine that deuterium fluoride is too availible. I wonder how much it cost per target destroyed.
This is of course impossible to know as the output of the laser is still classified.
There's a big difference between attacking a military target (building / vehicle / person) and killing civilians who are near it, and explicitly targetting civilians. There's no rationale for attacking a children's school other than to kill children & terrorize people. (unless, of course, arms are stockpiled inside, etc; that turns it into a potential military target. Re: al-Sadr hiding in mosques. But I digress!)
I cannot vouch for all the Israeli attacks, but many of the condemned attacks have involved military targets. Yes, sometimes civilians were killed; if you put your military bases & arms stockpiles *in residential neighborhoods*, what do you expect?
Please please mod parent up. I do not know if this is general wisdom, but I have come up with these exact ideas.
Here's another: I'm a vegitaarian, peace loving being - or so I tell myself - but most of my ancestors were the just opposit: cunning hunters and warriors. So me being here is a result of many generations of carnivours!.
I am seeing a direct link between intelligence and violence.
"...normal evolution would have gone Word to Frame to troff, but instead, the computer industry has gone the other way!"
Real Genius was rebroadcast yesterday; I think it was on Comedy Central. Caught it from the beginning (usually come in halfway thru).
Which brings to mind a Slashdot poll idea:
Can you pound a 6-inch spike through a board with your penis?
(a girls gotta have her standards)
Has anyone else noticed that the press release is virtually content free?
What it says is, "We had one successful test on a bigger, faster, higher target than before. Some other tests worked in the past, too."
What it doesn't say is:
1) How much bigger/faster/higher?
2) How many tests were unsuccessful?
3) Those past successful tests were what fraction of the total tests?
That's not even considering all the background information left out that is available elsewhere, like how big the laser system is, what its duty cycle is, etc.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Hey, people! :-|
First anti-missile laser was successfully tested in Soviet Union about twenty years ago
This was done on Sary-Shagan test range, near Balkhash lake.
To harden against the effects of the reflected beam on ground-based facilities and operators (including the people who aim the weapon, etc.) will be significantly more expensive
Why is that? Why can't they just use tarps made out of the same type of reflective "bicycle reflective tape"? Or better yet, since they don't care about bouncing it straight back, just good old fasioned shiney IR mirror tarps.
No, I don't have a problem with arms races, because there has always been an arms race, and there always will be an arms race.
Simple logic?
THEY see that the US has no reason not to nuke them. So they act.
So...we can defend ourselves from their nukes, and they can't defend themselves from ours, so they invade us with conventional forces and hope we don't nuke them. Riiiiiight...that's good logic there.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If lasers have been a "finished" technology for a long time, why did it take until 2004 to develop this weapon? There's always room for an unexpected breakthrough.
Troll?! Did I nearly start a riot?
"Derp de derp."
That light's travelled through the air, bounced off the target's paint two or more times, and travelled through the air again. Like you say its pretty diffuse by now! Even if its still harmful, I can think of three countermeasures: for most stuff, reflectivey tarps should do it. For the cameras, you can either have them "duck" (implemented by turning the mirror they peer through, or sunglasses), or have two cameras, the second of which specializes in tracking things that are really bright in the wavelength the laser fires at.
:)
But you're right, it is sounding more complicated than "tape".
Value of life within tent: priceless.
What a crock. If someone held a gun to your head and said "kill this person or you die", what would you do? You have two priceless items you must choose between, your life and his. So how do you make a value judgement between two items of "priceless" value? You have backed yourself into a logical corner here, because no matter which path you choose, you will have simply stated that one life was worth more than the other. And don't attempt to cheat by "flipping a coin" or some other such nonsense.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Wishful thinking.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Can this laser fire rapidly enough in order to protect from multiple missiles hitting at the same time ?
I was there then, working for the gov't at a _very_ high level. Reagan's play on this was truly inspired, even though he was no particular friend of mine (get all these hippie hackers off the budget and buy more bullets, was his line, to paraphrase). But it worked. The wall fell. Only an actor could have pulled this off, and there's more to tell than I can, using my real name, but it was really good. Besides, SDI kept some very important scientific/engineering teams together with something to do when there was basically nothing to do. But as we've found in the past, just disbanding them has bad results later when you suddenly realize you need more science or engineering. It was a good play. It worked. And, like most successes of this nature, the full truth won't come out soon, that only happens with the big failures. You might get a clue by reading Aviation Week for the period in question...
NO.
They see that we are building these defense systems, so they think that we will soon not have a reason not to nuke them. So, they act sooner rather than later, with their own nukes, on the logic that those nukes will soon be useless (when did i ever say they would use conventional forces, btw?). Either that, or they start their own defense program, i.e. an arms race, which leads to an increase of tensions, which increases the possibility of war.
You honestly think that there is still as large scale an arm race now as there was during the cold war?
The guy selling the $10 million missiles and lasers wins.
And as for this brave talk about how the US would respond to occupation, my parents have had up close and personal experience with being under two occupations, onlt one of them being US, and all this talk from various armchair "Partisans" is just that, talk.
In the scenario you laid out, why would I have any reason to believe that I could protect myself by following any instruction given to me by a person holding a gun to my head? The gunman could easily kill me AFTER I had done as he instructed. He might have a greater incentive to do so, given that the gunman somehow valued the fact that I could be used to kill another human being, therefore causing him to have no further use for me once I had performed the desired task. Killing me would eliminate all witnesses.
When held at gunpoint, it is best to carry out simple instructions that do not directly or indirectly threaten others. This is done to buy time in hopes that somebody else can kill, incapacitate, or otherwise neutralize the gunman. Following orders that would lead to the injury or death of other human beings merely aids the gunman in his task of extinguishing human life. If he is determined to kill people, force him to do it himself, even if doing so puts your own life at risk.
In the aforementioned scenario, if I refused to kill the target and died due to head wounds as result, it might give the target an opportunity to escape. I can safely assume that both I and the target would die if I did as instructed.
The parking garages of the USA are saved! I can now park my car without fearing ICBM-valets.
You are being mired in the specifics of the situation which has little to do with the philosophical question I posed; you are attempting to use psychological incentives in a philosophical debate. One can construct any threat whose ultimate point is identical yet which does not invoke such incentives; I was merely trying to keep it simple. Don't try and weasle out of answering a tough moral dilemma by arguing over irrelevant details and semantics; we make no progress this way.
The ultimate point is that each life has a finite value which can be weighed against other values. So which would it be? Would you save your own life, or the other's? Either way, there is no solution other than to concede that life has finite, measurable value.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
It seems that all the discussion is about the laser, when the real breakthrough (and the real value-add from the Israelis) are the processors that take in the sensor data, analyze it, and steer the laser to the target.
Recently, an Israeli company called Lenslet (www.lenslet.com) developed an optical DSP that can process 8 x 10^12 3-digit multiplications per second. I wouldn't be surprised if this company is one of the subcontractors.
Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
does anyone think that these technical announcements are smoke and mirrors? I did see a news special about there being an agency that spreads false data and information, and seeds it throughout the internet, knowing full well that the enemies of the U.S. do scan the internet for news.. Disinformation is a very powerful tactic..
I am not "mired in specifics". I am pointing out but one of many flaws in your argument.
Any attempt to weigh the value of human life by presenting a "kill or be killed" scenario while also categorically refusing to consider how such a scenario would play out in real life is absurd. No philosophy regarding human life(or its value) is relevant unless you are willing to apply it to your own life and use it to guide your own actions. Someday, you may be forced to choose between your life or the life of another, and "irrelevant details" particular to the situation may present you with a clear and logical reason to respond in a fashion that is contradictory to your philosphy regarding the supposedly finite worth of human life.
Furthermore, your initial scenario does nothing to highlight the "finite" value of human life. It only shows how difficult it is to preserve human life when faced with violence at the hands of those who do not believe similarly. Such scenarios are, sadly, very common in this day and age, though they are hardly so contrived or silly as the situation you portray.
No matter what situation you concoct, you prove nothing. The proper decision for the believer in infinitely-valuable human life is the decision to preserve as much human life as possible, regardless of who or what that life might represent in the long run. In the short run, sometimes preserving specific lives(given their position, training, or merely equipment) may save more in the long run. If I had to choose between saving three people who each have keys to cells holding captives who will die in mere minutes to poison gas, I'd save the guy who had the key which unlocked the cell with the most people in it. Does that make the fellow with the "best" key more valuable as a human being? Of course not! What it does mean is that, in that specific scenario, he has an object which can save lives. I would choose to save him merely for the object and the added bonus that he'd get to go free along with the maximum number of human lives possible. Take away his key and he's in the same position as all the prisoners locked in the cells. I'll save them if I can, but if I can't, I'll save as many as possible.
By the same token, if the cell with the fewest prisoners had a scientist that could create a vaccine to save millions of people upon release, then I'd chose to save the man who had the key to open the cell with the fewest people. Even further, if this man had the same medical training and ability to produce vaccines, and there was no plague in need of being cured, I would no longer consider his medical training when contemplating whether or not I'd save the people in his cell.
It might seem that someone's equipment, knowledge, or position might make their worth as human beings greater than others, but the truth is that their equipment, knowledge, or position only has worth as compared to other equipment, knowledge, or positions. Divested of their advantages, they're "just human lives". They are still worth saving, if it can be done. If you do not believe in the infinite value of human life, you are on a slippery slope that will lead to the belief that no human life is really worth saving(other than, perhaps, your own).
If it works why are they so worried about telling the rest of the world about it? best thing about war technology developed in the US: marketing
No philosophy regarding human life(or its value) is relevant unless you are willing to apply it to your own life and use it to guide your own actions.
I agree.
The proper decision for the believer in infinitely-valuable human life is the decision to preserve as much human life as possible, regardless of who or what that life might represent in the long run.
This is incorrect; you are conveniently forgetting the nature of infinity. Infinity multiplied by any number is still infinity; if one accepts that life is infinitely valuable, must must then accept that one life is just as important as 6 billion lives; after all, 6 billion times infinity is still infinity! Mathematically speaking, your statement is incorrect and thus, logically, your conclusion is erroneous.
To accept the statement that a moral theory must choose the path that saves the greatest number of lives is to accept that lives have finite value which can be directly compared. This is what I have been maintaining from the outset.
Here's a more concrete example to illustrate the contradiction in your statements: if someone said they would give you a trillion dollars to kill one person of little note (ie. no significant positive or negative impact on other lives), what would you do? You have stated that life is infinitely valuable, so obviously the money could not possibly be enough. But, you could save thousands if not millions of people from starvation with that money, so obviously the tradeoff is acceptable. Oh oh, a contradiction. What to do?
Let's throw out the contradictory proposition "preserve as much human life as possible"; this was not stated in the original post, and is not what I was arguing against anyhow. Let's solely focus on "a human life is priceless". As I mentioned above, any number of priceless lives is mathematically and logically equal in value to a single priceless life. Thus, in accepting this proposition, we must be willing to sacrifice the entire human race to save a single life. In the interests of our species, I will deem this unacceptable.
Note that this has no bearing on your other arguments. I fully agree that mitigating circumstances can radically alter the decisions one makes. The consequences of one's actions determine one's choice in a proper system of ethics. However, as I have already stated, this has little to do with the philosophical exercise I was pursuing. Furthermore, simply because a life has finite value does not mean the value is even attainable monetarily.
Any consistent, valid moral theory should be able to adequately answer any moral dilemma given a set of parameters. Simultaneously accepting that human life is priceless while believing in the "greater good" produces a contradiction, as I have illustrated, and thus is inconsistent and unacceptable. Accepting only that human life is priceless produces undesirable consequences, and is thus unacceptable. The only logical resolution is to accept that human life has finite value, and that we must properly assess and perform cost-benefit analyses when deciding whether to protect or terminate a life. Callous? Perhaps. Necessary? Absolutely.
How to assess the value of another's life is the really tricky question... left as an exercise for the reader of course.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
You'd have 100ms per bullet starting when each bullet left the muzzle. Say your attacker has a weapon with a ROF of 900 RPM (a bullet hose indeed). You have what, about 67ms to handle each round? That's alot of time in the world of microchips.
As far as vaporizing the bullet, I would just work on reshaping the bullet to something less aerodynamic, and more unstable. Just vaporise one side of the bullet in an airfoil shape so it spins out in a few large loops, or dives into the ground.
After the first burst of rounds, the previously mentioned radar should be able to locate the shooter especially with some help from an acoustic positioning system. Guess where the last laser shot goes?
do not look into laser with remaining eye socket! Or, damage the weapons firing mechanism.
I think the original poster is on the right track.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org