Future Weapons of War in the Works

An anonymous reader writes "Who needs explosive missiles when you can just launch a 3 foot long chunk of metal at near Mach 7 speeds and get the same result? Popular Science looks at weapons the military is developing for future wars including electromagnetic railguns, space darts, superfast torpedos, laser cannons, and a gun that fires a million rounds per minute."

Comments

As I've always said

[Anonymous Coward]

Military technology is striving to be one big Quake clone I mean, we already have aimbots, now there are railguns....next thing you know the US Army will be wallhacking.

Re:As I've always said

[pubjames]

It makes you wonder if John McCormack actually influences the military with his games.

Perhaps he could bring about world peace by making non-violent weapons?

Coming in Doom 4... custard cannons, exploding jelly mines and balloons filled with rasberry sauce.

Re:As I've always said

[bluelan]

They already are wall hacking, as reported on slashdot in '99.

Real life wall hacking

Now here's the moral delimna. If we can do it in real life, is it cheating?

Re:As I've always said

[Peldor]

It makes you wonder if John McCormack actually influences the military with his games.

John Carmack is probably a bigger influence.

John McCormack was an Irish tenor if you believe that lying Google.

Re:As I've always said

[Throtex]

They've jammed our radar, sir!

Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!

Re:As I've always said

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldiers always get killed. The difference is that now fewer soldiers get killed. Check your history books for how many were killed in wars we've fought.

The United States lost more men in a four month period during WWI than were lost in the whole Viet Nam war. We lost more men in ONE day's battle in WWII than in the whole Iraq war.

War will never be "safe", but we can lower the risks to our own troops while increasing the risk for the enemy. Think about it - would you like to take on the Marines, at night, armed only with an RPG and an AK-47? Not me; I'm not that stupid.

US Army

[bcmm]

So there will be new, more powerful, more accurate weapons. Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...

Re:US Army

[nacturation]

Microsoft's Digital Rifle Management?

Re:US Army

[next1]

as we have seen in iraq, we also need a way to stop them aiming the accurate weapons at the *right* things.

the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity.

Re:US Army

[Hittite Creosote]

Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...

Such as not shooting your allies, for example.

From the article in today's BBC News:
The US military at first insisted that there was a fault with the RAF Tornado's 'friend-foe' recognition system but later admitted they were having problems with the Patriot missile system's software.

Re:US Army

[tealover]

Friendly fire always happens in every war. Regardless of what you think from playing SOCOM, war is chaotic and mistakes do happen.

Re:US Army

[basingwerk]

Can you be sure that this is not due to substandard training? In Britain, people are tired of hearing this excuse when the US blast British tanks and planes instead of the enemy.

Re:US Army

[delong]

the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity

Because of course Saddam was just hanging out and mingling with the little people, and the restaurant wasn't cleared and secured by his security detail first.

Re:US Army

[tha_mink]

In Britain, people are tired of hearing this excuse when the US blast British tanks and planes instead of the enemy.

What excuse are they not tired of when they have their ownfriendly fire incedents?

Re:US Army

[timmy the large]

Actually he wasn't there at all. That is why all the assasination attempts failed. He was never there, just a bunch of bystanders.

Smart weapons are great and I think they have made great strides in cutting back civilian casulties, but the Iraq war is by no means without them.

Re:US Army

[next1]

Iraqi rescue workers using a bulldozer to search the rubble said that three bodies had been recovered -- those of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man -- and that the death toll could be as high as 14. The woman's head had been severed from her torso.

( http://www.boston.com/news/daily/08/war_leadership _strike.htm )

Rescuers said up to 14 people may have been killed in the blast, which reduced four houses to dust and blew out windows and doors of houses as far as 300 m away. The remains of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man were pulled from the rubble.

( http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4 395,182123,00.html )

Re:US Army

[b-baggins]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertion of better men than himself.

- John Stuart Mill

Re:US Army

[WNight]

Gosh, I wonder why that is. Do battle with an under-equipped enemy whose weapons barely scratch your tanks and they're less likely to kill you.

You of course fire just as many shots as before, so your friendly-fire numbers aren't going to change much.

Less kills by enemies, the same by friendlies, and you have an increasing percentage of friendly fire kills.

Do you have any indication that there are more FF kills, per soldier, than in previous wars? (Leaving out static battles like trench-to-trench sniping.)

Re:US Army

[killjoe]

There are two extremes. One extreme says no war is worth it. Jesus takes this extreme and John Stuart Mills rails against this in your quote.

Another extreme to reach for war as your first and primary tool when you want to control the natural resources of another country. George Bush takes this extreme.

So in a nutshell.

Jesus on one extreme, George Bush on the other.

Most people are in the middle.

Re:US Army

[Nodatadj]

I'm not "anti-war" because I think it will make me safer, I'm anti-war because I think it will make the people in the area safer.

Re:US Army

[swingkid]

There's a large difference between protesting a war unilaterally begun under obviously false pretenses, and not being willing to fight for anything at all.
And while we're quoting:
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
- Samuel Johnson

Re:US Army

[Rostin]

Jesus takes this extreme

Jesus takes the extreme of telling individuals not to retaliate when insulted. He says nothing about war. In his encounters with professional soldiers, he doesn't make their job an issue. He quotes the Old Testament and speaks highly of the scriptures (verses the traditions cobbled on by the Pharisees) in which a not inconsiderable amount of war and killing is mandated by Yahweh.

It's possible to interpret the sayings of Jesus recorded as the Sermon on the Mount as a promotion of absolute pacifism, but this view doesn't really stand up very well under scrutiny and is probably too simplistic.

Ghandi would probably make a much better example of this "extreme."

Re:US Army

[wattersa]

"It looks like you are trying to fire your weapon. Would you like to:
- Learn more about ballistics
- See a maintenance diagram
- Find help on the internet
- Run the Rifle Setup Wizard?"

[troop inserts loaded magazine]
"Windows has detected new hardware, would you like to look for a driver on the internet now?"

[it jams]
"An unrecoverable error has occurred in RIFL4512.dll.
(A)bort, (R)etry, (C)ontinue?"

Yeah, I think I'll pass on this DRM also!

Re:US Army

[b-baggins]

There's a large difference between protesting a war unilaterally begun under obviously false pretenses, and not being willing to fight for anything at all.

1. No U.N. does not equal unilateral.
2. WMD was not the only reason given for the attack on Iraq (read the actual transcript of the State of the Union address instead of your DNC talking points).
3. Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror.
4. Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.
5. The patriotism Mill describes is the degraded patriotism of the man who cries out that it is the patriotic duty not to fight, no matter the cause.
6. It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. -Winston Churchill

Re:US Army

[demachina]

If you want to see the context of this often used, and used out of context quote, its from "The Contest in America":

http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/conam10h.htm

It is a justification of the North's position in the civil war, speaks out against slavery and assaults England for backing the South in the war.

For some odd reason you see this quote all over and its usually misquoted by people seeking to justify war. In particular they leave out this antiwar part:

"When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."

I'm assuming you are using the quote to justify the war in Iraq on the grounds the U.S. is freeing the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam as Mill was praising the North for freeing the slaves from tyranny.

Unfortunately the war in Iraq could as easily fall under the category of "when a people are used...for the selfish purposes of a master".

The U.S. pretty clearly had some mixed motives in invading Iraq to the point no one can actually tell you why the Bush administration really did it. Freeing the Iraqi's from tyranny was way down on the list when it started if you recall, it was preceded by WMD's, none of which were found and by some kind of revenge for 9/11 though Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 despite the propaganda to the contrary. The unspoken selfish rationale's could as easily be control of the oil rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia, installing military bases in the region, potentially as a precursor for taking down Iran and Syria, or reshaping the Middle East in an American mold and in particular opening it up to exploitation by American corporations.

If you look at the state of things today the U.S. seems to be inflicting a lot of tyranny of its own on Iraq these days so its pretty hard to make the case that the U.S. is bringing freedom and democracy to Iraqis though we can all hope that, by some miracle, that does happen someday.

I guess I'm saying its impossible to say if the war in Iraq is really about fighting tyranny. Mill's quote could just as easily be used to condemn the U.S. and its leaders are obsessing over "personal safety" or people are being used for the "selfish purposes of a master".

You could also just as easily use Mill's quote to advocate Americans rising against their own increasingly tyrannical government, or to justify the Iraqi insurgent's efforts to throw out a foreign occupier who is imprisoning them unjustly. The CPA itself admits 90% of the prisoners its holding aren't guilty of anything and its very likely some of those being tortured are innocent.

Re:US Army

[demachina]

"1. No U.N. does not equal unilateral."

I would agree that it was not exactly unilateral since the U.S. did have allies, but so did Germany in World War II. There is a near certainty, and in fact Bush has said it, he would have invaded Iraq if he the U.S. went alone so for all practical purposes it was unilateral he just managed to scrape together a ragged coalition to make it kind of look like it wasn't. When Bush decided he was going to do it and do it alone if necessary he made it unilateral. Many of the members of the coalition were also either bribed or coerced in to participation. The chances are pretty good all the leaders who willingly participated will get voted out of office at the first opportunity, Spain already having done so and Australia may well towards the end of the year.

A better description of Iraq is "aggressive warfare". That is when you preemptively attack someone who is not posing an immediate threat to your nation. It is against international law. The backing of the U.N. is desirable precisely because it gives a war international legitimacy. Iraq engaged in aggressive warfare when it attacked Kuwait, thats why the U.N. and the world backed the first gulf war. The U.S. and U.N. should have taken down Saddam then when they had justification. To come back more than a decade later and do it with no real provacation, and at enormous expense($200 billion and counting, nearly 800 dead and counting, and thousands wounded) was just unwise.

"Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional."

Al Quaeda's presence in Iraq NOW is a product of the U.S. invasion. Its simply irrational to point to the fact they are there now and say "See I told you so" when they weren't there before the war. The only part of Iraq Al Quaeda was known to be in before the war wasn't under Saddam's control. Saddam was a socialist, and Muslim only when convenient. Fundamentalists like those in Al Quaeda despised him as a result.

"2. WMD was not the only reason given for the attack on Iraq (read the actual transcript of the State of the Union address instead of your DNC talking points)."

It was the ONLY reason the Bush administration had that they could use to sucker Congress and the American people in to backing the war. Cheney in particular constantly invoked the prospect of a nuclear cloud of an American city if we didn't invade Iraq immediately. It was shameful in its deceit. Even recently Cheney was still trying to claim some vans seized could be used to produce biological weapons when no expert will back him.

Number 2 on the list was this bizarre assertion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when there is NO evidence of that whatsoever. 9/11 was perpetrated by Saudi's. If you were going to invade some nation besides Afghanistan over it the next country most responsible was Saudi Arabia. Thats why the Bush Administration had to censor huge tracts about Saudi Arabia in the congressional report on 9/11.

Number 3 was to bring "Freedom and Democracy". I'll give you that one when there is real "Freedom and Democracy" in Iraq. Not an American puppet state or a repressive Shia dominated Islamic republic which would be the near certain outcome the day there is a fair election in Iraq.

"3. Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror."

Iraq is a huge distraction from the war on terrorism. The fact the Bush administration did a half assed job in Afghanistan where the real war should have been fought was because they were in a rush to attack Iraq for no good readson. In fact invading Iraq wass pouring gasoline on the war on terror. The massive humiliation the U.S. is heaping on the Arab and Muslim world is driving moderate Arabs in to the hands of Al Quaeda and is a recruiting poster for a new army of suicide bombers. When Bush recently expressed unabashed support for Sharon and Israel and took it upon himself to make unilate

Re:US Army

[demachina]

"Please explain that to Zarqawi, who is Al Queda and in Iraq...wait...that seems like a link to me."

Please explain to my how Zarqawi's presence in Iraq today, when Saddam is no longer in power, proves a link between Al Quaeda and Saddam before the war. The logic of your argument, like all your arguments, b-baggins is deeply flawed.

The Al Quaeda link was claimed by the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion and was based on deeply flawed intelligence, like most of their case for war, in particular there was one, I repeat one, supposed meeting in Eastern Europe between Al Quaeda and Iraqi intelligence which has since been debunked or at least there is no evidence it ever happened, just like there is no creditable evidence Saddam was trying to by yellowcake in Niger other than really badly forged documents.

All indications are Zarqawi moved in to Iraq after the U.S. invasion when the country was in chaos. Islamic fundamentalists have been streaming in to Iraq to fight the U.S. invasion just like they streamed in to Afghanistan and Chechnya when the Russians invaded them. This roving Muslim army has existed since the CIA and Pakistan intelligence created it to us as a proxy against the U.S.S.R in Afghanistan. Al Quaeda was born in these same CIA sponsored camps in Pakistan with CIA funding. Now this ever expanding roving Muslim army goes whereever Muslims are being attacked. Today they are in Iraq fighting the U.S.

Re:US Army

[swingkid]

First of all, war on Iraq != war on terror. We had much work left to do in Afghanistan and instead chose to pursue the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz vendetta against Saddam, which had little if any connection to Al Qaeda. Your fourth point may be accurate now, but was certainly not the case before we invaded. Not sure how you include the Jordanian plot in your Al Qaeda/Iraq analysis, perhaps you can enlighten me. And don't tell me that there were other reasons than WMD for invading Iraq; Congress and the American people never would have supported it otherwise, which is why the Bush administration was so keen on making it seem that there were, in fact, WMD.

Re:US Army

[dfenstrate]

"... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Jesus,

Luke 22: 36

Re:US Army

[bcboy]

Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.

Anyone who is still trying to conflate Al Qaeda and Iraq is a god-damned liar.

Islamic militants are in Iraq because Americans are there. It's easier to target Americans in the Middle East than it is to target them in America. Iraq has nothing to do with it. If we'd dropped Americans anywhere in the Middle East, terrorists would have come to kill them.

Islamic terrorism was not, in fact, Saddam's great sin. You can't use the consequences of your actions to retroactively justify your war. The decision to go to war must stand on the pre-war conditions: the WMDs, and the brutal dictator. The plan that was hatched, a fast path to a unilateral war with a light-weight force and little post-war planning, must stand on the only argument that made sense: that Iraq had WMDs, capable of hitting American targets, that had to be taken out immediately.

But that argument was not supported by evidence then or now. We went to war for lies.

Re:US Army

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Saddam wasn't a terrorist.

Saddam made payments, out of the Iraqi national treasury, to the families of Palestinian murderers. Not small payments, either: $25,000 each, which to a Palestinian family is an absolute fortune.

Let me say it more plainly: Saddam paid terrorists for killing Israelis. By our definition, Saddam was a terrorist.

What is that definition, you ask? A terrorist is a person who attacks noncombatants with deadly force in an effort to impose social or political change through fear, or a person who attempts to do such a thing, or a person who provides material support or safe harbor to anyone who does or attempts to do such a thing.

There's still no evidence that Saddam is even linked to Al-Qaeda.

Honestly? Nobody cares. Saddam was a bad man. His continued existence as a head of state was a threat to the national security of the United States, of all Western democracies, and most especially to Israel. It's good that he's no longer in power.

Why did we invade Iraq? Because we had just cause to do so, and because it made the world a safer place. Marginally safer, yes, but safer nonetheless. You only need look to our diplomatic victories in Libya and (to a much lesser extent) Syria and Iran to see that.

Although personally I think we're gonna need to put boots on the ground in Damascus before this is all over. The Asad family isn't getting the message as quickly as I think they need to.

Re:US Army

[dfenstrate]

Ghandi would probably make a much better example of this "extreme."

Actually, I'm gonna have to give ghandi an N/A for this affair. What Ghandi realized, and pretty much every modern pacifist who invokes his name doesn't, is that pacifism only works against a moral enemy.

To quote, for example: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look
upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Yeah, Ghandi said that, indicating he believed violence was of us at times.

He used pacifism against the British because they were morally restrained, and wouldn't violently put down a non-violent protest. The one British General who did was relieved of command on rather short order.

You never hear of any Ghandi or MLK types from Iran, former Iraq, Syria, as they where all captured and murdered as soon as they opened their mouths, because their brutal regimes had no qualms about killing anyone given the slightest reason.

Re:US Army

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

They could even use "Clippy" for a mascot, but it wouldn't be a damn paper clip this time. :-)

Re:US Army

[dustmite]

nearly 800 dead

I thought there were many thousands more than that dead by now. Or do only American deaths 'count' in this anyway illegal war? Surely not?

It would be MUCH better...

[Phidoux]

... if the time and money spent of developing new weapons could be spent on education rather. But then again, a better educated future generation would probably be able to think up even more devastating weapons.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[10Ghz]

Educated masses are alot harder to control than uneducated masses are. If your audience is just a bunch of morons you can just say "we must kill these people because they are jealous of us and they hate freedom!"

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[Phidoux]

I live in South Africa where, not to many years ago, sentiments such as yours were considered to be official government policy. Thus I'm pretty sure that investing money in education, rather that in weapons technology, is a much better investment.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[torpor]

It would be far better to spend all this money on giving people less reason to fight each other.

Say, better resource control in Mozambique (water)? What about building a machine that, instead of pumping out millions of rounds of lead per second, are able to make mud bricks and houses at a rate of 10 a day?

Why isn't this a priority? Simple. The ones in control of the funding are fucking assholes and have all the justification they need to continue bringing misery and death to the world ...

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[BiggerIsBetter]

IIRC, South Africa was the only country to develop nuclear weapons and then dismantle them. It's nice to see a country with the balls to try to make things better.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[sql*kitten]

It would be far better to spend all this money on giving people less reason to fight each other.

You are assuming that people have a rational reason to fight. In the West, that is often (but not always true). For example, Europeans historically have warred over access to natural resources - but have also warred over religion (most notably Catholic vs Protestant) since the Renaissance. However the animosity between England and Spain was about both.

In Rwanda, the civil war was conducted along racial lines - two tribes determined to wipe one another out, pure genocide. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over religion and both sides are fighting the Kurds simply because they are of another race. In Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe sabotages the farming industry in order to starve their opponents into submission.

What about building a machine that, instead of pumping out millions of rounds of lead per second, are able to make mud bricks and houses at a rate of 10 a day?

Such a machine would not resolve a single conflict in Africa. The Hutus and Tutsis (IIRC) aren't fighting over who has the most bricks, but over which "tribe" you're from. The BBC news reported on a Rwandan who killed his own grandchildren because they were mixed race.

Socialists like giving aid to third world countries because a) it justifies higher taxation at home and b) they don't need to trouble themselves about the root causes.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[Andy Davies]

If we stopped subsidising our (US, EU & Japan)farmers so that they stopped dumping sugar, cotton etc. onto the world markets at below cost.

Then people in Mozambique etc. would be able to get a a sensible price for the goods they produce and make a living.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[sql*kitten]

don't always believe what BBC has to say about things ... they are as guilty as any other major corporation of corrupting reality to serve their own purposes.

While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations. To suggest that the BBC is in league with them is, frankly, ludicrous.

every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created. it doesn't 'just happen'. give people technology to avoid this creation, and they will nobody 'wants' death.

You are wrong - look at all the wannabe martyrs in the world. And, you also conveniently overlook the concept that some wars aren't rational.

Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over? Whether Mohammed's heirs should have been his sons or his disciples. They've been killing each other over this for 1300 years. You think a mud brick machine is going to help here???

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[delong]

It's nice to see a country with the balls to try to make things better.

More likely, South Africa faced no security threat that required the deterrance of nuclear weapons to justify their expense.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[Pxtl]

Heheh, actually, we seemed to have finally solved the whole "sunni vs. shiite" problem. Now they're just both killing Americans.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[sql*kitten]

... because there are people like you in the world who serve only to justify inhumanity

People like me, eh? I haven't started any genocidal wars, not that I can remember.

The problem with liberals like you is that you assume that people are fundamentally cooperative and sane, if only the nasty Warmongers (or Americans or Jews or Capitalists or whoever you blame) would go away, the world would return to Eden-like bliss. My advice to you is to grow up a bit.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[ratamacue]

Actually, I have seen otherwise intelligent people readily adopt that stance (that terrorists hate the US because of our freedom, or wealth, or religious beliefs, or basically any non-aggressive act they can drum up). When offered the possibility that terrorists hate the US because the US government regularly kills innocent civilians in the wake of its never-ending war campaigns, these same people launch into a verbal assult and full-out denial of any logic which tries to "reason with the terrorists". (As if admitting that the US government is wrong would somehow give justification for the terrorists' dispicable attacks on innocent people.)

Group think. That's what we're dealing with here (on both sides, the gung-ho warmongers AND the terrorists). It's simply easier for people to conform to the group, than it is to deny the group and think for themselves. If pushed, some of these people will actually claim that it is just and moral to MURDER an innocent human being if it supposedly saves another. This is the power of group think.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[torpor]

Read the thread, Mr. Smartie.

I'm talking about machines that pump out houses and water and bricks ... not machines that pump out lead and death and misery.

Its possible to use the utterly horrifying technology of the weapon-makers for peaceful means.

All it takes is someone saying "lets do it, lets make machines that only have peaceful purposes" in spite of all the people who say "it can't be done, it won't work, we MUST fight war".

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[operagost]

They can rest assured that the US or UK will run to their aid whenever they need it, do all the dirty work, and suffer all the criticism from the One World Government.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[torpor]

Obviously you've never watched a lot of the BBC News output, otherwise you'd know that's one of the most pig-ignorant statements made on Slashdot for a while

I don't think "ignorant" means what you think it means. Ignorant is thinking that the BBC is 'above' any sort of corporate corruption ... whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

The BBC have their masters, believe me ...

I'll think you'll find with this, is that once a large group of people can self-sustain their communities, tensions often INCREASE as they start to look enviously at someone else's self-sustaining community.

My point is that if you give people the tools they need to work for themselves and improve their own conditions, then they are less likely to become jealous over the 'haves' over in the other village, and are more likely to expend the energy normally utilized in warfare for more productive, creative means.

How else can you explain the Western world, and its peaceful cities? Oh, before you go off on the "Western World Oil Hunger Wars" tangent, lets just acknowledge that there are far more western communities who are _NOT_ waging war than there are currently engaged in fierce battle" ... and the difference is that these communities and cities and regions are able to fend for themselves, using technology designed and developed specifically for the job of promoting civilization, not defeating it.

Power grids, water control, irrigation, agriculture - all of these realms would just as easily benefit from the same application of technology and investment of funds and resources as any "8-million rounds per minute" gun system ...

Give a man a shovel, and he can till the field. Give him a gun, and all he can do is kill.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[swillden]

Actually, I have seen otherwise intelligent people readily adopt that stance (that terrorists hate the US because of our freedom, or wealth, or religious beliefs, or basically any non-aggressive act they can drum up).

Well, there actually is a component of religion in the mix. Islamic leaders are very concerned about the corrupting influence that our immoral society is having on their own people. Our sort of cultural imperialism is arguably *more* threatening to them than a few bombs, if you keep in mind that to them (as well as to many serious adherents of other faiths, like Christianity), death is not nearly as bad as damnation.

As a Christian, I look around our society and have to sympathize with them on that point, at least in part. Particularly when I consider that their view of our society is primarily the one portrayed by Hollywood.

And 9/11, of course, was not at all about innocent civilian deaths, it was mostly about trying to get the infidels out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia). Bin Laden's major beef is the fact that the Saudi Royal family invited drinking, porn-viewing US soldiers and their flesh-revealing women into Mohammed's sacred land.

In fact, very little of the Middle-Eastern terrorism has been in response to American attacks on innocent civilians. The hatred is largely created by cultural imperialism, support of Israel and various apparently anti-Arab actions taken by the US government over the last 30 years in the process of fighting the cold war and suppressing Iran and Iraq.

Of course, the civilian casualties of these actions just serve to reinforce the perception that America hates Arabs. That plus the religion-based fears plus the political disagreements leads to all of the Great Satan rhetoric and the moral "justification" of terror attacks.

Be careful not to fall into your own groupthink and excessive simplification. The causes of the situation are many, varied and complex, and there is plenty of irrationality, self-serving and blind disregard for human life on both sides of the question.

Overall, I think we need to be more sensitive to the Arab world, and less heavy-handed in our approach to international relations around the globe, but I think that there's ultimately nothing we could do that would erase the fear and hatred. Middle-eastern societies are in the grip of their own great internal turmoil, as they attempt to decide whether they're going to be Islamic or secular, whether they're going to join the rest of the world in the materialism we call progress or whether they're going to stay "pure". America is the ideal symbol for one side of this conflict, and much of the hatred directed our way arises from that struggle, over which we have no direct control.

Over time, the Middle East will eventually join the rest of the world, become secularized, progressive, open and democratic. Why is this inevitable? Because that's what the vast majority of people individually want. In the case of devout and semi-devout Muslims, they also want to honor their religion and obey their religious leaders -- who do not want secularization and progress, and see that openness and democracy lead to empowerment of the common man who will act against his own best interest (in their view). But, over time, the desire for individual freedom and economic progress will push these societies away from religious control.

Just don't expect the change to be painless, or to stay within the Islamic nations' own borders.

Finally, it's also important to realize that everything I've said here is a sweeping generalization. The Arab nations are not a unified whole. Iraq is already very secularized (was prior to Saddam, and during Saddam's reign, although he used religion), Iran is very Islamist, Saudi Arabia is Islamist, but still trying to be progressive, Egypt is a melting pot with lots of factions and counter-factions, and a government that is secular. I don't know enough about Syria and Jordan to comment, but I'm sure they have their own, unique situations.

Really, it's much more complex than just "they want to kill us because we keep killing them".

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[enjo13]

ALMOST correct:

Iran is very Islamist

This isn't exactly true. There is a rather large part of the Iranian population that is not only quite secular, but VERY "western" in ideaology and culture. There has been a increasingly vocal insurgency in Iran that is promoting western ideals of democracy and secular government.

To label Iran as "Islamist" is only true of the government, but a gross injustice to it's actual people.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[swillden]

Islamic leaders do not want to lose their stranglehold on the minds of their people and by extension, their power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm sure that's part of it as well, at least for some of them.

Bullshit, it is their "it's them or us" mentality.

Wrong, there is no moral equivalence or grey area here. One group of people is targetting civilians and non-combatants, the other is not. It's that simple.

So we're lily white, are we? I didn't say we were morally equivalent, just that there's plenty of disregard for human life on both sides. When looking to see if that's true, be sure to look beyond strictly governmental actions, look at the rhetoric and actions of the people on both sides as well.

FWIW, I think we do have the moral high ground in this conflict -- I just wish we wouldn't work so hard at giving it away.

You rail against our "cultural imperialism" and then posit that a transition to a free and open Middle East is an inevitability because the people want to create their own culture which will have the same attributes as ours? Your logical paradox doesn't stand...

First, I didn't rail against our cultural imperialism. I just stated its existence. I think our (western) culture is generally good, and that its spread is inevitable precisely because it's good, but that doesn't make our efforts (overt, covert and unintentional) to spread it any less a form of empire-building. We don't invade other countries to take direct control of them, we build our empire with movies, music, trade, subsidies, etc. It's a fact, not a discussion point. You're the one who chose to read a negative connotation into the phrase.

Radical Islamists and the people whose minds they control want the extermination of all non-Islamic societies. This is their eventual goal and their interpretation of "jihad."

There are some of those, of course. There are radical extremists in every society advocating nearly every form of world change. Don't exaggerate their size or influence, though.

Re:It would be MUCH better...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Completely missing the point that...

You didn't make a point! You were snide, and sarcastic, and that's all. You said nothing of substance, okay? Let me repeat that, in case you're failing to understand: you did not contribute an idea or an opinion.

I ask again, "where is the love?". It seems Consumericans are incapable of it.

Bored now. Moving on to folks who have something to say.

Popular science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there something in the FAQ about not running any stories from Popular Science? I seem to remember that Popular Science has now become just a military porn rag. They shifted from 50% flying-cars-real-soon-now/50% super-weapons to about 90% super-weapons/10% whatever. I refuse to click on the link.

------------
Mobile porn

Re:Popular science?

[kinema]

I refuse to click on the link.

Ah, a true Slashdoter.

A sobering thought...

[acehole]

Of all the things that are happening in the world at the moment, you can take solice that we'll never run out of inventive ways to kill each other.

Re:A sobering thought...

[simong_oz]

...you can take solice that we'll never run out of inventive ways to kill each other

or reasons, sadly.

Why?

[Killjoy_NL]

I can understand the need for a good military, but to spend this much money for it.

Personally I think it would be better spent if invested in medical research and to better the relationships with other countries (admit it, a whole big part of the world isn't a big fan of the US, putting it mildly).

Not trying to flamebait people :(

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need alot of money. How 'bout starting to make wise political decisions. Watching the U.S. from outside makes it hard to sleep at night....

Re:Why?

[PsiPsiStar]

But medical research is such an EXPENSIVE way to kill things - rats in cages mostly, and a few rabits and primates. Booooriiinggg. Guns are much cheaper and far more interesting.

meanwhile, Bin Ladin

[PsiPsiStar]

We're developing space based weapons. But watch out. Bin Ladin is developing Ewoks.

Space darts?

[mkavanagh2]

"...and what are you researching now, Professor Dexter?"
"Space bats."
"Space bats?"
"You bet your ass."

Wasted potential

[NickeB]

It's depressing knowing that the potential of this technology is used for destruction. Hunting "terrorists" with a remote controlled laser-firing satelite ala some James Bond movie seems an awful lot like duck-hunting with a minigun.
The US has the most technologically advanced army/navy/whatever in the world as far as I know already...

Who needs explosives indeed?

[Motor]

I remember during Gulf War II, the British were dropping bomb-shaped concrete blocks attached to the fanastic guidance systems they have now. No explosives needed... just plonk it down on a tank from 20000 feet and it does the job with much less collateral damage.

Brilliant idea

Re:Who needs explosives indeed?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Najaf and Fallujah these past few weeks, where the US has been deploying cluster bombs and Tankbusters in tightly packed urban areas. The British armed forces are the best in the world. They patrol Basra in berets to give the idea of a police force rather than parading around in tanks marked "Rough justice" and other charming witticisms. They begged the US to demolish Abu Ghraib *before the war even started*. Every single thing the US is doing now to try and fix everything (Ba'ath minions brought back, etc etc) was suggested by the Brits a year ago. END RANT

Re:Who needs explosives indeed?

[korneel]

just take 20,000 20cm long/2cm thick steel rods with sharp points and drop them from a plane flying 4km high.
Super deadly on infantry..

Re:Who needs explosives indeed?

[WegianWarrior]

Funny, the weapon you describe is actually very close to one of the earliest form of airborne weapons developed. It was called Fléchette (french for dart) and was dropped bu the ten of thousands over german troops. However, they were recognised as beeing inefficent, lacking penetrating power and virtually inpossible to aim (wind could bring them out of course). Straffing with machineguns proved much more efficent.

The basic point of the article is corect however - no need to use explosives if you can provide as much or more energy delivered to the target by other means - and since the kinetic increases by the square of the velocity, a lump of metal can be deadly if it moves fast enought.

Re:Who needs explosives indeed?

[vandan]

Depleted Uraniam is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

Re:Who needs explosives indeed?

[meringuoid]

if brits are so great, then why don't they get their arses out of northern ireland....

Because most of the Northern Irish don't want them out? Because the Republic of Ireland doesn't particularly want to take Northern Ireland off Britain's hands anyway?

That's not strictly true...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at tank ammunition:

Discarding sabot - essentially a metal dart. This kills tanks using kinetic energy to punch a hole through armour. Makes a little hole and a lotta mess inside. This is the tank version of kinetic-only ammo, so scaling this up to use in a missile isn't a particularly new idea - the Durandural anti runway missile has a hardened nose cone and is rocket-accelerated under the concrete before it explodes.

HESH - high explosive, squash head - hits the outside of the tank and explodes against it. This shakes scabs of metal away from the inside that fly around the cabin, killing the crew. This doesn't need to penetrate to destroy the ability of the tank to fight.

HEAT - high explosive, anti-tank - this is the warhead attached to stuff like the RPG7. Nasty design - the shaped charge fires a jet of energy/molten metal through the skin of a tank, causing lots of damage inside to vehicle and crew. Even the relatively small warhead on a RPG7 can penetrate around a foot of steel.

Now, the point for the last 2 shell types existing is that sometimes, kinetic energy isn't enough. Other ways to get better results are to make the shells heavier - using depleted uranium for example. While what I'm talking about here is tank warfare, the same will apply to bombs and bunker munitions - different tools for different tasks.

Metal Storm

[temprand]

Coincidentally, I just saw a program on this tonight on History Channel. Considering that the rate of fire on existing weapons max out at around 6,000 rounds per minute, it's a large step forward. For those of you that might be interested, it takes magazines of caseless rounds and electronically ignites the detonator in the round. By doing this, it effectively removes most of the mechanical limits of firing from the weapon.

Being in the Army and having fired some very cool weapons, I've got to say this needs to be seen to be believed. What I saw tonight was out of this world.

And for those that want to check it out:
http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_latest.ht ml

(sorry, don't know how to embed URL's)

Re:Metal Storm

[ttsalo]

Considering that the rate of fire on existing weapons max out at around 6,000 rounds per minute, it's a large step forward.

Why do you need so many rounds per minute? The target can manouever out of the path of the incoming projectiles just the same. Consider an anti-ship missile pulling 10-20 g. It's already out of the way before the projectiles have travelled 100 meters. And something like Sunburn will be closing in at the speed of 1 km/s.

I'm sure it's a very cool thingy - an ordinary ZSU-23-2 is damn fun to fire - but what's the real scenario where it is essential?

--

Re:Metal Storm

[ribena]

Ummmmm...doesn't jam? Sounds pretty useful to me. Also means less to clean, and man is it boring cleaning a weapon. All round a pretty good idea...

Here's an idea...

[PsiPsiStar]

How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three years. That way, we don't leave land mines all over the place like we did in Cambodia, with people still dying from them, god knows how long after the conflict. Does anyone know if the US does anything like this? It doesn't sound that hard, and would do a lot of good. (Have them blow up at 3 in the morning, so noone is nearby).

Re:Here's an idea...

[orzetto]

AFAIK the US are not really interested in more "humanitarian" behaviour of landmines. The Ottawa convention has not been signed by a few "rogue states", including the US, Russia, China, India, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. If you don't like that company, write to your representative.

Landmines are not really meant to kill soldiers after all, they know what they look like and where they might be - they are often even designed not to kill, but to mutilate. A dead is buried, a mutilated child will be a burden for society for all his life. Fill a country with landmines, as both Soviets and US-backed Mujaheeddins did in Afghanistan, and you have cursed the country for generations.

Self-destructing mines are not going to be accepted - these days the Geneva convention is used to wipe Rumsfeld's arse, and frankly a proposal for a more expensive and on-purpose less effective weapon is not going to get through.

I'm told that mine production is not even that lucrative business. They have children mutilated with landmines that look purposefully like toys, only to make a few pennies more. Some motherfuckers.

Speaking of Cambodia, these people know something.

Re:Here's an idea...

[eclectro]

How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three year.......Does anyone know if the US does anything like this?

Sadly, even if the US did create a landmine that would turn inert over time, there are a number of other nations in the military sales business that would not bother to do so.

Certainly cost is a factor. Why buy a mine that goes dead after a period of time when you can buy two mines that don't for the same money?

The idea of self destructing landmines is completely counterintuitive not only to the nature of war, but to the purpose of land mines as well.

Landmines today are engineered to not kill a soldier (I do not know about US made landmines or if this is regulated by treaty as hollow point bullets are), but rather to cause horrific harm to him. In fact, there is one landmine that when it is triggered it launches itself in the air about waist high and then explodes.

This deeply injures a soldier in a sensitive area. The purpose of doing this is to not only take him out of action, but to tie up resources to take care of him. But most importantly, it demoralizes those around him and those that come in contact with him. If it kills the soldier, the landmine is considered a "failure".

Which brings up a larger issue of "war". There are no rules in war, period. War is the distillation of evil from the human spirit, with the purpose to cause (usually hurtful) harm to another human being. It might be a "just war" with a purpose (stop Hitler), or it might be "just a war" with the sole purpose of killing (Rwanda).

Either case, the enterprise of evil is present.

Which is why you find toys that are actually explosives so that kids will find them.

In this context, will a new type of landmine be invented that turns inert?

Yes, it will. But they will be so few in number compared to other countries that don't care, who will produce countless millions that don't turn inert. So, it could be argued that any such effort is doomed to be meaningless.

As an aside, I don't excuse what is happening in Iraq with the prisoners of war. But people forget a couple of things. First, it is a war . By definition this kind of thing is going to happen. People would like to think that American soldiers are above this behavior. But the fact is many of those prisoners have American blood on their hands, and many families here in the US will not see their loved ones again because of it.

So, from my perspective, I can see where if you had a buddy killed by a rebel and you manage to catch him, you might want to exact a bit of vigilante justice to show your displeasure.

In fact, when Americans captured such prisoners at the turn of the last century in wars, they were routinely lined up against a wall somewhere and shot. Another thought was never given to it.

I don't fault the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq. I fault the Bush administration trying to fight a "polite" war, to in some way rid the Iraqi people of the evil of Saddam and bring democracy to the Arab world. As some have said, you can win the war, but not necessarily win the piece.

The purpose of war is to inflict pain on, conquer, or kill your enemy. So, the goal of this war, "to help" the Iraqi people, is incongruous with the definition of war itself. Hence, this incongruity has produced instances of abuse in the Iraqi prisoner of war population. It was not the first, nor will it be the last time it happens. I dare say even by other American soldiers at some future date.

I am not saying that it should be accepted or excused. What I am saying is that war is an evil enterprise, no matter how smart your bombs are, or if the landmines are self destructing. And when people are fighting a war, I think it would be safe to assume that whether a landmine will turn inert at some future date or not is the very last thing on their mind. They just want it to explode when somebody steps on it.

Re:Here's an idea...

[pikkumyy]

Landmines are not really meant to kill soldiers after all, they know what they look like and where they might be - they are often even designed not to kill, but to mutilate.

Finland is one of the countries that hasn't signed the Ottawa treaty. We have landmines all over the Eastern border that is shared with Russia. Landmines are effective slowing down fast military advancement from this direction and surely is used solely against enemy soldiers.

Finland's defense plan has for years been to make fighting exhausting and slow against enemy forces and landmines serve that purpose. I agree that mining places that an army occupies for a short amount of time isn't maybe the wisest of things, but they can also be used correctly. If a vote comes, I for one will vote for keeping the mines on our border.

Space darts

[BabyDave]

... space darts, ...

Research is now beginning into surface-to-air Tiddlywinks, and atomic Shove Ha'penny.

In other news, British scientists have abandoned their work on railguns after they found that the projectiles continually arrived an hour late. This was blamed on the "wrong sort of magnetism".

Funny thing...

[-noefordeg-]

Spend billions and billions of dollars on new weapons.
Sell off all the old weapons to foreign nations to get some balance in the budget.
Realise that the weapon you sold are almost as good as the weapon you developed and start all over again researching even better and more deadlier weapons.
Sell off all the old weapons....

And then you have it going. Great profit for those who make weapons tho :) So it's not all bad.

I'd love..

[Keruo]

I'd love to see what the army is really developing.
Most of these weapons are just old ideas with gee-wish factor.
But then again, if slashdot posted something that army wanted to keep secret, we might find banner saying "servers ceased due national security issues " on front page next time we logged in.

Cletus? Fetch Mah Shootin' Iron.

[zenmojodaddy]

This just shows the fundamental problem with the American military mindset: that brute force is the way to solve everything. If the military is overstretched, give 'em bigger guns. That way you need fewer grunts to kill the gooks, ragheads, commies or whatever politically-expedient target the rednecks in the White House have found this week.

Here's a thought. Don't invade every country that looks at you funny. Then maybe the rest of the world won't hate you so much, and you won't have to spend all your cash on finding ways to kill us all real quick.

Thor

[Entropy Unleashed]

Jerry Pournelle developed the concept of a space-launched kinetic energy weapon in 1964. It's been used a decent amount in his science fiction since then, but we do have to wonder why it's taken the military so long to consider implementing it. The high cost to orbit such weapons could be part of it, but we could definitely bring costs down a lot if we ended NASA's excessive bureaucracy and came up with a launch system that didn't cost half a billion per launch.

Popular Science magazine...

[Spoing]

...neither popular (now) nor science (was it ever?).

It's tech, not science, and vapor tech at that.

Terrorism

[pubjames]

Don't we have enough bombs already?

The biggest threat to the USA in the future is terrorism. Terrorism is defeated with bombs, although the chimps currently in the White House seem to think it is.

Terrorism is just a symptom of a disease - hatred within society. For every terrorist, there will be a hundred people in the same society that feel very strongly about the same issues, but not enough to become a terrorist. That is, until you drop a bomb on their children. To defeat terrorism in the long term, you've got to tackle the strong feelings within the society that produced it.

When Tony Blair first started office, he realised this was the way to solve the Northern Ireland problem, and did some very intelligent things (along with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland) to tackle the social problems that were the root cause of terrorism in N.Ireland. Why on earth he is now supporting Bush's neanderthal approach to Al-Quaida I will never understand.

Typo!

[pubjames]

Of course I meant to say "Terrorism is not defeated with bombs..."

Also, I guess a tip of the hat is also required to John Major re. the intelligent approach to solving the N.Ireland problem.

Applicable uses of military technology

[temprand]

I see that lots of you are tearing down on the development of weapons in the context of terrorism and such. But lots of these technologies are being applied to law enforcement as well. Smart rounds being the best example. Some of these new ammunitions are based on 'smart-metal' designs that can penetrate metal or body armor, but stop and fragment when it hits tissue. Sounds bad, but would have been a great solution to the armored bank robbers in LA several years ago. Those cops did nothing but blanket a neighborhood with random shots because they were useless against soft body armor. So look at the positives of the whole argument.

Forget future weapons

[phoxix]

Deal with the ones we currently have ...

We all know Russia has plenty of weapons that are unaccounted for, (or some that have bad care taking/accounting). So instead of funding all this new bullshit, and this useless war on Iraq, how about we keep funding for arms control like Nunn-Lugar or Start III ?

Sunny Dubey

Some thoughts

[carvalhao]

Although I am a pacifist, I do believe that currently it is still a necessity to develop weapon technology, for if the Americans and Europeans don't, some other country, perhaps with less respect for human life or International Law (although the USA haven't been that respectfull with the last one), will! So it's a martial arts kind of philosophy: get the knowledge in hope you'll never need to use it.

What must be stressed, though, is that military supremacy should not be an excuse for poor or non-existing foreign policy. The best way to get and maintain peace is not through the use of weapons, as we've been repeatedly taught by History, but by respecting people, their culture and balancing economical divides. And this is true not only as far as international war is concerned but also in the little national wars that are waged in every country in the form of crime.

As a final remark: didn't "Kursk", the Russian sub, sink due to a failed test of that same torpedo technology? And now they're selling it? Great move... develop a dangerous-to-use torpedo AND get the other guys to use it! :)

Re: Some thoughts

[Black Parrot]

> What must be stressed, though, is that military supremacy should not be an excuse for poor or non-existing foreign policy.

Unless of course you're deliberately trying to start WWIII.

Re:Now I See

[Arcady13]

It's not the government's job to take care of us.

Then we should stop paying them 25-50% of the money we earn, at least until they get a leader who can speak actual English.

Superweapons vs beheading someone

[Quizo69]

I find it highly disturbing that the US recoils in revulsion at the brutal beheading of one of its own, but bats nary an eyelid when superweapons designed to kill MILLIONS are announced. Just because you can visit death on people from afar, doesn't mean you are somehow morally superior. That is already painfully evident in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we don't learn very quickly to put aside differences and work towards real peace, I fear we won't be celebrating the coming of the 22nd century, because we won't be around any more.

Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone

[NickeB]

"One mans death is a tradgedy, a million deaths is a statistic"

Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone

[BCW2]

No, but it shows the mindset of the so called "people" we are facing.

If they din't want to be treated as animals, they might quit acting like them.

Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone

[Quizo69]

"No, but it shows the mindset of the so called "people" we are facing. If they din't want to be treated as animals, they might quit acting like them."

And they could say the same of Americans. They aren't "so-called people", they ARE people. When Iraqis see a US sniper put a bullet through their relatives' heads, do you think they consider that sniper a hero? Or do you think they would call them the animals, callously butchering their loved ones like dogs?

My point is this - always, ALWAYS beware of demonising your enemy. The truth is that there are people on BOTH sides who enjoy killing, and neither represents the motives of the vast majority. When you've travelled extensively you come to realise that all peoples of the world have similar goals - raise a good family, live in peace, be allowed to do their own thing without being persecuted. Americans want this just as much as Iraqis.

But also consider how you would feel if your country was invaded, and the invaders said one thing and practiced another. You would fight back, wouldn't you? I know I would. Well, so do the Iraqis. They cannot beat the US at its own game, so they do it on their own terms. That doesn't make the vast majority "sub-human monsters" or any other derogatory term.

Yes, the beheading brought home the cold blooded murder aspect of it. I don't condone it in the slightest and having seen the full video, was disgusted by it. However, I also watched the disgusting video of an Apache crew gunning down unarmed men and shooting the wounded one as he crawled away. Is that any more moral?

Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone

[otis wildflower]

If we don't learn very quickly to put aside differences and work towards real peace, I fear we won't be celebrating the coming of the 22nd century, because we won't be around any more.

You write as if our foes are logical, rational human beings. They're not. They're sick fucking psychos who need to be destroyed if our way of life is to survive. It's us or them, as they've demonstrated. I vote us.

Real peace is when all people who don't believe in freedom, tolerance and democracy are dead. Not before.

On the matter of HEAT...

[WegianWarrior]

...or shaped charges as they are often know:
Back when the shaped charge was first developed as a usable weapon against tanks, it was seen as a way to defeat the newer, more heavily armoured tanks that had started appearing. Up to that point, a anti-tank gun had relied on the penetrating power of a solid shot - often with a tungsten core.
After a little while people realised that since a HEAT warhead did not rely on kinetic energy to punch a hole thru armour, lighter, manportable anti tank weapons could be designed and built - including the US bazooka, the british PIAT and the german Panzerfaust (the worlds first disposable anti tank weapon). Shells fireing HEAT warheads was also fired from guns of virtually any caliber during and shortly after WWII.
Relatively soon however, it was found that composite armour and, to a lesser extent, spaced armour was efficient in protecting against both HEAT and HESH shells, signaling a return to the solid penetrators - now fired by guns that could achive much higher muzzles velocities than the pre WWII designs. For manportable weapons however, it was difficult to increase the velocity of the weapon without making it larger, heavier and thus more difficult to transport and operate. Therefore the wast majoity of the manportable anti tank weapons, including the M72, the RPG-7, the TOW missile and many, many more, still uses HEAT warheads - and is likely to do so for the forseeable future. The deliverysystems for the warheads are simply not capable of delivering enought energy to make a kinetic penetrator a viable option.

Arthur C. Clarke had a similar idea

[F4Codec]

This reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke story, Earthlight. The battle was set on the moon, which helps considerably with projectile weapons.

The weapon used in this case was a large glob of molten steel, fired using extremely large electro-magnets to launch and guide the "projectile".

The image he paints of spearing a space ship, like a pinned butterfly has stayed me for a long while.

Re: 1 million shots a minute

[Black Parrot]

> Think of one of those in an Apache helicopter.
Lets's say it's fired upon with a ground to air missile. Give it 2 seconds to impact. Assume the automated gun can be aimed at the missile in 1 second. So the next second it will be firing at 1 million rounds pr minute, so about 16000 bullets are fired at the missile, surely some of them will hit and destroy.

And if not, maybe the recoil will push the heli out of the missile's path.

1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats.

[pbhj]

When you shoot this gun (I did look at the article and there aren't any details except that it's electric) more than 15000 bullets a second are leaving the muzzle. If each bullet is 1cm in length that's at least 150m of bullet and assuming a recycle time equal to 10 times the length of the bullet [*] let's say 3000m. That's a firing velocity of Mach 9.

Also, a one million strong line-up of 1cm bullets adds up to 10km of metal being fired each minute! Alternatively if each bullet is 1cm^3 of metal that's a m^3 of metal which is likely to weigh in excess of 7 metric tons (using Iron, 7380 kg/m^3 as a guidline).

So each 60seconds we accelerate 7+ tons of bullet metal to Mach 9 ... using KE (kinetic energy) formula we give it 30 thousand-million Joules of energy @ 500 million Watts (about the output of 5 large electric plants). ... They're going to need big batteries!

[*> that is the bullet has moved ten times it's length before the next bullet sets off]

PS: I'm sure someone will find a mistake in these calculations and that someone else with more gun knowledge will correct some horrible assumption, but hey.

Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats.

[carvalhao]

No to mention that, if Newton got his apples right, you'd have an incredible thrust is the oposite direction. Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing... I can envision some aircraft going backwards with this one! ;)

Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats.

[ribena]

Think you are getting a bit confused. The electrical charge only ignites the propelent in the bullets, it doesnt actually propel them forward. Also the article talks about multi barrel systems...so your speed calcs might be slightly off.

Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats.

[ivrcti]

First - essentially no reload time since all the bullets are stacked directly in the barrel before firing begins. Reducing your estimate by a factor of 10.

Second - as others have pointed out the electrical charge merely ignites the propelant rather than providing the impetus. Reducing your estimate by another factor of 100.

Third the weapon only fires for milliseconds when at full rate, reducing your estimate by another factor of 50.

Fourth - the million rate is developed by a weapon that has about 50 barrels, so the velocity of each bullet can drop accordingly, reducing your estimate by another factor of 50.

Your last sentence was the most correct, it's the assumptions that invalidate our calculations at least by a factor of 2,500,000.

Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats.

[esampson]

The stat isn't inaccurate, it's misleading. You need to understand the design of the Metalstorm system as well as the definition of what they are talking about when they say a million rounds per minute.

The design of the device is that each barrel holds multiple bullets which are triggered by coded electrical signals. The bullets can be fired one at a time, several at once or all at once depending on the instructions sent. Because of this you don't have to have a gap of 10 times the length of the bullet. Additionally the device uses multiple barrels which can fire simultaneously as opposed to current multi-barrel weapons such as gatling guns which fire one barrel after the other.

The electronic firing aspect of the Metalstorm system is not theoretical and has been fired under test conditions, so it definitely works.

Bullets do not feed into the barrel, however. When a barrel is empty you replace it with a new barrel (I assume the barrel can be reloaded at a later date, just not while in use).

The key to realize however is that the Metalstorm system does -not- fire 1 million rounds a minute. It has what's known as a cyclical -rate- of 1 million rounds per minute.

When talking about guns the cyclical rate is how rapidly a weapon will fire assuming it can sustain fire without the needs of reloading or cooling off.

The reason the Metalstorm system has such a high number is because they have one gun that has something on the order of 40 barrels. Each barrel holds 10 rounds (I'm approximating the numbers). When the trigger gets pulled the gun 'burps' out all 400 rounds at once. The time it takes from the trigger pull to the last bullet leaving the barrel is something on the order of .0004 seconds. Going by all the math that equates to a cyclical rate of 1 million rounds per minute, even though it was 'only' 400 rounds.

Of course after this you are left with a huge hunk of dead weight until you finish swapping out all 40 of those barrels.

In the end the number is more of a stunt than anything. It sure looks pretty and impressive but it is not truly an indicator of real performance. This isn't to say that the system itself is bad, merely that that one statistic isn't as impressive as it appears at first glance.

What? You mean like the British army

[Moderation abuser]

And airforce.

Did you know that before the war in Iraq "ended", the US armed forces killed more of their allies than the enemy did?

Re:What? You mean like the British army

[lobsterGun]

This isn't a new problem.

After the D-Day invasion of Normandy (in WW2) the bulk of the German Army was nearly encircled, but was allowed to escape beacuse the Allies did not want to risk the friendly fire casualties that would have resulted from completeing the encirclement.

Re:What? You mean like the British army

[phayes]

Lobster, I'm of the same opinion concerning Friendly Fire that you are, but:
- The great majority of the German army was never in France. Only 1/3 of the Wermacht was on the western front which includes all forces in southern France & Italy as well as the forces in Normandy.
- While Friendly Fire was feared & factored into plans, both Monty & Patton tried hard to close the Falaise pocket. The historians I've read attribute the failure to trap the German forces to german proficiency (being the first users of blitzkrieg they knew what getting encircled entailed) & allied exhaustion (breaking out was a Major effort. Sealing off the forces was beyond them).

Re:What? You mean like the British army

[Lord_Dweomer]

"- While Friendly Fire was feared & factored into plans, both Monty & Patton tried hard to close the Falaise pocket. "

For a moment I read that as Monty Python, and suddenly I began visualizing your post in a whole different way.

The suicide bombers from 9/11

[koi88]

The suicide bombers from 9/11 were mostly university students, therefore much more educated than the average poulation of their countries.
The problem is, you have to be a moron not to see that what the Israeli government does to their Palestinian "brothers" by all standards unfair, illegal und cruel.
Then, if you're young and clever and have a sense of justice, you feel the urge to do something against that.
If some demogugue comes along then, you're an easy victim for their propaganda.
There comes your next suicide bomber.

Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11

[operagost]

Unfortunately, reducing Afghanistan from a Third World country to worse

Unless you are an anarchist, this statement makes no sense. Afghanistan didn't even have a government before - just Taliban controlling 2/3 of the country and the Northern Alliance about 1/3. Oh, and a bunch of puny warlords mixing it up all over. Yup, it's much worse now.

Your analogy suggests that bin Laden would have just gone away if we left him alone. Are you mad? That's essentially what we were doing! President Clinton could have taken bin Laden dead or alive multiple times and failed to do so. This freed him to plan the murder of a dozen sailors in Yemen in 2000 and the murder of 3000 people in the USA on September 11, 2001.

Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11

[koi88]

what exactly is unfair? demolishing houses where snipers hide and shoot parents and their young kids on their way home?

It's this spiral of violence and revenge that doesn't let the region come to peace.
Both sides think their terrible crimes are excused by their enemy's crimes in the past.

Terrorists are different people.
You mean people like Yosef Avni, Yisrael Levi, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin? 90 people killed, not bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel
Terrorism is often the last weapon of the powerless. I don't want to excuse it, I just want to explain it.

Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11

[BgJonson79]

In my idealist world, I pretty much agree with you. In my real world, I think some of my idealism simply won't work.

That said, wouldn't you be able to tell the difference between the abuse of a hundred prisoners* and the killing of a hundred thousand people?

* I will be BULLSHIT if the perpetrators don't end up spending many, many years in Levenworth. Yeah, abuse and torture are horrible, but isn't killing even worse?

Don't they ever learn?

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Just watch Iraq. The US have an overwhelming military advantage there. Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank. The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc... Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.

Those futuristic weapons are designed to fight 20th century's wars, not today's or tomorrow's wars. What's the use of a gun that fires a million rounds per minute when you're trying to control a riot? How can space darts help you identify the terrorist hiding in the crowd?

Overwhelming weapon superiority does not work in Iraq; I don't think further increasing this superiority will work better.

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[B.Smitty]

Actually, while we may have an overwhelming firepower advantage in Iraq, we hardly have overwhelming numbers.

A general rule-of-thumb for occupations is 1 soldier per 40 inhabitants. Having less means you don't have enough troops to adequately control activities on the ground.

We have something like 1 soldier for every 160 Iraqis there today.

A Proven Formula for How Many Troops We Need

So it should be obvious why we're having these problems today.

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[Noryungi]

Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank.

Hellooooooooooooooooooooo?

Obviously, you have never seen this little page... Just scroll down through pictures. Don't ever underestimate the power of single RPG round fired at close range.

A lot of people seem to consider the British "Challenger" a much better tank than the Abrams, btw.

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[Maljin Jolt]

"Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank."

Perhaps you are a victim of your government propaganda. U.S. actually lost dozens of M1 in Iraq. No need for depleted uranium to kill Abrams, a recent RPG with melted copper core is sufficient.

"The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc..."

In Falujah setback, hundreds of US soldiers were even hungry for days because of total destruction of dozens of supply convoys from Baghdad. That was the reason for retreat and negotiation.

The problem is leaders are often overconfident with weapon effectiveness, while field tactics is always more important in real life.

Perhaps that stupid mind setup has culture roots in computer so-called "strategy" games, where resource economics and sheer power via upgraded tech wins the map.

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

The space darts are bunker and tank killers, such as the old "Thor" program to drop crowbars from orbit. Saddam spent a lot of time near the end of his career in underground bunkers to prevent assassination: being able to destroy one, precisely and without having to send aircraft over the other country is appealing.

It is also a fantastically dangerous weapon of political control of foreign heads of state and amazingly illegal under various US-signed treaties against space-based weapons. But hey, this is Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld! They don't need no stinkin' badges to go stop the terrorists!

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[autocracy]

Personally, I'm of the belief that being hit with anything disabling at the rate of one million rounds per minute will fast go from disabling to deadly.

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[Bandwidth_]

For the most part, you're right, big iron is a thing of the past. Perhaps all those burning Abrams on the side of the road in Iraq hit with RPGs, er somehow disabled, are just flukes. Oh well, the most interesting government tech thrusts are in less-than-lethal techs.

Try looking up recent research on calmatives (despite international treaty, they're hiding under the less-than-lethal mantra), and vortex based weapons (a round based modification for the MK19-3 automatic grenade launcher). Hell, I've even read entire thesis from the naval academy on the use of smells for controlling crowds. It is a very active field of military research, you just don't hear about it.

...but there's always a place for railguns. Being able to bombard a country from outside the range of anti-ship missles (without expensive cruise missles) is still needed.

Re:more torpedoes!

[Richard_at_work]

I must disagree with you here, pretty much the sentiment about the Belgrano sinking was that it was justified and correct. Court cases brought against the UK government regarding the case have all failed.

For the people who arent aware of the story, the Belgrano was an Ex US battle cruiser sold to the Argentinian Navy after world war two. The Argentinians used the Belgrano during their invasion of the Falkland Islands, which the UK has owned for nearly 200 years, but the Argentinians have always claimed as their own.

The UK government authorised the Royal Navy submarine Conquerer to sink the Belgrano after it was decided that she played a great threat to the UK task force fleet sailing to free the Falkland Islands, even tho the Belgrano was outside the "area of interest" as defined by the UK government (she was sailing to intercept the task force when she was sunk, but was about 100 miles outside the exclusion zone around the islands). She was hit twice, and sunk. The two escort ships accompanying the Belgrano turned and fled, failing to pick up any survivors now in the water, and thus sealing a lot of deaths.

THe upside of it was that the UK Navy didnt have to deal with the Argentinian Navy any longer, they stayed in port during the entire conflict, leaving the defence of the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian airforce, who could fly from the mainland and had enough range to attack the falklands.

The reason that the strike was ordered while the ship was outside the exclusion zone was that she was about to pass into a shallow area of water, which the submarine would have to go around. IT was deemed too risky to the task force for Conquerer to attempt this and search for the Belgrano on the other side, so the descision was made to sink the Belgrano before she passed into this area.

Two Points

[N8F8]

1) As long as terrorism is seen as being effective, it will be used. Terrorism breeds fear: fear makes change.

2) The current mess was allowed to fester for well over a decade before proactive action was taken. An entire generation was brainwashed to hate America as the enemy. Until they are old enough to recognize the truth and have the societal roots to care about living more than dying, the murder will continue. Population demographics in Africa and southwest Asia aren't on our side.

why is this insightful?

[holy_smoke]

really. Its more of a flamebait in its current form.

- America absolutely does NOT use brute force to solve everything.
- The purpose of better weapons is to shorten conflicts and save casualties.
- We don't invade every country that looks at us funny. North Korea is a good modern day example.
- Many countries do hate Americans, but some of that hate is rooted more in jealously than disgust. By they way, every country is hated by somebody. We have a lot of friends too.

I can't believe someone moded this insightful because its absolutely not.

Re: 1 million shots a minute

[mrjb]

16000 bullets per second, assuming each of them is 2 inches (5cm) long, makes 80000 cm=800m of bullets per second if no space is left in between. The bullets would have to travel at least at 800 m per second. According to this, that should indeed be reachable.

Somebody once commented about the physics of movies that Rambo couldn't possibly keep firing and firing and firing all that much time because the weight of all the bullets he fired would get to be way too heavy to carry around.

I'm not very well informed about weaponry, but if a bullet weighs ten grams, then a minute worth of bullets (1 million of them) weighs 10 million grams or 10000 kilograms. I don't know, but basically such a fast gun to me seems not much more than a great way to overload your apache chopper, and a fantastic way to run out of bullets real fast.

Could this be real? Possibly. Practical? I doubt it. There's only so much more benefit of spitting out even more bullets per second.

Hearts and minds

[Savage-Rabbit]

To win the Iraqi's hearts and minds would have been alot easyer, if the US had taken the time to do things like fix gas mains, ensure access to water and electricity 100% of the time and if they had bothered to repair the telephone system. Had things like this been done right away even the impact of this abuse chrisis would not be half as bad as it is. One somehow gets the feeling that the Bush administration argued:

1. Invade Iraq.
2. Arrest Saddam.
3. Everybody cheers.
4. Sheperd the Iraquis to the oil pumps.
5. Oil profit.
6. Oil profit pays for buildup.

Unfortunately it has taken alot longer to get the Oil flowing than they thought and the rebuilding of Iraq has been half hearted which has resulted in alot of angry Iraquis. And in a way it is hard to blame them, I would certainy be pissed off if electicity and gas were rationed, I had to wait in line for 4 hours in the burning sun to fill a jerrycan with water and could expect to be harrassed by US troops on police duty that have had ZERO police training (not their fault but their leaders). You expect that during the initial period after an invasion but not after over a year of occupation. It is amazing that the USA which did a very good job at stabilizing Germany after WWII did such a lousy job at taking those lessons into account when trying to stabilize Iraq.

Re: 1 million shots a minute

[zytheran]

"Could this be real?Possibly" http://www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html
(sheesh, ever heard of a search engine??)
Yes it is real.(USA does not invent everything in the world, surprising as that may be..). Although it has a high rate of fire it's not like a machine gun. The projectiles are loaded into the barrel in series. Once gone the entire barrel needs reloading. The main advantage is many bullets close to each other means you can target things things like grenades and artillery in flight. Normally the physical distance between each bullet/shell is so large the target can move far enough between each shot (say 1/10th second=30m of target movement)so that the rounds miss. If the rounds are only 1/100,000th of a second apart they are physically closer together and as long as you can aim the first shot accurately the rest of barrel load will be very close behind.Of course if you miss, the target will probably hit you before you reload the barrel. (Which is why the device typically has multiple barrels)
You can also electronically control the rate of fire to exactly what you need. e.g. 1 rounds/min to it's maximum.

American Flag?

[peterprior]

I find it interesting that the slashdot story icon for this is a nice wavy American flag. Is making missiles and weapons what America is proud of ?

Re:American Flag?

[curtoid]

America is proud of everything we do. Even things we shouldn't be, but that's another discussion.

Powerful weapons are used as deterrents, mostly, so it behooves us to always have the best and fastest and most intimidating arsenal.
Of course it makes no sense to have so many Nukes because they can't be used (too much damage, too messy to clean up). So we develop smaller, more precise weaponry. Always learning, always improving, always the best.

Torpedo technology

[dcsmith]

From the PopSci article - In the case of the supercavitating torpedo described in this article, skeptics ask where the need is. "If we ever face a hostile navy again I'd like to take a look at it," says Thompson. "Obviously it's an improvement over what we have, but what's the enemy? It's not enough to have a weapon that can use new technology creatively. It needs to answer a valid military need or threat."

He obviously doesn't read /. or he would know that that sneaky Swedish Navy is up to no good. We may need those torpedoes!!

Railgun please...

[Genda]

It was a while back, but last time I read about the railguns currently being experimented with, they were trying to raise the velocity from about 13 mile per second to a wee bit over 18 miles per second. The reason being that just over 18 miles per second, a ballistic object colliding with another object can initiate a fusion reaction (at least of limited proportions.) This would needless to say, neutralize any object the rail struck instantly, and with extreme prejudice.

Genda

I've seen what one can do.

[BCW2]

I knew a guy that worked at White Sands in the early 90's. His project was the rail gun. One evening he brought a few thing by my work and showed me the possibilities. A 5mm plastic BB, not even hard plastic, and a 4inch square of 2 inch thick aluminum with a one inch dia. hole in it. The gun accelerated the BB to mach5 and it went throug the plate like a knife through butter. Very impressive technology.

This kind of research goes on all the time, it does advance science. Wheather it ever gets used or not, who knows. Once the technology gets developed it can be adapted to other uses. Anyone think the space programs computer research was wasted? While your sitting in front of the result?

Re:Anyone understand the cavitating torpedo?

[evenprime]

slashdot discussed it at length a few years ago. The principles are well known, and the soviet military has been using 200+ mph supercavitating torpedos since the 1970s. The best article on the subject that I know of is from the May 2001 Scientific American

in every war they kill you a new way

[johnrpenner]

You can't say civilization doesn't advance,
for in every war they kill you a new way.
(Will Rogers)

j

Smart leaders not smart weapons

[Hoi Polloi]

The problem with the US military isn't a technical one, it is a cultural one. It seems strange to fret over our ability to crush weaker enemies when our military force has a budget that is greater than the other nation's entire GNP.

The question isn't how force is used so much as why it is being used in the first place. We simply have our fingers in too many places around the world.

Come on people!! Get real..

[the_rajah]

It's "Popular Science" none of that stuff that they predict ever works out.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Re:War Crimes

[Darby]

1. We don't support fascists, we kill them

Burying your ignorant head in the sand isn't helping anything.

Our Energy policy was written by the energy industry with no ability for the American public to even know who was there to set our policy.

That *is* fascism. The merger of state and corporate power.

I happen to support my government.

Good for you. I sincerely hope that you realise that that has nothing to do with Patriotism. In some cases it is, in fact, the opposite.

Re:MS DRM

[escher]

Ready! Fire! Aim!

WW2 = Good??? // Mod Parent Down!!!

[danharan]

"It harkens back to the good old days of WWII."

The good old days???

Cowardly troll! Just because it's politically correct to think all these wars are bad, we must remember it was a good and noble war against an enemy that disregarded the authority of the League of Nations. Officially using the pretext of humanitarian intervention and seeking to protect itself against terrorists, it led a campaign for unchallenged world domination, including control of resources.

A regime so authoritarian that it created attacks against itself to justify intervening against minorities and other states. A regime of such unspeakable evil that even its willing executioners smiled while butchering their victims.

Nonsense

[Rayonic]

Your link is bullcrap. Utter garbage and junk science, mixed in with an unhealthy dose of hysteria.

Depleted Uranium is just that -- Depleted . Actual research, like that from the World Health Organization, has proven the risk to be minimal:

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

So basically, don't eat the stuff, and don't hang around a battlezone while combat is going on. But that goes for regular lead bullets too.

Tactics not just technology.

[Enrique1218]

As we get more technologically superior with our weapons, we are increasingly finding ourselves in situation where they are not particularly useful. Specifically, guerilla warfare seems to be difficult to defeat with such weapons. Rumsfeld's doctrine on using advanced technology to created a slim, efficient force works well when the enemy has tanks, aircraft, and well define building that can easily distinguished for attack. But when faced with a insurgents who blend in the civilian population and use schools and mosques as bases, the doctrine becomes less applicable. This is evident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where often a strike against militants often cause unintended collateral.

Perhaps what the military needs is less emphasis on technology and more on tactics. As we becoming increasing superior in both military and resources, our enemies are going to increasingly rely on guerilla warfare and terrorism. So, our military should put more effort in its most reliable system- the soldier. No technology developed is as versatile as the human mind. They should focus mobilizing efforts on preparing the soldier for the battlefield environment that he is entering. This includes basic education in the local language with techniques to expand their skills once they are there. Also, they should give soldier better access to surveilance with a realtime view of the battefield as that they can track enemies using hit and run tactics as well as ambushes. Ultimately, they should develop a toolkit of general tactics that the soldier can then hone into a specific strategy to suit their current situation.

The technologies we should give particular focus are those that augment the soldier. Examples include body are that protects not just center mass but also the limbs, a selection of weapons that have strength in certain areas of combat such as long-range (open field) and medium/short range combat (urban), a lightweight computer that they can use to get realtime information.

Re:ObSnowCrash:

[esampson]

The Metalstorm gun doesn't really have any moving parts. The design of the device is that each barrel holds multiple bullets which are triggered by coded electrical signals. The bullets can be fired one at a time, several at once or all at once depending on the instructions sent.

This aspect of the Metalstorm system is not theoretical and has been fired under test conditions, so it definitely works.

Bullets do not feed into the barrel, however. When a barrel is empty you replace it with a new barrel (I assume the barrel can be reloaded at a later date, just not while in use). Because of this design you have no significant moving parts to jam.

The key to realize however is that the Metalstorm system does -not- fire 1 million rounds a minute. It has what's known as a cyclical -rate- of 1 million rounds per minute.

When talking about guns the cyclical rate is how rapidly a weapon will fire assuming it can sustain fire without the needs of reloading or cooling off.

The reason the Metalstorm system has such a high number is because they have one gun that has something on the order of 40 barrels. Each barrel holds 10 rounds (I'm approximating the numbers). When the trigger gets pulled the gun 'burps' out all 400 rounds at once. The time it takes from the trigger pull to the last bullet leaving the barrel is something on the order of .0004 seconds. Going by all the math that equates to a cyclical rate of 1 million rounds per minute, even though it was 'only' 400 rounds.

A Waste of Human Effort

[npsimons]

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 David Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

Dr. Pournelle helped design THOR

[Ranten_N_Raven]

For more info, go to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's EXCELLENT site and do a search on "THOR." He helped develop the idea. There are 32 hits, one of which is MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER. Another is for the book he co-authored with Dr. Possony and Dr. Kane called THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY, which was a required text at the USAF Academy for YEARS.