Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Successfully Tests Anti-Missile Laser
dankinit writes "MSNBC is reporting that a 'Boeing Co.-led team has successfully fired for the first time a powerful laser meant to fly aboard a modified 747 as part of a U.S. ballistic missile defense shield.' The test called 'First Light' has a budget of $474.3 million in the fiscal year 2005 and is part of a larger $10 billion dollar missile defense system."
Oakland can use, oh, say $20million of that. That's all. Geez.
Oh yeah, and can it stop dirty bombs in suitcases, or monitor Oakland's ports for suitcase nukes? Nope.
Ballistics, while scary, are not our biggest problem.
Yes, until 9/11 there had never been a terrorist flying a plane into a new york skyscraper, so it could never have happened.
Oh wait... it happened twice
""It showed they work," Kenneth Englade, an agency spokesman, said of the laser's six identical, pickup-truck-sized, modules linked to fire as a single unit. "The rest is fine-tuning."
For "fine-tuning" read: "everything the system is supposed to ultimately do." It's like writing the first 10 lines of code in a large project and saying "the rest is fine-tuning."
"Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under former President Clinton and a critic of early missile defense deployment plans, described the test on Wednesday as very important to people working on the program.
"They deserve a lot of credit for having gotten this far," he said in a telephone interview. "But they've still got a long way to go" to demonstrate shoot-down capability."
That's all this is, something important to the people working on the program. They want more funding. But as far as actually shooting anything down, well that's an entirely different matter:
"Among other technical challenges, Coyle said, engineers must figure out ways to fire the laser for the longer time needed to zap a missile without damaging the optics through which the beam passes -- a kind of technical Catch-22."
Details, details. But give us money and we'll happily explore the Catch-22 for a lot longer!
...can it shoot down a suitcase? Because that's where the bombs are gonna be...
This project is probably meant for defense against China but they only pointed out North Korea for diplomatic reasons. :P
Er, given that the device is mounted in an airplane there is no requirement that it shoot down missiles over America.
It would have been quite handy, for instance, when Iraq was launching Scuds in the first Gulf War. Those were nervous times.
It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran...
This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system.
Directed energy weapons are going to be a big part of future military technology. This program is as much R&D as anything else. We are already spending a lot of money on phase 1 of an "asteroid defence[sic] system". They're called "telescopes".
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
and they're not crazy enough to launch them
Kim does not strike me as a particularly mentally stable. If, say, an invasion of South Korea failed, I could easily see him launching missiles on the rest of the world. After WW1 and WW2, we stopped a lot of programs and left our selves to some extent, vulnerable. Just because there may not be a clearly defined threat today doesn't mean there couldn't be one tomorrow. Who's to say there couldn't be a coup in Russia, or that Putin couldn't start to go back to the old Soviet days. Who's to say that China will never invade Taiwan. Who's to say that India or Pakistan won't try to start a nuclear war. Missile defense systems shouldn't defend just the US, they should defend our allies around the world who could be targets, and to say there's no use for them and that the world will live happily ever after is extremely short sighted and naive.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
"the religion (chrisianity) has become more civilized and toned down as well."
No, your just trained by the US media to not think of it has "christian" violence.
People in general are uncomfortable with outsiders, religion preys on this weakness and exploits it. Thats how most religion (Including chistianity) operates. Fear Fear Fear. (they just skip the U&D.)
Terrorists are an extreme branch of a religion and are no different than the assholes who shoot abortion doctors. Do not assume that most (or even a significant) portion of muslim's hate us because we are free or christian. They hate us because we have been trying to control them and bombing them, and other fucked up shit for the better part of a century. It is really that simple. If we would have left the middle east alone and not tried to force them to recognize israel and wouldnt have supported israel then we wouldnt have been in this mess to begin with. Add to that the fact that we have supported dictators like the taliban and hussien and you can see why they have legit problems with us. Of course it is easier for people to unburdon themselves and just place the blame on bullshit like "they hate us for our freedom".
Yes, it really is *THAT* simple. Leave them alone. (How to achieve it is quite a bit more complicated, especially with an oil pimp in office)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Jeezes, if you would invest that kind of money in international / intercontinental relations and human aid, the world would be a much better place!
This starwars project sure cost a lot of money to combat a non-existing threat.
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Let us be clear: you hope Islam will one day kill off millions because they will not convert? And then become educated, civilized and toned down?
I kind of hope that, now that the world has seen the effects of holy wars that the education and toning down can happen without the slaughter of millions.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Yes, until 9/11 there had never been a terrorist flying a plane into a new york skyscraper, so it could never have happened.
Before 9/11, we have never been attacked by ICBM or hijacked plane. Post 9/11, we have been attacked by hijacked plane. So the response is to invest in an Anti-ICBM system?
I understand your point - just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it never will. But your analysis is WAY too simple. Should we invest billions in a system to prevent invasion by mutant frogs equipped with lasers, developed by radical french anti-globalization forces? Obviously not.
We need to look at every issue, and decide what the best way to protect ourselves is. ICBMs can only be developed by countries with decent technological infrastructure, and they would never be used against us because we have the military power to destroy the government of any country that attacked us.
Of course, the scientist/engineer in me loves research like this, and I am glad the we are developing defensive weapons, instead of offenive weapons.
Keep it up. Im sure your country will fall into civil war soon enough.
Why is it that we can't have mature discussion of military technology? Some ass always has to post wishing a previous poster and/or his country a quick death, herpies, or civil war.
Please grow up....for the children.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Do you think they'd send out one of these without a whole bunch of fighter escorts?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Yeah, let's have the Federal government take over all local schools. That way they can also achieve the high standards of the Washington D.C. school district.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Again, great point, except that you give no justification whatsoever for your free-market-in-the-public-school-sector attitude. If your point is that we should get rid of public schools altogether you'd have a leg to stand on...but to merely say the federal government shouldn't support local schools requires some sort of handwavy proof.
If your argument is that it isn't the federal government's domain to support education, then we'd also expect the federal government to get out of university level funding. We'd also expect the federal government to stop regulating anything other than interstate and international transactions. If its just a matter of stopping bailouts maybe you'd mention the federal deficit, or the PG&E bailout, or what about Long Term Capital? But you mention none of these...you just don't want to help out urban kids.
No, what you are saying is that it's not worth 20M to prevent the over 200,000 kids that will go through OPS in the next 20 years from getting a crappy education. Holding kids responsible for financial mismanagement by a group of adults that took place in many cases before they were moved to Oakland, entered the USA, or were BORN is a ludicrous stand to take. A rational thinker would estimate the cost of trying in a court of law, incarcerating, paying welfare for even a few of these kids will quickly surpass 20M....but a self-made know-it-all who has taken Econ 1A will just chant the familiar free-market laissez faire refrains.
Many portions of Isam feel that any other religion is inferior and almost sinful, and thus many hate Jews, Christians, etc.
Uh, huh. That would be why the Quran refers to Jews, Christians and Muslims as all "children of the book."
For instance, in the terrorst handbook thing the British found on a raid, there were discussions on why it is ok to torture. The basic idea was that Muslums are allowed to torture others because they are Gods children, while others are not allowed to.
Let me clue you into something - the muslim extremists are about as Islamic as the KKK are Christian. Taking what they say as representative of the religion is a great way to delude yourself, and justify all kinds of terrible things.
But, let's take the response one step further, you say that modern "Christian" societies have progressed beyond such barbaric reasoning? That would explain this memo from the current administration rationalizing torture in the "war on terror."
So, just who now are we suppossed to be rooting for?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Americans are paranoid nuts, and this is incurable. Spending $10B on something that fixes the problem that does not exist while at the same time making airlines seem even less secure than we thought they were - this can only happen in the US. Something tells me the "Star Wars" shit is just around the corner. $200B in military spending that can be defeated by $1M (converted to Russian roubles) in research money.
More than slightly. It says there are six, identical "pickup-sized" chemical laser modules. The number of shots is limited by the amount of chemicals used to fuel the reactions generating the laser light. While it might be good for taking out aircraft, smaller missiles, or ground targets, no way in hell this thing would be practical for intercepting RPGs, bullets, that kind of thing.
The questions we really need to be asking are: Should we have gone into Iraq? Did we plan the occupation correctly? Did we make a mistake in disbanding the Iraqi military? Did we screw up by not securing caches and stockpiles of high explosives, RPGs, and portable SAMs? Does our government have a sufficient grasp of reality and the strengths and weaknesses of military and diplomatic approaches to put a stable government in place? Do our tactics, goals, and foreign policy make people less likely to take up arms against our soldiers, and civilians, or more likely?
These are the major issues. None of these are technology issues. Unfortunately, Americans have a bad habit of thinking every problem is a technology problem, and furthermore that if technology hasn't solved it in the past, we just haven't used technology which is sophisticated and expensive enough.
Germany will never try to conquor Europe! They'd have to be crazy to try! Why would they piss off that many countries? Not to mention attacking the Soviet Union in the Winter?
You act as though it's a sane world, and nobody ever acts irrationally... The US was behind the ball at the start of both world wars. We don't want to be in that position again. Remember what happened to the technically challenged French in WWII? I believe they call that "steam rolled..."
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
were called "terrorists" because they went after civilian targets. Is it just me, or is the "American" English language expanding the word to apply to all enemies of the state?
.
Kind of scary that I almost read through the parent post without giving it a second thought . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Lets compare with some facts with the recent history of the United States.
"Check out how they blew up Korean Airlines 858"
Google for: USS Vincennes. On the 4th 1988 over 290 passengers of an Iranian passenger flight were killed by the US Navy.
"Or how they kidnapped Japanese civlians." Compare with the indefinate holding without trial of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
"Or how they starve their own population" Compare with the 1999 Unicef report stating an estimated 1/2 million Iraqi children were killed by sanctions implemented after the first gulf war. (I love how the rights new moral justification for the war in Iraq is on humanatarian grounds. I must have missed the moral outrage when this report came out in 99)
"Or even how they test biochemical weapons on whole families - children and all: "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth to mouth breathing." Lets compare with the United States's pardoning and relocation of War criminals from Japan (who tested Chemical weapons on Ethnic Chinese and prisoners of war) after the second world war to futher develop their own Chemical weapons program.
"Of all the evil regimes to be apologetic for, North Korea is about as bad as it gets. Anyone who defends them is objectively defending evil."
This is pretty much the comment that made me reply. There is alot of evil in the world, alot of it directly created by the United States, (Look at Nicaragua as a very good example of this, and the subsequent world court ruling against the U.S.) and alot of it created by places like North Korea.
Do I think what the North Koreans do is moraly wrong and evil? Yes. Do I think it is more inherintly evil than the U.S.? Yes. Which one is more dangerous to world peace? Without a doubt it is currently the United States. The United States is the worlds only remaining superpower, and has shown a willingness to try and shape the world in its own image.
When the United States follows its own ideals, it can become the policeman of the world. Until then, I believe getting a mandate first from the rest of the world http://www.un.org/ may be a wise course of action. It is not a matter of letting the U.N. "protect" the United States.(By all means go and build a aircraft laser platform)
It is the allowance, that before you go and invade another country, the majority of the world sees some justification for it first.