Slashdot Mirror
Laser Cannons Coming to an F-16 Near You
dxprog writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Pentagon is designing a laser cannon that's small enough to fit onto a fighter jet yet powerful enough to knock out a missile. "The High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), being designed by the Pentagon's central research and development agency, will weigh just 750 kg (1,650 lb) and measures the size of a large fridge." Now all we need to do is make fighter jets space worthy for that true Star Wars feel."
Will there be friggin sharks on them too?
Weren't they forbidden by the Geneva convention?
--
Dreamhost superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
Now they just need to be mounted on those damn sharks.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Tom Cruise will have to go in a re-dub the Top Gun Movie to say:
I'm too close for Missles Goose, I'm switching to Lasers!
---
Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing.
Once we get them into space, will they make roaring, whooshing noises and manuever just like they did in atmosphere? 'Cause otherwise, forget about it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The High Energy Laser Area Defense System
So what's the other L for?
I swear, the military just loves acronyms, whether they make sense or not! And what's an area defense system?
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
4 out of 5 swinging dicks recommend more steel plates for their humvees, not another toy for the flyboys.
That's nice and everything, but when can I get them for my car?
But will it cook a Jiffy Pop container 20' in diameter?
That's right, I read at +2 and post at +1. Not even I care what I have to say.
Anyone ever come up with what the Aurora was powered by?
...mit laser cannons!
I'd love to see a pulsed-fusion plane...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
It sounds like this laser isn't for blinding but for anti-missile defense. It isn't covered by the Geneva convention.
NO, NO! NOT MY EYES! AAAAAaaaarrrrrghhhh.
Okay, now I have to enter this stuff to avoid the caps filter. Talk about spoiling a joke....
If you post it, they will read.
They can put these things up there, but how will they really be powered? 15kW of energy is a lot to expect from any sort of battery system, unless the weapon can only be used once... Next they'll want to strap a nuclear reactor on the fighter planes to power the next version of the laser (150kW). And if they do have a way to power this for multiple shots, why isn't that same energy storage technology being used in my damn car so I don't have to pay $3 a gallon to fill up the tank?
Will these new laser cannons be able to shoot box cutters as well?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I can see the headline now: Air Force "reflects" on decision to purchase sexy new laser, after a test backfires when attempting to shoot down a mirrored missile...
& yes, defending against laser is that simple.
how long until russia or china figures this out? you want to fly into airspace that can be dissected fifty times in ten seconds? no jet can outrun light.
HELLAD DARPA PAGE
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Pew pew or Brzzap?
I dunno, something the size of "a large fridge" seems pretty bulky to strap to a fighter. Seems more suitable for a bomber somehow.
-- Conserve binary trees; recycle your email. --
Now all we need is a targeting system that can get close enough, hit a missile with its laser toy, and hold the beam steady on the target long enough to actually destroy it -- all before the missile is able to do its own damage. I'm betting they'd have better luck with kinetic interceptors that at least only have to hit once.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
You mean there really was a purpose for all those round rings on the barrels of the sci fi lasers? Guess you just have to be going mach 1 plus to work.
Well, we haven't had very good luck shooting down missiles when the platform is stationary. Why they think it'll be easier when firing at a moving target from a moving platform, I have no idea.
That's not to say that I don't think it makes sense. Air combat these days is all about moving your missiles close, firing them away, and high-tailing it out of there. It'll be interesting to see what happens if missiles suddenly become useless and people have to close to visual range and dogfight away.
From TFA: Great, does that mean it'll eventually get to the size of mini-bar fridge?
a 150-kW beam and capable of knocking down a missile will be ready by 2007
Hmmm, I'm torn.
On one hand, IF it hits its intended target, that is one less "consumable" missile defense that has to be manufactured and paid for--> not a "one and done" defense.
On the other, it's one thing when stray bullets strafe a school like in New Jersey, but oh my, imagine the holes this could leave.
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
How about a honkin' big jet turbine engine?
Actually, I seem to recall reading (albeit in a 'Popular Mechanics' or some such light fare) about the larger all-liquid versions. These things apparently derived their power from a chemical reaction, the reactants being stored in big tanks. I believe that was a big reason for needing a 747-sized platform.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Well, considering four out of the first eight top-level posts are shark references, I doubt it's all that obscure.
Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
This reminds me alot about general granger who only used planes and almost all of them had a laser defense system. In all seriousness through if this thing could be used repeatedly i think they are better off in helicopters not on jets.
Forget laser cannons, I want my plasma cannons and fusion ball launchers.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Just perfect for my UAHTV (Urban Assault High-Technical Vehicle).
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
you insensitive cloud!
Your insult would have much more sting if you could provide some examples of sensitive clouds (maybe they're the ones raining?)
Wow. If anyone has ever played the EA produced game Command & Conquer: Generals, it seems that EA is right on target.
I will be expecting anti-missle/anti-aircraft tanks(Avengers[C&C:G]), and anti-missle weaponry on military and commercial planes.
---
Posting in an unimportant Slashdot Article Thread.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
and measures the size of a large fridge. Cool! Lasers have been used for measurement before, but I bet this is the first time the military has been able to measure your fridge in your kitchen from 20,000 feet. The small hole in the kitchen ceiling is a small price to pay for this protection from oversize fridges.
Now we just need to slow light down to 100 miles an hour and we can do r33l star warz.
Some versions of the JSF will have a laser system installed in the empty cavity used for the second engine in the VSTOL variant. The last thing I read on this suggested that the firing rate would be once every 30 seconds due to cooling requirements. I doubt any F-16 based system mounted on external hard points would be any better.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Maybe it'll act as a box cutter shield too?
When will we learn that fancy weapons don't protect us from 1920's era opponents.
But then again, a lot of the hawks still think we're at war with the communists.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
F-16 operating ceiling = 15.240 kilometers
Minimum LEO satellite altitude = about 150 kilometers
I couldn't find any information about the range of the HELLADS system; that information is probably classified. However, TFA claims there will be a 150 kilowatt version of the laser by 2007. Any laser experts know if that power of laser can take out a target 135 kilometers away? Is the idea even feasible?
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
It's not clear from TA whether this is a pulse or continuous beam laser. My guess is that it would be pulsed, in order to carry enough energy to actually destroy anything.
But would the laser not need to be running to be warmed up so it can fire on demand? Would they just switch it on when they get near the combat area?
Also, targeting may only be a problem as far as moving that fridge around is concerned (well, the objective lens anyway, for want of a better term). Remember that it's a laser - at the distances concerned, it's more or less going to hit it's target instantaneously, or at most a few microseconds after being fired.
Corner Reflectors anyone?
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
I thought that vertical thruster was just a big fan connected to the main engine by a shaft?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
will the pulses keep travelling in a straight line and vaporize whatever is in front of them on earth?
i mean, the laser has to be powerful enough to work at a distance of several km, and a plane is only several km off the ground. normally if a missile does not hit its target it detonates in midair (raining debris on the ground), but this seems a bit more problematic.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Most, if not all of the US military engagements can be classified as offense, not defense. Why do they call it _Defense_ system, and themselves Department of Defense?
It's a misnomer really. They should have called it THFS - TowelHead Frying System, because that's what it will really be used for.
Cool if it works. But how does the laser know there's a missle on the way? And how does it keep focused on it while the pilot is trying to pull a 9-G turn? It would take gonads of neutronium to maintain a straight course while the missle is heading your way.
My F's only go up to 12
1.21 GIGAWATTS!
space is pretty cool.
Remember Ralph Reed? He left the CC to work quiety around the backdoors of Washington. Consider that the original name for operation Iraqi Freedom was called (regretably) some sort of Crusade. Mistake? I wonder, really.
These kinds of lasers would be so handy for picking off people like Bin Laden, all we need is line of sight. Sadly this could be used against anyone else "inconvenient."
Wasn't there a movie about this, where is eventually was space baced and did a giant Jiffy Pop in someone's living room?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1.21 GIGAWATTS!
... cause the extension cord off the back of the F-16 sure doesn't run that far ...
...
...
Now, the next question someone should be asking, is where the heck do you get that kind of power supply
Maybe we are seeing why in Evangelion they had power couplings they had to attack their Giant Robots (ok, beasts whatever) to, and they had massive power cables to power their laser rifles
Methinks we'll be begging the French to let us hook up to their Commercial Size Fusion Reactor to power these
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Infra-red lasers do not get reflected by shiny things. Most military class lasers operate in the IR spectrum.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This story reminds me of the ABL...
e s/aviation/12380334.htm
Latest article I could dig up:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industri
Website about the ABL:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/
I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
Those Pentagon folks need to get reined back significantly. Human mind dreams up endlessly more gadgets, and what is it for? Destruction!
US war budget needs to be cut back by 90 %. Money needs to spent elsewhere: education, environment, infrastructure.
If those stupid polititians cannot get along, they should get locked up in a room with water and bread until they sort out their issues and not suck everyone else. Smart people get along.
But you wouldn't see the beams. Especially in space...
So you're saying that in prior wars, the enemy didn't try to blow up vehicles with boobie traps?
The cake is a pie
Well, at least the stray light doesn't leave as much of a mess as spent uranium does. And it doesn't fall back to earth if you shoot it up in the sky.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If you mirror the optics on a guided missile, it'd be blind!
Maybe a reflective missile with some sort of a selective wavelength mirror. Maybe a dichroic mirror or holographic notch filter.
In addition to shooting missiles out of the sky, it would also be very effective at zapping people. It's much easier to shoot a beam of light at someone on the ground than it is to fire a hellfire, maverick or JDAM. It moves at the speed of light.
With 10 of those 1kW power supplies :-P.
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
the Bad Guys will buy lots of Disco Balls.
That and giant enormous mirrors and tin foil hats.
Oh, come on, did you actually think noone would think of it?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Maybe it'll act as a box cutter shield too? When will we learn that fancy weapons don't protect us from 1920's era opponents. But then again, a lot of the hawks still think we're at war with the communists.
The best box cutter shield is the 100+ enraged passengers who know they have nothing to lose by attacking a suicidal hijacker. Oh that and the armored cockpit doors. No lasers needed.
In addition to our favorite Libraries of Congress, metric buttloads, and the like, we now have... large fridges.
As in: your momma's so fat, her volume must be five large fridges!
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
So is liquid another name for chemical?
From what I understand, DARPA spent most of it's laser money in the 80's and early 90's on chemical lasers because they are capable of much higher energy. But the drawback is that they use up their fuel and require huge cooling systems. The truck-mounted lasers and the one in the 747 are chemical lasers.
And obviously a solid-state laser just needs electricity so that is a lot easier to come by on a battlefield, but solid state lasers have been limited in their power, and have to be pulsed. If a 150Kw solid state laser could be fit to a small plane, you would have a very effective weapon (outside of smoke, clouds, rain) that would not need reloading and wouldn't miss very much.
So is this new liquid laser a hybrid of the two, or is it a cousin to the solid state laser, or is it an entirely new beast that deserves it's own species? And does it need to be reloaded?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If they upgrade the airstrip in Gitmo it wont matter.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Is this the beginning of the Death Gliders from Stargate?
humans respond very quickly to Audio signals.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Real Genuis - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/
"I'm sure that will help tremendously when it comes to protecting soldiers and civilians from getting blown to smithereens by roadside bombs and/or suicide bombers."
You're right, it won't stop anything stationary like roadside IEDs or very hard to detect suicide bombers, but may be able to protect soldiers and ships from RPGs and rockets, like the ones fired at Navy ships in Jordan last week, I don't think firing a Phalanx in a crowded harbor whould be a good idea. If it's a moving car bomb it may be able to melt through the engine and/or detonate the explovsives.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Satalite detection system will feed aircraft location information to the fighter, thus allowing the to shoot laser at thing vrom a long away, and at the speed of light.
Something like this could end military aircraft needs. Nothing can respond faster then the speed of light. After all, what is a jet beside a missle that returns to an airfield?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
3.In the beginning, a saturation attack by many missiles would overwhelm the missile's cooling system, but since in air combat their are not that many missiles fired, it would certainly give the edge to the plane with one.
Sidewinders and Silkworms, anyone?
The typical claim is that SS109 bullets are dynamically unstable in flesh, though they are stable in flight, so they begin to tumble upon entry, doing lots of damage along the way.
Personally, I find this claim doubtful, though I have no hard evidence one way or the other.
American military pilots have gonads of neutronium.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
High Energy Laser Area Defense System
...or
I think Gasseous Optical Nuetral Area Defense System would have been a better name. What do you suppose would instill more fear in the enemy?
"Run for your life! The HELLADS are coming!"
"Run for your life! The GONADS are coming!"
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I love your writing style - it reminds me of a Star Wars into crawl.
Episode IV: A New Lack Of Hope
It is a period of civil war. Rebel guerrillas, striking from hidden bases, have won their first victory against the PENTAGON. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to America's ultimate weapon, the MISSILE FRIGATE, an armored aircraft with enough power to destroy an entire peaceful wedding party.
Pursued by the sinister agents of CONGRESS, Princess Raghad Hussein races home aboard her taxi, custodian to the stolen plans that can dominate her people and change type of tyrannical rule in force in the country.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
F-16's can carry large bombs and fuel tanks, I'm pretty sure it can handle something like this. The hard part is the bulk, the weight isn't too much of an issue.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
Yes, but what happens when countries can afford there own ground based version. How exactly, would we get a plane past one?
You could even create an unmanned High Altitude dirigable witha few mounted on it.
Seem like a pretty good border defense system to me.
So you could get a plane over the border to take out a single target.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
the originals had a round so long it would tumble and seriously maim someone. So they where changed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think most clouds are sensitive. That's just a guess by observing them though. I mean, look at Enya videos, they have fluffy dreamy clouds. Then there are the insensitive ones like that Lakitu guy, which I'd say was the target of the "insensitive cloud" statement in question.
or an armed air marshal.
and no, a few rounds in the side of a plane will not cause explosive decompression. The hole is to small for much air to leave. You would need to make a hole about 1 foot by 1 foot for something like that..and then iit would on happen until the first body got stuck.
"Oh that and the armored cockpit doors. "
that also requires people on the other side with the ability to ignore the screams of the passangers as they are tortured.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Who cares what the Geneva convention says about lasers. Everyone knows that the exhaust ports will be ray shielded, so they are already an irrelevant technology. The important thing is who is research on proton torpedos comming along?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
but at the speeds the star wars fighters must be going, a 90 degree turn wouldn't be wise.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hell, we need to put them one one of these:
:-P
http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/f104.html
HAHA it's a Starfighter! Get it? HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
We put those people into the military so they'd kill people in other countries rather than back home.
Let's make sure we keep the blue lasers for the good guys and only sell/export red ones to the bad guys.
Sounds like a an anti-satellite platform to me.
Without Artoo, it's NOT an X-wing!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I went to U.S. Airforce Space Readiness Briefing while I was a Congressional intern this summer.
Lasers were covered and I had a brief chat with the Air Force representative after the briefing.
The USAF is sticking lasers in 747's and the army is testing ground-based systems.
The aircraft-based lasers cannot inflict any physical damage. They are powerful enough to scramble electronics. The goal is to target a missile shortly after it is launched so that its guidance systems fail and the missile lands in the enemy's territory, never reaching its target (us). Their goal is to use this as a powerful deterrent by making it very risky to launch missiles.
The ground-based systems can inflict physical damage, but are nowhere close to being airborne (they're much too massive). They are, as I was told in July, still "in the lab." (I later saw a full-page ad in "The Hill," a capitol hill newspaper, promoting Lockheed Martin's ground-based laser systems as though they were about ready. I'll trust the USAF officer's discussion more than the corporate advertisement.)
A key misunderstanding of lasers is in the kind of damage they inflict. Lasers will poke holes through objects but do not cause a target's destruction or explosion -- however, shooting through or over-heating a target's fuel tank will cause an explosion. And of course, to re-emphasize my major point, we don't have airborne laser cannons --- their goal is basically to inflict a kind of EMP-like damage to missiles. I asked about getting these things into UAV's and was told they'd love to do it, but don't expect anything for another 50 years.
So what happens if the (intended target) missile's surface is extremely reflective?
(Honest question, I don't know...)
In your case NRA would stands for "Not Reading All the way"....
In his case... well If you cannot figure it out by now, its hopeless...
...pass me a mirror, it's the darned USAF again!
The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
That's a bit overoptimistic and utopian. As long as somebody has what someone else wants, there will be conflict. And as long as there is conflict, there will be war.
Just because we as humans are aware of it doesn't mean we can change it. From bacteria to humans, competition breeds conflict. That's not about to change.
... that it'll cost a fortune and wont work worth a damn.
You can minimize diffraction over distance with a Bessel beam. Maybe someday we'll have Bessel beams with a Rayleigh (equivalent) range of 150 km--I don't follow the research closely enough to know for sure. Slashdot needs more OEs.
By the way, you write like a schizophrenic dope head. Nothing personal. I'm just glad you're in the NRA.
This mirror will have to have very aggressive cooling.
"It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized." Not if you are the invading army, and there is a known resistance. If you know someone will kill you if you don't kill them first, you do not need to dehumanize them. You will find the ability to kill them becasue of your own instinct to survive.
750kg sounded heavy for an F16 to me, but after looking at this, it actually seems pretty reasonable.
ps. clicking this link will likely open up a permanent record for you with homeland security - gotta love the patriot act.
ôó
I don't know about two sharks, but a large school of angry Sea Bass could do the job.
Monty Python would use an unladen swallow.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Is it just me or do you think that someone was just watching "Real Genius" and turned it into a news story? I mean, they're talking about a "chemical laser, but in solid, not liquid form." (that's a quote from the movie and almost identical to the press release). Also they talk about achieving an "order of magnitude." It's like they turned that one scene into an article. So, I guess after everyone goes out drinking to celebrate, Laslo will convince them to sabotage the whole project...
Not only is 15kW enough to knock out a missile, it's enough to burn holes in things like fuel tanks, etc. of opposing aircraft.
But finally we're stepping into weapons of the 21st century and beyond. All I want is my portable 1kW laser. Actually doesn't even need to be that powerful. The 150W CO2 lasers I once used could cut through metal. I imagine they'd cut through human tissues at much lower power levels. Hell, the 25W laser engravers could do metal too.
Imagine the look on the face of a perp when you announce that you aren't just going to shoot him/her but vaporize them.
Caterpillar 1750 kW Standby Diesel Generator and the starting bid is only $240,000.00. It looks a little bigger than an F16, but it will get you started fer sure. Ebay, baby!
Its the perception of nature as a 'killer' world, red in toooth and claw, with its roots in 18 century England, that's part of this problem.
Symbiosis plays a much larger role, right down to our own cell structures, that competition. Things have a habit of trying to find 'unoccupied' niches rather that directly compete. That's a decidedly human trait.
I'm not saying that there's no predation, there is and it tastes good, but there's far less competition than you think.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
and, if they used an X-Ray laser, you'll get Hell(ad) from a nurse for not wearing a lead apron.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I wonder how well it will cook popcorn?
This is the most blatant karmawhore I've ever seen on Slashdot.
"See, the thing about soldiers is, they need to kill people"
You don't know many soldiers do you? Yours is a fuzzy sentence but it's hard to read it in any other way than that you're saying they have some basic need to kill out of their own volition. Some people do have such a need but those aren't fit for anything really, least of all things military duty (yes they get screened out and denied). Does killing and war break some people? Of course, but extremely few have a "need" to kill, quite the opposite.
If you have a society that makes every soldier into a "must-kill" caricature of the human beings they are well then the military is truly the least of your problems. The only society I know of where this could be even remotely close to being the case is North Korea (and even there it's unlikely that even if they try to do it they actually succeed).
Soldiers are human and it doesn't make sense to take the "human" out of them - it is counterproductive and realized to be so by just about everyone associated with any modern military force (which excludes people who think children suicide bombers is a good idea or communism and facism which instigated programs like Hitlerjugend and Red Pioneers).
"The answer to this paradox, IMO, war is simply incompatible with civil society"
You're beating Jacques Chirac, the master of the art of speaking without saying anything, at his own game here - are you a politician?
FYI I'm a former military officer in a european country and I can assure you that my opinon on this is not in the minority.
I believe the Joint Strike Fighter program was already considering the concept of a laser-mounted weapon. As I recall, the Marine version of the JSF has a large ducted fan in the center to provide VSTOL capability. Since the Air Force and Navy wouldn't be needing that ducted fan, that large space in the middle of the fuselage, with substantial power already provided in place by a driveshaft from the engine, would make a natural selection for implementing a high-energy laser weapon.
When we were kids, we were right!!!
When fired, the cannon goes BEW! BEW!
Did anyone else read that as, 'Laser Cannons Coming to a Shark Near You' ?
Oh wait this is slashdot...
There were more traffic deaths in the 'States that there were casualties in the WAR in Iraq.
But the toll of the PEACE is Iraq is just a tad more that the American population would like.
Its a good thing that Bush is a lame duck. I don't think he could win reelection again the way things are there and here right now.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"From bacteria to humans, competition breeds conflict."
Individual conflict is not war, war is a group behaviour that has only been observed in humans and (possibly) chimps. I agree that war is part of our basic nature, it is born from the failure of politics. This does not mean we have to encourage the failed "politicians" who resort to blowing up London busses or mud-hut villages. It simply means our natural tendency is to support our "leader's" blood-lust, if more people were aware that this tendency exists in ALL humans then humanity as a whole would be better equiped to reject a failed politician's call for war.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If someone's got this thing mounted on his F16, a laser device that can shoot flying objects... I just can't see being his wingman.
-JDF [Whose karma just got -1 Pun'd to death...]
It was badly worded. I meant soldiers are needed to kill, not that they have a need to kill.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
"It is impossible for most psyches to kill a human they have not dehumanized
You give people alot of credit where none is due. People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them. Case in point? Most murders (76%) are comitted by people that know the victim. 22% of the murders in 2002 were comitted by family members.
Logically it would semm to be much more difficult to "dehumanize" (whatever the $%^@ that referrs to in a psychological sense) someone that you know personally than a total stranger. Seems to me like it takes knowing someone to be able to to kill them, not the other way around.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You're thinking the Russian 5.45mm x 39mm round I think.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
The fighter jet may be sexier but it's already packed with as much stuff as possible in an aerodynamic shell, so fitting a refrigerator size laser into it would be a lot harder than just mounting it on one of those large transport helicoptors.
Then all they would have to do is line them up in formation and shoot down all the missiles and artilery that is shot at the most important bases and troops.
The Defense Department is wasting valuable taxpayers' money. Does no one at the Pentagon remember that GI Joe (the code name for America's highly-trained special-mission force) *and* Cobra (a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world) had fighter jets with lasers *twenty years ago*?!? Not to mention laser tanks and laser pistols. Heck, even Shipwreck's old fashioned-looking flintlock shot laser beams. There are even highly-detailed blueprints available on the Web!
Yet again, the government forgets that it had fighter jets (with lasers) in space twenty years ago! Sheesh!
Until all the world is a civil society, there will be the possibility of war and the need for civil society to defend itself. The solution to the dehumanization and aggression problems that you mention are solvable via the institutions which "manage" these functions in society.
Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill. They happened because the institutional protections broke down. When Gonzales wrote his memo stating that the Geneva Convention was quaint, the President and the rest of the civilians in charge of the military showed where priorities lay. By not showing the required leadership, they failed to fulfill their duties and minimize the risks of such self-defeating actions taking place.
Had their been leadership shown or at least a sense of accountability within the institution, as there has been in the past, we would not have seen this much abuse, nor would it have weakened our global standing as much. The spin of a few bad apples is fooling no one outside of the US, which makes one wonder why half the population of the US and it's executive institution believe they can bullshit their way through the problem of global terrorism and radical fundamentalists.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
That explains why people who are war supporters seem to be incompatible with civil society.
Th
If the US had to pay back all the money they earned due to industrial espionage they did "coincidentally" with these nice little 20m dishes - of course only used to save us from the evil russians - a lot of money would come back!
Don't misunderstand me - in the last century the US did a great job in europe - but the US has a really strong tendency to forcefully bring every body in the world "democracy" (hey in this matter you also have to learn a great deal again!) and of course civilization. During doing this they tend to be ignorant for local customs and culture (yes - there are ways of living other than the US way), piss up locals and create terrorists (some of them call them-self freedom fighters)!
- or is it not only about bringing civilization but also control some oil....
I honor what has been done but I don't like the myth of selflessness!
Europe/Germany
Torture and violations of human rights didn't happen simply because we taught a our guys to kill
Right. It happened because some people are assholes, and some of them got jobs with the National Guard, just like some got jobs with the Post Office, and some work the cubicle down the hall from you. Further, some are in the chain of command supervising (or not, in this case) the people pulling guard duty at a prison. If your theory is correct, and this is policy all way from the top, there would be many, many more instances of what we saw in that particularly disfunctional unit. We're talking about a force of a couple hundred thousand people. What's your ratio of losers per thousand people you know? How about of losers per thousand bosses?
No accountability within the organization? Do you even personally know any people in the armed forces?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sometimes I think it's just people that are incompatible with civil society.
Exactly. For the most part, only a family member or very close friend can push your buttons effectively enough to drive you to murder. Strangers? Bah! Gotta be crazy to want to murder someone you don't know.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Everything the US did in Europe in the last century was seen as in the best interests of the US. Many Europeans found that that suited them just fine and have been forever grateful. But to suggest that 'Europe' has any obligation to the US is stupid. There were no US towns firebombed. It wasn't US citizens of being herded into camps outside Tulsa. Tanks didn't obliterate an entire county in Virginia.
Fact is, 'Europe' knows what all that shit is about. And too many in the US don't have a fucking clue. Tie a yellow ribbon, man.
As to your question, a powerfull laser could also make air warfare obsolete.
You do realize that the same was said for gunpowder. And the Gatling gun. And the battleship, aeroplane, tank, gas, a-bomb...
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
They need a +1 Stupid funny, seriously. That's the kind of thing a little kid says when he's playing army with his friends. "Dude, I shot you!" "No you didn't, I used my turbo boosters, your bullets can't hit me!", "No dude, I shot you with my LASERS!", "Well I had a mirror and I shot it back at you!", "NO FAIR!"
...make a keen sound?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
war is simply incompatible with civil society
Some would say that civil societies won't exist if they're not willing to make war.
"Soldiers need to kill people"
I believe what the poster intended was: "Soldiers need the capacity to kill people" - not that there is a pathological MURDER DEATH KILL theme to the ranks. They need good tools.
Soldiers kill people - that's why they're there, that's why they have those boom-sticks. Who they are told to kill and where is a matter for polticians, representing (hopefully) their country's and citizen's best interests. Armies impose the will of others onto people who do not agree via deadly force. They are the force arm of governments, who maintain a monopoly on violence. This is pretty basic stuff, but washed over in fuzzy recruitment campiegns and oft misunderstood here.
Although your interpretation of his remarks does shed some light on your own concerns.
Human conflict is as old as the ages but for the past few generations the reality of such has been removed from the experience of most people. In matters of war, I want my side to have the best, biggest, and most effective killing technology available. I also want my government to use said killing technology as an absolute last recourse.
..don't panic
This is yet another example of the many we've had over the past few years that Pentagon planners are not big on carefully thinking things through and making sure the solution fits the problem (let alone what the problem is, or if there is one to begin with). This laser weapon is the sort of thing a foolish and impulsive little boy would ask Santa Claus for, and throw a few tantrums to make sure he got it. After Christmas and after seeing what an idiotic toy it is, into the closet it goes, much to the chagrin of his parents who got conned into buying such an expensive and useless toy.
How many poor bastards will be accidentally maimed by this thing before the Pentagon concludes it was a stupid idea and shelves it?
... than can be defeated by a can of turtle wax and a little elbow grease. Polish those missiles! I want to see laser beams reflecting off of there by 1400!
No one of consequence
Frickin' sharks with lasers attached to their heads!
Wellcome to the hell.
The hell is a permanent place for you to stay, we have plenty of room for you and all your loved ones you can take with you. We will raise strong emotions in you.
We offer you a nice range of leisure activities, like scourging, crucifixion and impalement.
We won't leave you hanging too long, since we have lots of activies available for you to enjoy.
And you will NEVER get enough of it. The flames will affect your comfortability all the time.
Remember this: forget Jesus, forget God. Come here. and WE have a great time with you.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
I wish I would get the opportunity to fix those once they produce them and they go out of warranty :(
The friggin' sharks are ready. Just need some lasers.
How stupid can you get. This is a laser with a beam diameter of certainly less than a couple feet which probably can't fire for more than a minute or two. To suggest that it could even possibly be used as a WMD is laughable idiocy.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
This is just in time for the so called Lex A380. The US house of representatives is working on a law that would make a missile defence system mandatory for passenger jets with a maximum of 800+ seats or 450+ tons of weight.
The only airplane with such a capacity is the brand new Airbus A380. Boeing does not offer any passenger plane of that size...
"If Europe would pay back the US for are protection, then we could diverta Lot of tax payer money into other things."
Ah! Now I understand why the US is trying to force it's RI/MPAA and copyright/patent laws on Europe!
"europe used to be as bad as the middle east."
True...but that was in the 18th century...about when you had some unrest too.
"a powerfull laser could also make air warfare obsolete."
Yup...just like missiles made dogfighting obsolete.
"[x] is actualy saving lives because it is incredibly more accurate then technology used 60 years ago."
Hoo-boy, do you have an awfully simplistic and very much incorrect view of the world. History has taught us that technology makes for BLOODIER wars instead of les bloody wars. Look at what happened when the (cross)bow was introduced...or gunpowder, or cannon, or the machinegun. Bodycounts went up, as did civilian casualties.
And since you mention the last sixty years (conveniently discounting Hiroshima et al), what happened in Korea? Or Vietnam? Or the Balkan? HUGE civilian losses. Now tell me that "A lot of money spent on 'destrustion' is actualy saving lives because it is incredibly more accurate then technology used 60 years ago.".
That's just bullshit; have the balls to just tell it like it is: a lot of money spent on 'destruction' is actually spent on making technology more accurate so we can kill more people in a shorter span of time.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
10x the US population would be 2.9 billion Chinese. That's high by about 1.6 billion people.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Good point. And easy way to dehumanize someone is call him a 'infidel'. Or 'antidemocractic forces', on the other hand.
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
What will they use it for then? To pick roses?
If it can destroy a missile, it can slice a person in 2, and they certainly won't stop there. There will be a more powerful one, and then a yet more powerful one.
How stupid can you get indeed?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Its the future of invasive/disrruptive marketing, The Hell Ads are here! Gawd help us! AAAAAAARGH!!!
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
>>Sometimes I think it's just people that are incompatible with civil society.
Maybe its just civil[ity] which is incompatible with society.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Couldn't this system be defeated by using a Photonic Band Gap texture? That is, such a structure as found on the wings of the Morpho butterfly.
All rites reversed 2010
Note that a similar level of dehumanisation was often applied to peasants (or other cheap, expendable, troops) by their officers' training for a similar reason - they needed to be able to sacrifice large numbers of soldiers to carry the day. This is far less common now, since soldiers are expensive, both economically (it costs a lot to train them) and politically (the civilians seeing the body bags coming home was a major factor in America losing Vietnam).
[1] I don't know enough about modern methods to comment.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Check it out: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187251 46.400
In all honesty, I think people not requiring thsi dehumanization nonsense is actually kind of a credit to the race in general. If someone can decide that killing someone is the right thing to do, and then do it, the killing is much more likely to be the correct action than if they are unsure and use a psychological trick to force themselves to kill someone.
On the other hand, recall that murder requires a motive, which generally involves being at least partially familiar with the intended victim.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
It may not be a dupe, but the references Google brings up are from May 2005.
Move along, no new news to see here....
Well, in defense of the general idea, the point of killing more people in a shorter amount of time is generally to keep them from killing you first. In this context the lives which the war was intended to protect are protected more effectively by better technology.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
I know that the Romans sank into depravity, but I have never read a credible account of the Romans beating off the Visigoths.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Or perhaps war is the inevitable result of the existence of politics. Politics is necessarily competitive and adversarial. The rewards are immense and the most desireable seats are naturally limited (the smallest bodies governing the largest areas have the most concentrated power and the highest prestige).
Politicians need to be seen to be "doing something". Successfully governing a quiet Utopia will be boring and look easy. Rivals can offer 'more' or 'less' or 'cheaper', and some number of people will fall in line. Good, stable governance is not safe from agitation.
And when things are going really bady: throw a war. Everybody will show up for the first year or two, and by the time they have realize how much you have screwed things up, you can say things like "stay the course", "don't change horses in mid-stream", and "we would dishonor the memories of those who have already died if we didn't kill a bunch more."
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
So the trusted nations will get the more powerful blue and green ray versions, but the evil nations will be stuck with the first generation red-laser versions?
At least that way you'll be able to tell them apart during battle...
hmm. HELLADS? Isn't that just that spam bot from hell?
I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.
You're leaving out killing by soldiers in your numbers. No doubt '76%' becomes much smaller when you consider the killing done by our military. Likely, you'll find that there is truth in the very statement you have tried to disprove.
Good point, I think the whole thing links back to the idea of "family".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It takes a lot of "balls" to try to compete with such a larger population technologically
Not really. That is why we have cluster bombs.
an ill wind that blows no good
So, China has "In case you were wondering they have over a million infantry troops."
More than one source estimated the Iraqi army to be one million men or more (at least in 1991). That army didn't give much trouble to its attackers either time.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
This weeks New Scientist has some interesting statistics that will be relevant here. (The article isn't online, unfortunately.)
"researchers have documented how soldiers will often go to great lengths to avoid firing directly at enemy soldiers, especially if they can seem them - and the distress they suffer when they do kill.
A famous example is the Battle of Gettysburg, where thousands of soldiers on both sides loaded their weapons over and over to avoid having to fire them. Similarly, during the second world war, S.L.A. Marshall, a US army historian, found that on average only 15 to 20 per cent of American infantry troops actually fired at the enemy when they had the oportunity to do so."
The article goes on to talk about how the US army managed to increase the firing rate in later wars by de-humanising the enemy and training soldiers to shoot on impulse.
The main articles are about the Post-Traumatic Stress suffered later by the soldiers as a result of this.
A latent existence
I think we'd both agree this is a good thing. I'll take back "the Pentagon doesn't care" comment and second the Lt. Col.'s comment below.
By 2008, the military could start using a new vehicle that would have:
More protection for troops. Congressional pressure forced the military to add armor to all older Humvees and buy more models with factory-installed armor. But even Humvees with the latest armor are still vulnerable to the powerful bombs insurgents use.
A beefier suspension that can handle the weight of the armor. The extra armor has led to increased maintenance problems for the Humvee, which wasn't designed to handle so much weight. The extra weight also makes the vehicle more prone to rolling over and getting bogged down in sand. That has cost the Humvee much of its legendary off-road capability.
Lower fuel consumption, to reduce the need for supply convoys that have been targets of insurgents.
Improved onboard power generation to handle the expanding array of electronics that troops take into battle today compared with the simple radios of 30 years ago. Hybrid-electric drivetrains, which are gaining popularity in passenger vehicles and are already being tested in current Humvee prototypes, are being considered to save fuel and generate power.
"We wish we had that vehicle out there today," says Lt. Col. Stuart Rogers, transportation division chief of the Army Combined Arms Support Command.
Oh, yeah. And a wounded soldier is much less effective than a dead one, too. I mean, sure if they're wounded they can still shoot back when you're trying to take their position, but if they're dead, their condemned souls can slither across the ground and take over cattle and slip into the nostrils of other SOULdiers and make them into immortal evil beings.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
A better defence would be to coat the surface of the missile with a layer of microscopic cubic crystals.
Each crystal will act as a corner reflector. This will direct a significant proportion of the laser energy back to the laser source.
More than 600 posts and not even one refence to pink bunny slippers...
Spellcheck, then post.
"for are protection"
"diverta Lot"
"accurate then technology" (than)
How about ants, wasps, and hornets?
you are an imbecile
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Highway to the dangerzone... Gonna take you right into.. the dangerzooone.
Now's the time for a Top Gun sequel!
Strike the anvil while she's hot!
I can't believe the Pentagon is stealing technology developed by EAP. Command and Conquer: Zero Hour anyone? PDL? The Airforce gen would be miffed!
Those kind of people are not welcome in the U.S. military because we want people who can follow orders, not psychopaths.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If you could fly an F-16 close enough and stable enough to aim a laser at it to burn it up or scramble its guidence systems why not just shoot at it. Launch one of those heat seeking boys at it.
If the ones to be put on F-16's are really only strong enough to 'confuse' the missle and it needs to be lasered soon after leaving the launch site, than you would have to know where the launch site is and when the launch is, right? Why not fly by with a bigger plane and drop a few boomers on the pad seconds before the missles launch when the bays are open.
Scrambling a missle so you dont know where it will blow up shouldnt affect the crazy dune monkeys shooting 'em. I saw pictures of one of Sadams atempts at a launch sight, it looked like a roller coaster that went up the side of a hill and cut off. Do you think he cares how well aimed his missles? Im sure he'll fire them with or without guidence as long as it goes BOOM!
Someone said something about how lasers will be able to stop a mirrored missle using the 10% of energy that is absorbed to melt and destory the missle, what happens to that other 90% that is reflected? Isnt that a bit dangerous?
The only thing lasers are good for is video games!
the reflectance of the finished part is 97 percent at 700 nm and ~99.5 percent at 2 m m, where it remains flat to well beyond 10.6 m m. http://www.epner.com/press_article4.ssi That is for gold. Silver in many cases is better but has the problem of degradation during storage. I thik the best method would be a mirror underlaid with a substance that would produce a cloud opaque or diffusive at the wavelength of interest. This could raise required energies to the point of unfeasability with current technology. An example of this is a beam that can punch a hole in 1/4 steel only produces a burn on the skin of a mouse because the steam cloud reduces the effectivity of the laser.
Did they by any chance mention adding an extra wing in X shape to the F-16? God I'd love to see that.
People do not have to dehumanize anyone to kill them.
Neither do robots and aliens. Frankly, it makes it easier for them to just leave the filthy humans classified as is and get extermination over with.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I agree with deglr6328...Vandan's an idiot. Another one of those conspiracy-nut hippies.
Actually the F-22 Raptor already has a laser system that's been designed for it and [I think it] fits in place of bombbay doors.
It is the F-35 or the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that has a laser on the drawing boards.
The thing about a laser system like this is that it need a lot of electricity to run, and the vast majority of fighter aircraft do not produce the kind of juice needed to run one of these. The thing that makes the JSF capable of handling a system like this, is the way the VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) version of the aircraft was designed. Unlike previous VTOL fighters (AV-8 - Harrier and the Boeing consept for JSF) which use a series of nozels to redirect thrust the engine was already making to get vertical thrust, the Lockheed JSF (the one that was selected) has a secondary fan, driven by a shaft from the main engine and door that open above and below the fan.
Using the lift fan in the VTOL plane means that the engine in the CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) and CV (Carrier Varient) has the capacity built in to drive a shaft, and the aircraft themselves have a lot of room right in front of the engine/behind the cockpit. This shaft can then drive a large generator to fire the laser.
I used to be an analyst at the company that builds the engines for the F-22 and the JSF. I worked on both programs.
The laser is ultraviolet, thus it would allow an F22 to loiter in an area and attack ground targetes (Geneva conventions state that we can't attack people with lasers) However, we can cut the truck they're driving in half and thus detonating the fuel tank...
Conventional fuels (gas/diesel) do not detonate unless they are vaporized, or atomised. They will burn pretty fast though.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I think the one flaw most complained about the M16 (especially during the US Somali operations) was that it was designed to penetrate, but no stopage. Like where the bullet impacts and then spreads out and causes more damage.
So basically, they were shooting people, but if they didn't hit a vital organ it would go cleanly through them. I don't know if that has been corrected in modern versions, but one of the plusses about the AK-47 round was that it spiraled very nastily causing a great deal of stoppage and damage to the target.
Of course if it didn't kill you it would cause more painful wounds.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Do it for the kids.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
There is humanized murder and dehmumanized murder:
They are known as hot blooded and cold blooded murder, and are even treated differently in our legal system.
Any murder where the person knows the victim is pretty much guaranteed to be an up close and violent form of killing both physically and emotionally.
Cold blood murder is usually done at more of a distance both physically and emotionally.
The sensors which feed the most missile guidence systems cannot be shielded with mirrors because they operate at optical or thermal wave lengths. This makes them vulnerable to even a relatively weak laser. Perhaps radar guided missiles could shield their radar units but it wouldn't be that easy.
If it is strong as advertised, it seems like you could sweep it over enemy lines and kill dozens at a time- perhaps disabling non-armored vehicles- maybe even armored vehicles.
Also seems you need to be very careful about what you fire it at since a miss could kill something miles beyond your intended target.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I have seen said video. I have also seen the "extended cut" in which one of the "farmers" carries an RPG into the field and deposits it. Do a little more that to go by the name of the file.
If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.
--Kurt Vonnegut
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I didn't name a specific unit. Mainly because there were "many more instances", secondly, why didn't this happen during Gulf War I, where we took similarly large numbers of prisoners?
Are you forgetting about Bagram, Afghanistan?
From Wikipedia:
Do a few bad apples manage to hide prisoners from the Red Cross without help? Are the CIA operatives involved in "extraordinary rendition" a few bad apples too? How do a few bad apples get use of a private jet to deliver suspects to their torturers, violating both US law and international treaties?
From Wikipedia:
Taguba's report makes it clear that this was a systematic problem. There were a number of military lawyers who objected to these techniques and the careless orders that came down and loosened existing regulations or implied that a different interpretation would be used. These orders came from the civilian leadership. It was also the leadership's responsibility to make sure that these soldiers were not given conflicting orders and that they were given the proper tools to carry out their orders (proper facilities, not dog leashes and chains).
Let's also look at when the abuses started at Abu Ghraib.
Geoffrey Miller then gets transferred to Abu Ghraib:
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Individual conflict is not war, war is a group behaviour that has only been observed in humans and (possibly) chimps.
Actually, warfare (conflict as a group behavior) has been observed in many social lifeforms, including ants, wasps, etc.
The benefit of being social animals is that we can work together to accomplish things that we can't accomplish ourselves. The drawback is that we also use this team cooperation for battle, too.
I think war is just a side-effect of being a social animal. Every animal fights, some species just fight in groups.
...is a tiny amount of dust on the reflective surface (you know, the kind that gets picked up in flight), and your shiny mirror starts swallowing laser energy like there's no tomorrow. A few miliseconds later... BOOM! :-P
Um, that was the point of his comment wasn't it?
The problem is not the amount of power the engine can produce, but rather the amount of electricital power it can produce.
No current fighter has the electrical capacity to shoot this bad boy, but for reasons explained in this comment the non vertical take off versions of the F-35 are good canidates.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
> through anything less than a polished mirror.
A fact which I would expect countermeasures to take into account, and perhaps even exploit.
Could the target be protected with a thin, easily-penetrated secondary hull and a layer of opaque-when-vapourized material in between? i.e., laser burns through the outer skin, hits the inner material, vapourizes it, and then wastes all its energy burning through the resulting rapidly-changing vapour/plasma cloud.
(Exactly the same idea as reactive armour, basically - defeat a specific munition by disrupting it with an in-armour triggered-active countermeasure.)
Mortar and artillery shells, yes, but it's almost certainly false that lasers will provide any protection against RPGs any time soon. RPGs are, as I understand things, essentially big, explosive bullets that are in-flight with a fairly flat trajectory for less than a second before impact in typical usage scenarios. You'd be lucky to even find and isolate them in that time, much less bring a large laser system on-target or get a long enough burn time.
Not that defensive lasers wouldn't be useful---they would---but they're essentially another conventional-war tool. They'd be useless against 90+% of the casualty-causing threats in Iraq, or in most instances of asymmetric warfare that are likely in the near future.
Actually, the point was innuendo based on the American (English too?) idiom: beating off.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Nice response. Don't have an answer for my questions though, do you?
...
Not to worry. What you lack in knowledge you make up for in partriotism. It's disgusting
It certainly doesn't take a consipacy-but hippie to realise why the world hates the US - just a little knowledge mixed with a little thoughtful consideration. Oh yeah. You're missing both.
... another victim of US propoganda.
:)
And you, sir, are rather pathetic. A quick read of your posts and people's moderation of said posts confirms this overwhelmingly. You seem to be a 'me too' type of person
Speaking of idiots, I believe you'd give George Dubya a run for his money on an IQ test. Maybe you'd make a better president
Any thoughts on whether a thick smokescreen can protect against a laser?
Ok, those sort of creatures will defend a territory and I suppose that is a type of warfare.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Perhaps he's a Libertarian. They're both for gun rights and against the Iraq war.
You do realize there's more than two possible political positions that a person can have, right? And that our country having a strict two-party is caused by a severe defect in our voting system?
I wonder if anyone has done any studies comparing how social people are with how much they support wars. As a guess, I would imagine that highly social people (like the ones that hang out at sports bars watching games) would be much more in support of the Iraq war than less social people (such as ones who'd prefer to stay at home and hack on software).
Even if all the things you say were possible, this would be no reason to eliminate all the other weapons and troops we have now. The weapon you talk of could only be used for defensive operations, or for taking out a few select targets. If your objective is to invade another country, depose its government, and set up a new one in its place while dealing with insurgents, such a precision weapon simply won't do the job. In short, if you want your military to do more than just defend your country, but to also project your will by force onto other countries, you have to have a lot of troops.
They do SO do full auto. Yes, the ones a civillian can get at a gun show won't, but the millitary isue ones do.
No they don't.
Not for a long time, they haven't.
You mention 1971... the rifle you were using was an M16A1. It underwent a pretty heavy redesign in 1981, and the M16A2 was first adopted by the USMC in 1983. The other services followed soon after.
We weren't allowed to do full auto on the firing range in basic, but one guy "accidentally" flipped the little lever. He pulled the trigger and emptied the magazine into the roof. He was stomped on and had a bunch of 45s aimed at him when he was taken away. We never saw him again.
That's one reason for the change. Waste of ammo, poor accuracy. Flip that lever on an M16A2 and you will get a 3 round burst. That is 3 rounds for every squeeze of the trigger. Much easier to put a lot of rounds downrange, while making recoil easier to manage. (Rocking back down into the original point of aim between bursts.)
i beg your pardon for my inexactness.
Asshat.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry