Slashdot Mirror


Sci-Fi Weapons to Join US Arsenal?

marct22 writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the next weapons coming out of the US arsenal could be stepping right off the pages of science fiction to be there. From the article: "By the end of this year, the Air Force plans to conduct a first, fully loaded test flight of its Airborne Laser, a jumbo jet packed with gear designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light. The ABL also packs a megawatt-class punch--it's not exactly your garden-variety laser pointer."

601 comments

  1. Half a world away? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Funny

    [...] designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light

    That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?

    1. Re:Half a world away? by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the bigger question is this: Can they mount those frickin' laserbeams on sharks?

    2. Re:Half a world away? by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      >>That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?

      Or more likely, they could be floating mirrors up in space. Wouldn't be too hard to coordinate with a satellite to bounce off of them. I'd just be concerned about the laser transmission loss going through the atmosphere for that long of a distance.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    3. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the satellites are for.

    4. Re:Half a world away? by isomeme · · Score: 1

      Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?

      Yes; but it's operated by United, so what with the two-hour-late departure and sitting on the taxiway at your destination for another hour waiting for your arrival gate to open up, you still miss your connecting flight.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    5. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or more likely, they could be floating mirrors up in space...

      So, just make your missles out of mirrors, easy.

    6. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Wouldn't be too hard
      God, how I hate that statement! Yes, it would be hard. In addition to atmospheric attenuation and disturbance in the beam, you have beam divergence spreading the beam out, and diffraction off of the mirror edges throwing it everywhere. By the time you get to the other side of the world, maybe you can use it as a night light.
    7. Re:Half a world away? by Janitha · · Score: 4, Funny

      Date 2012. In before: Enemies are now coating their missiles with silver and giving each of them a mirror polish, and China to build the great mirror of China.

    8. Re:Half a world away? by VarmintCong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      God, I have mod points but I can't seem to find the -1 Stupid option.

    9. Re:Half a world away? by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wouldn't be too hard to coordinate with a satellite to bounce off of them. I'd just be concerned about the laser transmission loss going through the atmosphere for that long of a distance.

      To coordinate with a satellite... easy. To worry about the transmission loss... irrelevant. To achieve the pointing requirements, both from the plane and the spacecraft, to hit the target (priceless... literally...). What happens when a little gust of wind hits the plane (they do bounce around a bit). Your beam will miss the target by many kilometers (and that's if you were lucky enough to hit your mirror-in-space?). GPS or something along those capabilities would not even come close to the resolution required for this type of thing, to say nothing of a moving target, a moving source, and a moving relay.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    10. Re:Half a world away? by Cheapy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nope, it stimulates sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads to shoot the missiles down.

      The world is 70% covered with water y'know.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    11. Re:Half a world away? by aloeppert · · Score: 1

      umm... speed is distance traveled/ time. The total distance traveled has nothing to do with speed. Yes, it will take longer for a light beam to travel X + 1 units than X units, but it doesn't mean the light is any slower traveling X +1 units than X units.

    12. Re:Half a world away? by TomRitchford · · Score: 1

      During the transmission, the light beam moves at the speed of light (by definition, eh?)

      The net speed of the information transfer is less than the speed of light.

    13. Re:Half a world away? by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      I hate to nitpick but if you had read my original post more clearly you would have noticed I commented about atmospheric disturbances.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    14. Re:Half a world away? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's somewhat better now though than when TWA operated it, no matter where they were going they first had to sit at the St. Louis hub for 4 hours

    15. Re:Half a world away? by 2short · · Score: 1


      Considering there isn't any mention of it whatsoever; that it would in fact be "too hard"; and that there would, in that case, be no reason whatsoever to put the laser on board a plane in the first place, I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about.

    16. Re:Half a world away? by aloeppert · · Score: 1

      No you are thinking latency.

    17. Re:Half a world away? by Traiklin · · Score: 1

      dunno about that but the Navy has mutated seabass that are agitated.

    18. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would you put the laser in your sattelite-laser system on a jumbo jet? Are you dumb?

      Put it on the ground!

    19. Re:Half a world away? by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      For wind, I'm assuming the plane would fly at a sufficient altitude for the wind to be a near constant or not that much of an issue.

      As for targeting - I'm no rocket scientist (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night) but assuming that the computers can compensate for the near lineal motion of the plane against the motion of the satellite then computers can calculate 1000 times a second the most accurate trajectory to point the laser at the satellite. A system like this is not impossible - everything just needs to be calculated, coded and manufactured correctly.

      GPS - you're right is not accurate enough for this however it could provide you with the initial area of the sky to search for the satellite. The plane would then establish a beacon signal with the satellite that would allow the satellite to orient the mirror so it bounces at the correct angle. After the beacon has been established (possibly two to four beacons so as to provide a "center" where the laser can be transmitted to) the laser can go off.

      I've not fully figured out how the beacons can be found but anything from RF transmissions to visible light patterns on the satellite.

      Another poster mentioned the scattering effect the mirror could have - actually, given the right construction the satellite mirror could be constructed to flex in the proper manner to help focus the laser to the right elevation.

      Your tax dollars at work....

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    20. Re:Half a world away? by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Please tell me how a beam of light could possibly travel slower than itself.

    21. Re:Half a world away? by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Hey, this is a nice place. Quit complaining!

    22. Re:Half a world away? by Sathias · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?

      Maybe the world has become flat since Bush has been appointing Fundies to positions in NASA.

      --
      Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
    23. Re:Half a world away? by x_codingmonkey_x · · Score: 1
      From the fine article:

      Doug Beason (scientist): ... but for the Airborne Laser, because you're broadcasting this beam over up to many hundreds of kilometers, you have to have a way to stabilize that beam.

      Journalist interpretation: ... fully loaded test flight of its Airborne Laser, a jumbo jet packed with gear designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light.

      So hundreds of kilometers = thousands (half a world) kilometers? Don't you love sensationalism?

    24. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There several smaller lasers on the aircraft that are used for targeting. The smaller lasers illumunate the target and are used to align the killing beam. Diffraction and motion are compensated for by targeting computers using those beams.

      Must be a hell of an "boresighting" alignment process.

    25. Re:Half a world away? by ZhuLien · · Score: 1

      If they can bounce lasers with mirrors in space, couldn't missile manufacturers make mirror-coated missiles?

    26. Re:Half a world away? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      To achieve the pointing requirements, both from the plane and the spacecraft, to hit the target (priceless... literally...).

      Although there are numerous other practical problems as others have pointed out, this one doesn't seem unsolvable. I'd think you could have the satellite beam back a targeting signal (a la lighting up a target for a smart bomb), and then have the laser blast right down the signal at the satellite.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    27. Re:Half a world away? by Nosklo · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't be too hard to coordinate with a satellite to bounce off of them

      Isn't it easier to just fire from the satellite?

      --
      find -name "*base*" -exec chown us {} \; ; ln -s /dev/zero /dev/chance ; make time
    28. Re:Half a world away? by StarkRG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think what the anonymous poster was saying was stupid was when you said it'd be going slower than the speed of light. It would be going the speed of light, it'd just have longer to travel.

      If two peoplle are on the banks of a lake 50miles wide and one travels 100mph over the lake directly to the other side, and the other travels 100mph around the lake, they both traveled at the same speed but one gets there before the other.

      BTW, if it were a perfectly circular lake what would the average speed toward the opposite point be for the person who went around? (hint: find the circumfrence, halve it, find out how long it'd take the guy to travel that distance and divide that by 50mph)

    29. Re:Half a world away? by ehiris · · Score: 1

      Would a laser light bounce off the ionosphere?

    30. Re:Half a world away? by DoctorStarks · · Score: 4, Informative
      [...] designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light

      That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?

      You got modded funny, as you intended to be, I'm sure. But it seems to have launched a series of replies trying to theorize about how the laser is going to propagate halfway around the world. So let me rain on the parade.

      The Airborne Laser is an in-theater weapon, designed to intercept ballistic missiles during the boost phase. It flies up at around 40,000 feet and can engage targets within range that appear above its horizon.

      It doesn't bounce lasers off satellites or propagate a laser beam "halfway around the world", as TFA says. The author was being a bit grandiose but caused some confusion in the process. It is half-way around the world, if that is where the missiles are coming from. The plane is there with the missiles, though. So are the radars that help it target.

      There has been a lot of research put into making this weapon functional (directed energy, targeting, adaptive optics), and the early results are promising. The upcoming tests should be very interesting indeed.

      OK. Resume speculating.

    31. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please tell me how a beam of light could possibly travel slower than itself.

      One way would be if the enemy threw up a Bose-Einstein condensate smokescreen around the target as a countermeasure. The laserbeam would get slowed down to just a few centimeters per second, and the missile would be safely out of the area by the time the beam got through the cloud.

    32. Re:Half a world away? by mi · · Score: 1
      Or more likely, they could be floating mirrors up in space.
      If such a mirror is possible at all, is not also possible (and even much easier) to cover the missile with the same reflective material, whatever it is?

      A bigger question, though, is: why bother mounting this on a plane, when using a satellite mirror anyway?

      Which means, of course, no mirrors -- the plane will be patrolling "half a world away" and shooting missiles straight.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    33. Re:Half a world away? by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      No, even better, they're using quantum physics and special relativity to warp space-time and curve the laser beam around the Earth.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    34. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can travel slower than the speed of light in a vacuum:

      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ptech/9902/19/slow.light.0 1/

    35. Re:Half a world away? by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Did you read more than 4 the words of the parent you quoted? They were talking about sattelite coordination, not making a laser that could shoot a beam half way around the world. They even mentioned that the atmosphere would provide problems for a laser.

    36. Re:Half a world away? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Of course, what was not mentioned is that this is really designed for launch phase, not incoming. That is, this is designed to hit enough of the craft as to hit electronics or fuel and then allow the rocket to basically self destruct. That means, this has to be in the air BEFORE they launch, not after. We are looking at another alice that will be position in places like South Korea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Europe, Columbia rather than in America or Canada.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    37. Re:Half a world away? by shawb · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the power requirements for this thing would be WAY too much for a satellite to manage.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    38. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you need more proof the Earth is flat?

    39. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, at high power lasers will self focus in a medium due to the nonlinearities in the index of refraction. You just have to get it pulsing right.

    40. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is why I said In addition to ...

    41. Re:Half a world away? by Metex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ehh probably a femto secound pulse 10^-15...
      Assume a 400m/s gust hits the plane...
      400 m/s * 1s/10^15 fs = 4*10^-13 m/fs
      a 4*10^-13m displacement during the beams lifetime caused by that 400m/s gust of wind... wind isnt really the issue here nor is unexpected movement.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    42. Re:Half a world away? by aloeppert · · Score: 1

      Then wouldn't it be easier to fire from the ground?

    43. Re:Half a world away? by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although there are numerous other practical problems as others have pointed out

      If you want to talk about practical problems let's get the obvious out.

      Where I work we build spacecraft. Could we build this spacecraft to the "required" specs? YES I have great 'faith' in myself, my colleagues, and our system. We have been very successful in building spacecraft over the years that do the job.

      this one doesn't seem unsolvable.

      Your right, it's not. Now let's talk about the cost, you know, the practical part of it. If I were the project manager of this system I would take a typical s/c cost and start adding zeros to the end of the cost (one if not two).

      Tracking the source is easy. Tracking the target has been "Star Wars" from the beginning, right? The part that gets me is the relay. We would have to develop a gimbaled relay that responds in real time to both the target and the source. The velocity vector of both the source and the target would have to be tracked with enormous accuracy. I do not think this could be done with one spacecraft. We would need multiple spacecraft that could transmit tracking information in real time to adjust the pointing of the beam-relay. Nothing like this has ever been done before (to my knowledge). The costs to develop such a system would be enormous. I think it would be far cheaper to launch the source and remove the entire relay system (but I guess this thing is exactly what has been under study for all these years).

      Honestly, if lasers from planes to spacecraft to target is our best defense option I would strongly support prayer as an alternative (it's much cheaper and equally effective)... and yes, I'm an atheist.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    44. Re:Half a world away? by SpacePirate20X6 · · Score: 1

      They may have actually already addressed that problem. FTFA:

      By using adaptive optics, what the Air Force has managed to do is to precondition the beam, so that it takes all the abnormal characteristics of the atmosphere out of the beam before it's propagated, and so by the time the beam reaches the target, it evolves into a very pristine, nearly optimal shape.

    45. Re:Half a world away? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      You made an incorrect calculation. What's relevant here is the speed of light, not how long the laser pulse lasts. It would still take some milliseconds for the light to get to your orbital relay and then back to ground.

    46. Re:Half a world away? by AngryElmo · · Score: 1

      Remember that they are not firing this at sea-level, but at altitude. The higher they are, the larger the visible arc of the earth. So half a world away may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but a plane cruising over US airspace could certainly knock a missle out launched from Europe especially if it had gone ballistic...

    47. Re:Half a world away? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      I think it would be far cheaper to launch the source and remove the entire relay system (but I guess this thing is exactly what has been under study for all these years).

      Agreed, and TFA isn't talking about this crazy satellite mirror system, a Slashdot poster threw that into the mix. :D And I was really only talking about the first part, getting the laser to hit the satellite accurately. Having the satellite actually know where the laser is coming from and aiming the mirror such that it deflects the beam at a supersonic target is a bit, er, impractical, as you point out.

      Hmm. I suppose you could have the source laser first send a low-power targeting signal to the satellite to indicate the laser's position, then the satellite aims the mirror deflector, then the laser does the full blast.

      Of course, it might be easier just to have a space-based laser, too, though that might violate a few pesky treaties.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    48. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      GAAAAAAA! Must...control...fist...of...physics!

      Coherent sources get all screwed up going through media with varying indices of refraction, such as when it hits that wall of air in the slipstream. Likewise, when the laser spot gets too big (larger than the isoplanatic patch size), as it would in this case, it is a mess if you try to focus it down tightly (different parts of the beam have gotten out of phase). This is a big issue for this project, and they're trying to come up with clever ways to do adaptive-optics correction of the beam as it goes out to compensate for all these nasty problems.

      As for your last point, everyone, repeat after me: diffraction, diffraction, diffraction! You can't just flex your mirror and get rid of diffraction.

    49. Re:Half a world away? by Ninjy · · Score: 1

      And the number of birds the laser fries from start to finish.

      Can't wait for it to start raining crispy and fried birds.

    50. Re:Half a world away? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      By the time you get to the other side of the world, maybe you can use it as a night light.

      That would be a really neat effect for your next techno rave (global trance dj or whatever) in the middle of nowhere...a green laser beam pusling across the sky while some club diva in a cage is singing some bull about climbing mountains and reaching for the sky.

    51. Re:Half a world away? by adolfojp · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sir, we at S.P.E.C.T.R.E would like to pursue your clever idea and require your services immediately. Our men will pick you up first thing in the morning.

      Ernst Stavro Blofeld

    52. Re:Half a world away? by Slithe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they are trying to reduce the spread of bird flu?

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    53. Re:Half a world away? by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      GPS or something along those capabilities would not even come close to the resolution required for this type of thing, to say nothing of a moving target, a moving source, and a moving relay.


      Pshaw, (Ooo... 3 points for using that word on a wednsday)
      GPS has plenty or resolution for that. The problem is you just need a Laser beam 5 meters in diameter. that should solve all the problems of the moving target source and what-not as well.

      My problem is, why do these lasers need to be in planes when they are supposed to be able to hit something half a world away? Wouldn't it be easier to mount them on the surface with access to even more energy that would be available on a jet?

      Or is Dubya trying to get as close as possible to the space based lasers daddy wanted without having to go through all the trouble of diverting funding from his trip to Mars.
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    54. Re:Half a world away? by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      (1) you put it on a jumbo jet so you can fly to the battlefield and provide cover for your advance units, or to patrol over your allies. (2) you put it on a jumbojet so your bazillion dollar laser isn't limited to line-of-sight shots.

    55. Re:Half a world away? by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      Nope, it stimulates sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads to shoot the missiles down.

      The world is 70% covered with water y'know.


      Yes, but there was a story a while back, The World's oceans are now 70% Shark Free
      so that's only covering what? 21% of the planet
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    56. Re:Half a world away? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      That exists too. The current system protects from theater ballistic missiles and is about the size of 3 semi-trailers.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    57. Re:Half a world away? by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      But that would still be the speed of light, wouldn't it? The fact that the speed of light happens to be slower there doesn't change that.

    58. Re:Half a world away? by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 2, Funny

      I saw that movie. It was called Spys Like Us.

    59. Re:Half a world away? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Or more likely, they could be floating mirrors up in space. Wouldn't be too hard to coordinate with a satellite to bounce off of them. I'd just be concerned about the laser transmission loss going through the atmosphere for that long of a distance.

      If the laser can be shot from anywhere and bounced to the target with mirrors, then why on Earth are you mounting it on a jumbojet instead of putting it to ground and feeding it with a few nuclear power plants ?

      And for that matter, what happens if the target is shielded with a mirror too ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    60. Re:Half a world away? by Supergibbs · · Score: 1

      They are working with Google using their global fiber optic network!

      --
      First post! (just in case I am...)
    61. Re:Half a world away? by Baracat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > ... to say nothing of a moving target, a moving source, and a moving relay.

      I think its not so dificult... Do you know how a tank works? Its a moving target, moving source and a balistic trajectory... Almost the same problem. Solution? Gyroscope. In a tank, when you lock a target, whatever movement makes the tank, it keep pointed to this target locked.

      With laser in a plane or whatever, it's just have to adjust those thing faster and more precise.

    62. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they do it by putting such a massively dense ball of matter half way between the target and the plane so that when it fires the laser goes straight instead of firing off into space like you might suspect. The upside is we don't have to worry about the missile, the downside is now we have a point singularity building in our atmosphere equal to the mass of the earth.

    63. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A reflective surface is still going to get pretty hot.

    64. Re:Half a world away? by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

      Obviously the plane is flown at an altitude much greater than sea level as of course is the missile (as we are talking ICBM rather than cruise) so line of sight becomes possible over much greater distances - half a world away? Probably not but possibly several thousand miles away. This is necessary if the weapon as stated is used to heat the target's fuel to cause it to explode - beyond a certain part of the flight the missile will no longer contain fuel, more than that if it has multiple warheads these will disperse to their respective targets. So ideally interception must occur whilst the missile is gaining altitude (hence still a long distance from the intended target).

      There are of course focusing issues resulting from particles in the atmosphere, clouds, etc.

    65. Re:Half a world away? by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

      A reflective surface may be beneficial defence against a laser like you say but this would still be heated and the weapon is designed to create heat rather than punch a hole. A better solution would be some form of thermal insulation on the missiles like the tiles on the shuttle, but this could make the missiles heavier and need a greater fuel load.

    66. Re:Half a world away? by lucifig · · Score: 1

      This statement should be modded "funny"...because if it isn't a joke...

      I weep for us all.

    67. Re:Half a world away? by fjf33 · · Score: 1

      Actually they were able to put the jumbo on low earth orbit and they shoot down the missile at the apex of its trajectory.

    68. Re:Half a world away? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The problem with mounting the lasers on the ground is that they will not be in a line of site to anywhere near the area a mobile plane flying 4 or 5 ( probably much higher ) miles up will have a line of site to.

      You could of course build a giant tower 20miles high on top of a mountain but that would also be a very expensive and tricky to engineer and would also be prime target number 1 in the event of any conflict.

    69. Re:Half a world away? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Or develop some material which is transparent to this kind of light ?

    70. Re:Half a world away? by mrops · · Score: 1

      I don't care about Air-Force.

      When can I get my chinese laser pointer to do the same.

    71. Re:Half a world away? by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      STL is one of the most boring airports to get stuck at. I could not even find wifi a few weeks ago. Food selection stinks and the whole airport smells like mildew.

    72. Re:Half a world away? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      some club diva in a cage is singing some bull about climbing mountains and reaching for the sky

      Don't forget:

      Rivers and seas boiling, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    73. Re:Half a world away? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I think it's a misunderstanding of the power involved. The sun hitting a mirror transfers energy to that mirror, as well as being reflected by it...Touch the mirror, and it'll be warm. A megawatt laser will transfer so much energy to the mirror that, unless its seriously massive or made of some dense material capable of absorbing a huge quanta all at once, it'll explode.

      Make a shiny missle, and all you'll get is shiny debris after it goes boom, because there is no way you could make a missile heavy enough to absorb the energy and still fly.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    74. Re:Half a world away? by Metex · · Score: 1

      Lets say we have the orbital relay 1000km from earth (I prefer to use 10x max estimates if you havent allready noticed with my 900 miles per hour gust of wind above)

      1,000,000m * 2/(3x10^8 m/s) = 0.006s roundtrip

      lets say that 900 mile per hour gust of wind hits the object

      0.006s * 400m/s = 2.6m

      so if the plane started off going at 900 miles per hour then instantaniously stoped just as we fired we would still hit it but off from the center by 9 feet assuming our satilite is way the fuck out their in space.

      Also it doent really matter the speed of either the plane or the satilite just the change of their predicted speed by the targeting software, which if you take a quick ratio of any possible speed change vs the speed of light you can see that it is so incignificant it will only show up with extreamly huge distances in the equation.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    75. Re:Half a world away? by The+Dobber · · Score: 1


      Probably, but you have a limited loadout. With the plane you can simply land and rearm.

    76. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'm willing to bet if it is capable of launch phase they could make modifications or further research to deal with incoming like the old star wars program envisioned, even if you have to scramble a plane it is quite a defence, just have one always in the air with enough fuel to stay up there a long time and its quite the blanket defence for tense areas without actually doing any other collateral damage (excepting a few cows that missile debrie lands on)

    77. Re:Half a world away? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      They've been doing that at burningman for years. Slightly lower power, though.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    78. Re:Half a world away? by Y2 · · Score: 1
      STL is one of the most boring...

      Well, duh! If you want exciting travel, you want FTL!

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    79. Re:Half a world away? by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Won't you gentlemen have a Pepsi?

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    80. Re:Half a world away? by Eudial · · Score: 1
      That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?


      Actually, I remember something about this from an old episode of The man from U.N.C.L.E, where the bad guys had mounted a laser in some far-away location (italy? switzerland?), and planned to use gravity to arc the beam so that it could hit a target in paris.

      Man, they weren't kidding when they said Sci-Fi weapons.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    81. Re:Half a world away? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I think a cool first test of this would be to aim it at a LARGE amount of popcorn, set up within an asshole University prof's house....yeah, that would be original...

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    82. Re:Half a world away? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Ummm...which "boost phase" did you think it operated in, apart from the one that happens right after "launch"?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    83. Re:Half a world away? by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      All jokes aside, this looks to me like a great invention. A preventative against nuclear attack! Hopefully it works, and hopefully it proliferates worldwide, so that all nuclear missile technology is rendered futile.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    84. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That would be fine, we'll just smuggle our suitcase nukes into your country.

    85. Re:Half a world away? by budgenator · · Score: 1
      ...that is, kilometer range versus the many hundreds of kilometers range that the Airborne Laser is working on.

      the Airborne Laser works on ranges of hundreds of Km, a half a world would be thousands of Km. To get an article published on /. you have to put some trollish exageration in it, then a whore like me gets modded informative because I actually read FTA with a 5th grade level of comprehension; new day same shit kinda thing.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    86. Re:Half a world away? by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      They use curved photons that bend around corners, but don't tell anyone, because it was a secret until someone in the administration leaked it the Des Moines Weekly Shopping News.

      ===

      Seriously, if these lasers work out, they may be a better solution to intercepting incoming warheads than the interceptor missiles that Bush-Rumsfeld and crew are spending billions to deploy despite the fact that they are unlikely to work. The interceptors historically have a lot of trouble hitting a target that wants to be hit. It is not hard to imagine their probablility of success with targets that do not want to be hit. The lasers also have the potential to allow incoming warheads to be intercepted far enough along their trajectory that simple decoys can be discriminated from real warheads by drag.

      Might have some other uses besides Anti-ballistic missile.

      But, I expect that the lasers will need a decade or two of development. (Presumably these are the distant descendants of the X-Ray Lasers that Teller sold Reagan but couldn't build once he got funding?)

      And frankly, I would imagine that if they do work out (or even if they don't) serious attackers will simply select a different method of delivery -- launch from a supposedly peaceful satellite, or an airliner, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, or a 1987 Honda Civic.

      And one other minor point. If the US can build these suckers, so eventually can the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans and, for all we know, eventually six guys in a mud hut in Yemen. They ought to be just great at shooting up US surveillence satellites and other impediments to crackpot schemes for word domination.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    87. Re:Half a world away? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So the nasty shit in the atmosphere that sucks up infrared energy like water vapor and CO2 is below you; just like the IR astronomers at NASA do when they point their IR telescope out the open side of a 747, or ground based IR astronomers do when they put their telescopes on the tops of very tall mountains which are quite rare. I don't think that astronomers trying to see very faint things in IR would be happy to share their expensive mountain tops with a DOD projects that are shooting megawatts of IR up into the air.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    88. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking porn shit fuck cock suck

    89. Re:Half a world away? by kiwi77 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well I've been seeing that thing (the modified 747) sitting down at the end of Boeing Field for at least the last 10 years (or more) Never seems to fly, in fact it never seems to move, and I haven't seen anything being done to it for as long as I can remember. They used to fly it, but my understanding is there was no way to make the laser powerful enough to do much, given atmospheric effects.

    90. Re:Half a world away? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oh, you work at the airport? well, if it's in a bar I might agree with you. There was one there where I used to order a glass of wine and it was like a goldfish bowl on a stem......

    91. Re:Half a world away? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1
      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    92. Re:Half a world away? by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      The problem with mounting the lasers on the ground is that they will not be in a line of site to anywhere near the area a mobile plane flying 4 or 5 ( probably much higher ) miles up will have a line of site to.

      You could of course build a giant tower 20miles high on top of a mountain but that would also be a very expensive and tricky to engineer and would also be prime target number 1 in the event of any conflict.


      I doubt you'd ever have line of sight on anything "Half a world away" anyway.
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    93. Re:Half a world away? by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are an asshole, but you make a good point. But how many of those do you have? Pissant people like you have maybe a couple of those, which could damage a city or two. The good new is that our response to that will not be to start worldwide nuclear war, which is the only response now to a sizeable nuclear missile attack. So maybe crazy fanatics cannot destroy the world any more if this technology pans out.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    94. Re:Half a world away? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      In an airplane you can fly above the water vapor and carbon dioxide that is very good at absorbing the infrared energy coming out of the laser.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    95. Re:Half a world away? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      The Airborne Laser is an in-theater weapon

      Nice! No more cell phones interrupting the movie.

    96. Re:Half a world away? by smithmc · · Score: 1

       
              Wouldn't be too hard

      God, how I hate that statement!

      He must be a manager.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    97. Re:Half a world away? by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1

      What would be more impressive is if they could produce a laser that shoots down missiles a world away at half the speed of light.

      --
      Squirrel!
    98. Re:Half a world away? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      No to rain on your parade, but you just calculated how far the wind would move during the actual pulse, not how far off a rotating plane would place the beam using data it gathered much longer than a femtosecond ago:

      Pulse is sent using data gathered a milisecond ago (10^-3), in the mean time nose of plane moves into airstream with a delta v (relative to the current airstream) of 36km/hr = 10m/s => .01 m deviation, so end of 100m plane moves .01m => end of 100km laser beam moves .01km = 10m

      Not horrid, but not exactly off by less than the wavelength of the photons being used.

    99. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you mean damage a few city blocks? The max yield for these types of weapons is only 1kt. the psychological effect is the best thing about a 'suitcase' nuke: OMG!! they have a nuke!!!!

    100. Re:Half a world away? by instarx · · Score: 1

      I've read a lot of srories on slashdot that have silly sloppy thinking behind the comments, but this one story wins the prize.

      I've heard: Just bounce the beam off mirrors on satellites to shoot missles halfway around the world.
      The "halfway around the world" in the article meant you fly the PLANE halfway around the world to shoot the missles.

      I've heard: The enemy can't mirror their missiles because the laser is powerful enough to blast through any mirror.
      Presumably the laser is aimed with mirrors, so how is that inconsistency possible (not to mention bouncing the beam off mirrored satellites).

      I've heard: Adaptive optics allows the laser beam to be focused on missiles thousands of miles away.
      Adaptive optics are used in telescopes to focus incoherent light, a laser beam is already a highly focused coherent beam and adaptive optics would serve no purpose. Further, adaptive optics can be used to stabilize INCOMING images because the light has already passed through the atmosphere and random atmosphereic effects have already happened, and can therefore be corrected. Adaptive optics cannot be used to stabilize an OUTGOING beam on a target because the random atmospheric effects are in the future and are thereby unknown.

      I've heard: All this was studied years ago and mirroring a missile makes no difference.
      Half right - it was studied decades ago and mirroring, spin rate, and even color of the missile made huge differences.

      The list goes on.

      Here are my thoughts about this story.

      The amount of power needed to fire a pulse laser at a missle and destroy it is enormous. That makes these planes a one-shot deal. There is no way to get the power into the plane for more than one shot. Even a nuclear power plant would not be able to recharge the lasers in seconds. So the way for an enemy to neutralize this multi-billion dollar plane is to simply fire two or three missles.

      If it is to be used as an anti-missile weapon the military is once again fighting the last war with this weapon. It might have been effective when one scud at a time was fired at Isreal in the first Gulf War. However, with this one-shot plane around the days of missiles being fired one at a time are probably over. If stationed over a major city it might be useful against a hijacked plane, but again it would be easily be defeated by the low-tech solution of hijacking two planes.

      I believe that this story was fed to the press as classic military deception. The plane makes little sense as an anti-missle plane, but it is a perfect anti-satellite weapon. Think about it - no atmosphere to interfere with the beam, no simultaneous targets, days instead of seconds to recharge the laser for the next satellite. Calling it an anti-missile weapon probably allows the military to side step the decades-old ban on anti-satellite weapons.

    101. Re:Half a world away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, replace 'few city blocks' with 'major infrastructure object' such as: a powerplant(extra points for nuclear powerplants), oil refinery, dam (extra points for highly populated areas downstream), air traffic control center, city harbour or heavily visited beach (instant tsunami - so much fun on the beach!) and then again, already mentioned couple of city blocks... in some Manhattan-style Metropolis packed with tall buildings, soaked in people and ready to fall like a dominos radialy from ground zero, spreading damage further.

      Then, aside from human lives loss, what do you say for some collective memory erasure: national libraries, archives, museums sheltering valuable relicts of the past? What is the price on THAT?

    102. Re:Half a world away? by 2short · · Score: 1

      Why in hell would you design the weapon around an infared laser?
      Nevermind, I don't want to know. This whole conversation is stupid, because they are not talking about bouncing the beam off satelites. They are talking about firing it directly at the missle from a plane that would need to already be on-station. Possibly quite some distance away, but "half a world away" was just stupid hyperbole, so it's just silly to be constructing elaborate scenarios to pretend it was precise technical data. I was asking why put it in a plane rhetorically; the reason they are puitting it in a plane is obvious: due to the curvature of the earth, they need to fire from a high altitude in order to have reasonable range, because they are not bouncing it off anything, because that would be stupid. Not, mind you that the actual system, as planned, is not stupid. It is; but it's not that stupid.

    103. Re:Half a world away? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you anyways, they can melt metal, I can weld an aluminum pin to a chrome plate with an IR pulse laser; silver doesn't work, it just explodes.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    104. Re:Half a world away? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "they can melt metal"

      As can lasers of higher frequencies, and more efficiently.

  2. Garden variety? by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "it's not exactly your garden-variety laser pointer."

    Wait, Laser pointers grow in gardens?? THAT, is a plant I would grow.

    just like that other one....

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
    1. Re:Garden variety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude I got a "lazer" plant that I grow, dude. It provides 420 watts of THC DUDE!

    2. Re:Garden variety? by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it will burn your cat hairless and knock him off his aircraft.

    3. Re:Garden variety? by r00t · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for a money tree.

    4. Re:Garden variety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a pussy willow?

    5. Re:Garden variety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on the "ringworld"

    6. Re:Garden variety? by MS-06FZ · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you can only grow green laser pointers, which are illegal as their only legitimate purpose is to blind airline pilots.

      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  3. Sci Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Is quantum computing sci-fi ? Is the space elevator sci-fi ? Is nuclear fusion sci-fi ? Is a laser cannon sci-fi ? No.
    Nothing to see here move along.

    1. Re:Sci Fi by 0racle · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Sci Fi by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Is quantum computing sci-fi?

      At this moment in time, PRACTICAL quantum computing is, yes.

      > Is the space elevator sci-fi?

      Again, at this moment in time, yes. Tests of a few thousand feet are a hell of a long way from geosyncronous orbit.

      > Is nuclear fusion sci-fi?

      No, it's a big bright ball in the sky. Now, if you're talking about humans initiating and controlling that reaction to extract more energy than they put into the reaction, then yes, it is in fact science fiction right now in 2006.

      > Is a laser cannon sci-fi ? No.

      Depends on your definition of cannon. If you mean something that can be effectively used as an offensive weapon against a hostile force, then this may be the first non-scifi example of such. If you mean a laser pointer, or something to cut out grills for your computer's fan in the shape of a nekkid chick, then no.

    3. Re:Sci Fi by masdog · · Score: 1

      PDAs were sci-fi 20 years ago. 30 years ago, cell phones and computers small enough that you could have one in your home were sci-fi. Landing a man on the moon was sci-fi fifty years ago.

      Things that we take for granted now were sci-fi back in the day. They never would have happened if it wasn't for visionary science-fiction authors looking at possible uses for technology that hadn't even been developed yet.

    4. Re:Sci Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez. This was old news last year. Slashdot having a slow news day or something?

  4. Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you emit X Joules of energy in over one second, you have X Watts. If you emit X Joules over one microsecond, you have X MegaWatts. The difficulty is not in getting the MegaWatts up, but keeping the laser trained on the same spot for long enough to penetrate the skin of a remote missile and cause it to malfunction catastrophically.

    1. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by dteichman2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...unless you have so many megawatts that you instantly destroy the laser...

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    2. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a mega fucking tool

    3. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article:

      Now, this thing is also going to take a lot of juice, right? Everything you need to power the lasers is going to be able to fit in the 747?
      Beason: Absolutely, and that's why you need a 747 to carry all the chemicals necessary to generate the laser light. Basically, the laser is generated by the transition of an excited iodine atom going from its excited state to a nonexcited state, but in order to get that iodine to the excited state, there is a chemical reaction that has to occur that transfers energy from oxygen to the iodine.

      This is not an ordinary laser, it's a chemical laser, that means that it consists of compounds that when mixed, lase. The reactions happen quite rapidly.

      Lasers are always rated in watts or fractions thereof. Saying it's a multiple megawatt laser is meaningful, although I couldn't find any information on precisely what the watt ratings for lasers mean.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how long is "instantly"?

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    5. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by frakir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now if the missle rotates (nothing too hard about making it rotate) then your super laser-pointer has to be really powerfull to penetrate through it and make permanent damage. Another simple idea is to make a sliding shield protecting from laser beam.

      When I think about it more it gets closer to 'paper, rock, scissors' rather then 100% accurate missle defense system.

    6. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Jerf · · Score: 1

      5.39e44 seconds.

    7. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Sawopox · · Score: 1

      Does 1 MegaJoule = 1 MegaWatt?
      Also, wouldn't 1 MegaJoule / Microsecond = 1 GigaWatt?
      Therefore, 1.21 MegaJoules / Microsecond = 1.21 GigaWatts?

      If this laser could produce >= 1 MegaJoule / Microsecond energy output, it would be able theoretically cause a missile / whatever to malfunction. Assuming the laser is within an effective range.

      right?

      --
      [http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?
    8. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Jerf · · Score: 1, Funny

      Damn it, 5.39e-44 seconds.

      Sigh, mod me to oblivion on that. I deserve it.

    9. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by waterwingz · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sounds like a job better suited to the new Airbus 380. No ... wait .. that's not made by Boeing or any other US defence contractor. Darn.

      --
      . waterwingz
    10. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      And with an additional 1.21 jiggawatts..... oh never mind.

    11. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by jmv · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you want to limit the range of that laser, all you would have to do is make the short-term trajectory unpredictable. It would probably take several milli-seconds (if not more) to fire the laser so as long as you can change trajectory (by a meter or so) faster than that, you're OK.

    12. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by c_forq · · Score: 1

      88 miles per hour (at least in a DeLorean, it may be differant for a Boeing).

      Yes, I know that is not a unit of time but I'm pretty sure it still answers the question.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    13. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm..so that's why the irani missiles carry mirrors.

    14. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Now if the missle rotates (nothing too hard about making it rotate) then your super laser-pointer has to be really powerfull to penetrate through it and make permanent damage.
      On the contrary, the lasers pulse is measured in milliseconds - which means the missile has to rotate *very* fast. (On the order of several hundred RPM, which is very difficult.)
      Another simple idea is to make a sliding shield protecting from laser beam.
      Sliding from where, to where? How does the missile know in advance to slide it? How to hold it in place at tens of gees of accelleration and with a supersonic airflow attempting to tear it off?

      It's only 'simple' to the armchair engineer.

    15. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      For that matter, rig a C-5 (or An-225 for those of you in Soviet Russia), put a nuke generator inside, we put a reactors on planes back in the 50's for nuclear propulsion tests, surely we've learned how to make them smaller and more efficent today.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    16. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we don't seem to be able to make conventional lasers in the multiple megawatt range that are, well, useful. I've heard such beasties exist and can do pulses, but there's no five megawatts by mid-may. Thus, producing a bunch of electrical energy isn't especially helpful. This is why they're using chemical lasers. Also, while people aren't particularly worried about nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, put that stuff up in the sky and people will shit purple twinkies even if you make the reactor out of that stuff they make the black boxes out of. It's a PR nightmare.

      If you ARE going to put all that effort in, then you're going to use microwave weapons, not lasers, because we probably can put out the kind of energy output we're looking for. Or, maybe you'd use a laser to ionize a path (or two) through the atmosphere, and nail the target with a lightning bolt, although that's relatively short-range compared to a laser weapon. My understanding is that there are already man-portable devices like this now, which are intended to replace tasers which fire darts on a lead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't even need to 'destroy' a missile, in the conventional sense.

      All it takes is cooking away enough material to fsck a missile's aerodynamics beyond it's ability to compensate.

      Admittedly, large pieces of the nearest country would still be screwed if these missiles had nuclear warheads, but maybe they wouldn't end up in/over the major population center that was being aimed at.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    18. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      No.
      No.

      No.

    19. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      "jigowatt"

    20. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by panthro · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the AC is talking about but yes, 1 J/s = 1 W, thus, 1.21 MJ/us = 1.21 GW.

      OTOH, I don't know where you get the idea that 1 GW is precisely the amount of power needed to disable a missile, and that the only factors worthy of consideration are said power and the 'effective range' of the laser...

      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    21. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      What about Aero Gel and other ablative materials?

    22. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, large pieces of the nearest country would still be screwed if these missiles had nuclear warheads, but maybe they wouldn't end up in/over the major population center that was being aimed at.

      iirc this depends on the missle. I believe that American warheads are not armed until they separate from the missile, the idea being that if there is a launch failure, you don't want to nuke North Dakota.

    23. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      What about Aero Gel and other ablative materials?
      Aerogel is an insulator, not an ablative - and has very little structural strength to boot. (Nor is it magic, dump enough heat into it and it will break down.)

      Insofar as putting ablative materials on the outside of the missle goes; it's possible but at great cost to the range and payload. To regain those means a bigger and more expensive missile - which means the Bad Guys have fewer to toss, which is a win. Even so, the lasers pulse will evaporate layers of ablative, which will push the missile off course (equal and opposite reaction and all that as the gases expand away from the missile). Probably not enough to tumble it, but enough to effect the CEP - which, unless the warhead is NBC, is still a net (if minor) win from the defenders POV.

      The ABL is kinda like a SAM battery - even if it doesn't get all the attackers, it breaks up the attack and reduces the total damage the attack can generate. This increases friction and decreases certainty (from the attackers POV) - which is a Very Good Thing from the defenders POV. The calculus of war in the real world is a spectrum of grey, not black and white - it's very important to keep this in mind.

    24. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      the idea being that if there is a launch failure, you don't want to nuke North Dakota.

      North Dakota? Why not?

      apologies in advance to any North Dakotans offended by this post

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    25. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by smithmc · · Score: 1

        OTOH, I don't know where you get the idea that 1 GW is precisely the amount of power needed to disable a missile, and that the only factors worthy of consideration are said power and the 'effective range' of the laser...

      Dude, you need to get out more.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    26. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by panthro · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm not retarded.

      Aside from the 1.21 GW thing, if the GGP was trying to be funny making a reference to BTTF, he/she utterly failed... sounded to me like it was totally serious...

      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    27. Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. by Sawopox · · Score: 1

      1.21GW is from Back To The Future.

      What other considerations would there be?

      A) Can we hit it?
      B) Can we hit it hard enough?

      --
      [http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?
  5. Eh, not really anything new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been on the drawing board for years. Call me when they field the JSF laser armed variant- a laser powerful enough for a AA kill packed into a space not that much larger than the trunk of my suburban.

    1. Re:Eh, not really anything new by dteichman2 · · Score: 1

      JSF... please..

      It can't even supercruise...

      Now an F-22 Raptor.... THAT'S a fighter!

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    2. Re:Eh, not really anything new by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1
      actually the F35 and variants is a dumbed down version of the F22

      also, from the way it looks, the Air Force will use the F22 like they will have one or two squads the same way the F117 is

    3. Re:Eh, not really anything new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are both the last manned fighters that will ever be built.

      They'd better BOTH do well because that's it. There is no more after this, not when robot planes can fly the pants off of manned fighters. Robots don't need bathroom breaks or sleep or air or ejector seats or training or payroll or SAR or hostage negotiations.

      And they don't need to turn slow enough that the pilot won't pass out from the Gs. The first human vs. robot dogfight is going to be a wake up call, when the robot out turns and out flies and out guns the AF boys into dog food.

      How about a 20G snap left followed by an inverted roll and 100% reverse thrust to a dead stop, while targeting and firing multiple weapon systems?

      Think fast! What's your F22/F35 pilot going to do? Die.

    4. Re:Eh, not really anything new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about a 20G snap left followed by an inverted roll and 100% reverse thrust to a dead stop, while targeting and firing multiple weapon systems?
      How about breaking the damn plane appart?
    5. Re:Eh, not really anything new by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Think fast! What's your F22/F35 pilot going to do? Die.

      Actually, it will launch a special purpose UAV called a missile :)

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  6. Say what? by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "...a jumbo jet packed with gear designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away..."

    Assuming your world is not larger than 600 kilometers across, that is. Or do they mean that the plane's going to be in the Middle East? In that case, an M-16 is able to kill enemy soldiers half a world away, too.

    1. Re:Say what? by 0racle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well it is a small world after all.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This sounds great and all for us Americans, but let's play devil's advocate for a while. To make it easier, let's assume North Korea has this weapon. How would we attack such a weapon that can be used not only on missiles, but in reality, anything in the air or on the ground?

      Such high-powered lasers, be they visible light or infrared/ultraviolet, scatter whenever they hit something. Yes, the bulk of the photons hit the target, but some don't. Would this blind commercial airline pilots, people on the ground etc. as the beam passes above them? For ground folks, probably not, the beam would be too dispersed, but still, there's a reason why folks who work with lasers wear safety goggles tuned to the frequencies of lasers they are working with. Lasers blind, even if you can't see it. High powered lasers can blind even if there's not a shiny surface to reflect off of.

      Now, since this thing's in a 747, and you are the enemy with sufficient resources, what would you do to counteract this weapon? You know shiny mirrors or clouds wouldn't really work too well. Making your missile shiny or spinning it faster won't work neither. So you can't really attack it either at the target nor inflight. So what are you left with? Especially if you don't know which plane the laser's in?

  7. WOW!!!!!!!11one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    shooting a laser at the speed of light!?!?!?1 Wow, that's AMAZING! i never thought that lasers could go at the speed of light!!!one1

  8. Garden Variety laser? by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Funny

    So... this isn't something I should use as a cat toy?

    1. Re:Garden Variety laser? by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      That all depends on whether or not you like cats

    2. Re:Garden Variety laser? by spagetti_code · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, thats been patented.
      You need to pay a licensing fee or purchase
      an official Cat Chaser(tm) if you want to play
      with your cat.

    3. Re:Garden Variety laser? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      "So... this isn't something I should use as a cat toy?" That depends: is your cat an imminent threat to national security, or does it ALWAYS seem to find your shoes with its hairballs? It's probably a good thing this technology isn't available to me, though my cat's aren't too much of a danger to The United States, or America.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:Garden Variety laser? by schlumpf_louise · · Score: 1

      erm... no.

    5. Re:Garden Variety laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So... this isn't something I should use as a cat toy?
      Not unless you've licenced patent 5,443,036
  9. Warning by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Funny

    As with all "Class 200000" laser products, care should be taken to avoid looking directly into the laser. Do not point the Airborne Laser into other people's eyes or stare into the beam.

    1. Re:Warning by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Someone I knew once worked at GE, building phased array radar for the navy. She told me a couple of very funny stories. A guy was inspecting a prototype for a new array model in a closed room, and accidentally fired it off. As you might expect, the radio waves bounced off the wall 5 feet away, came straight back, and blew out the system. Needless to say, there were some very pissed engineers.

      Then, they would go out to the boonies in New Jersey to test it. The Navy testing grounds is this large, flat, empty area in central Jersey. The thing was, birds (pelicans or gulls, I think) would swoop down right above the radar while it was being tested at full power. Needless to say, they made a rather disturbing sizzling sound as they dropped.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    2. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's infrared, so it's eye-safe.

    3. Re:Warning by buckyboy314 · · Score: 0

      Caution: Do not look into laser with remaining good eye.

    4. Re:Warning by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      .. and "she" was probably (if true) breaking national security laws by disclosing this type of information to you. It does not take a genius to estimate the system requirements to reproduce said results.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    5. Re:Warning by scibbers · · Score: 0

      Needs the warning sign on it from one of the Engineering labs at my University

      "Big Scary Laser! Do not look into with remaining eye"
    6. Re:Warning by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if she told him in the 50's.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    7. Re:Warning by r00t · · Score: 1

      Power level isn't terribly interesting, and it's pretty damn obvious to anyone who cares to listen in. The software is far more interesting.

    8. Re:Warning by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Do not look into ABL with remaining head"

    9. Re:Warning by endersdouble · · Score: 1

      In the physics building here on campus, many of the labs have signs on their doors reading "Do Not Look Into Laser with Remaining Eye."

    10. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I used to test software at the place you speak of, and have heard that story. Also amusing is that at one of the labs (in another nearby building) a woman calls every single night at around 1 AM or so, complaining that she can feel the radar beams and to turn them off. I talked to her once. She's crazy.

    11. Re:Warning by Khelder · · Score: 1

      No, no, the correct label is:

      Warning: Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

    12. Re:Warning by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You appear to be referring to Naval Weapons Station Earle. It's not really in the boonies of NJ. Just over the highway there are many communities. However you may also be referring to the combined Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Fort Dix and McGwire AFB which does encompass a large section of south central Jersey. On this map, NWS Earle is the small grey section near the Rt. 18 marker. The combined base is the large grey section in the middle.

    13. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not look into beam with remaining ashes.

    14. Re:Warning by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Do not stare into Airborne Laser with remaining portion of head.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    15. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this one, its more along the lines of:

      Do not look into laser with remaining head.

  10. laser pointers and planes by MoFoQ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmmm...a big laser pointer....and a big plane....

    Does Homeland Security (and FAA) know?

    Hope they don't point at other pilots or ppl on the ground....(though don't think there's anything in the law that says that pilots can't use laser pointers and point them towards ppl on the ground...the vice versa is prohibited.)

    1. Re:laser pointers and planes by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      WTF?? This is the MILITARY using it for god's sake. They can do whatever they want, remember??

  11. It wil fail. by Frogbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've read the article and nowhere does it mention how they implemented the necessary "Freakin Shark" component. Either they are holding it back for the sake of national security or they are preparing themselves for a million dollar blunder.

    1. Re:It wil fail. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to work out when they tell us theres snakes on the plane.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:It wil fail. by Omega+Blue · · Score: 1

      In fact, I read the same thing years ago, shortly after 911. Supposedly all sorts of fantastic new weapons would be available Real Soon back then. Things like tanks with large laser cannons alongside with airborne ABM mega lasers.

      I wonder if we will hear about all sorts of fantastic weapons in the near future.

  12. ABL Systems are old by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nothing new, this kind of thing has been underdevelopment since late in the Cold War. Unlike perceptions in the pentagon, times have changed. These missile systems will not prevent projectiles like rpg fire; we need defense platforms for the present, not the past. There's no point in building an anti-missile laser when Iran or whoever developes a nuke can completly skip the missile. Whose going to build their nuclear weapon onto a missle delivery system if they know we can shoot it down? Not being able to shoot them down was the reason we put nukes on missiles in the first place.

    Cut the funding, dump the project and reassign the personel to more useful projects like laser based fusion power, or robotics, or composite smart armor development.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:ABL Systems are old by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True, this is more like "they finally got that thing working"? The ABL dates back to the 1980s. These things are starting to look useful, though, now that everybody is throwing low-rent rockets around battlefields. This provides a way to thin them out, without using an expensive Patriot to take out a cheap rocket. The smaller model in the C-130 is likely to be more useful than the big one in the 747.

    2. Re:ABL Systems are old by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      Yes, agreed. I heard a rumor these things were already flying anyway...

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    3. Re:ABL Systems are old by castoridae · · Score: 1

      Whose going to build their nuclear weapon onto a missle delivery system if they know we can shoot it down?

      Well, nobody. That's the point - one less delivery vector to worry about. We're still going to have to worry about suitcase nukes either way, but with this deterrent in place, we can take the bandwidth we used to spend worrying about missiles and use that to worry more about suitcase bombs.

    4. Re:ABL Systems are old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whose going to build their nuclear weapon onto a missle delivery system if they know we can shoot it down?" Exactly, dumbass. Ya, really, we shouldn't build it because we very much want other countries building nuke tipped missles???

    5. Re:ABL Systems are old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These missile systems will not prevent projectiles like rpg fire; we need defense platforms for the present, not the past.

      I do not believe that is entirely correct. You should look into the M-THEL (wiki) project. I'll quote a relevant part:

      MTHEL became the first laser weapon to track and destroy multiple artillery projectiles in flight at the missile range.

      This seems quite useful in current conflicts for things like mortars, etc, and the lasers will only get better.

    6. Re:ABL Systems are old by galgon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whose going to build their nuclear weapon onto a missile delivery system if they know we can shoot it down? Not being able to shoot them down was the reason we put nukes on missiles in the first place.

      Perhaps you are not seeing the big picture. With this system, the threat of a world-ending nuclear war has just ended. Also on a somewhat scary note: the US would be able to nuke any country with little fear of reprisal. In theory the US just became the only country capable of using nuclear missiles.

      Sure there will always be the chance of suitcase bombs and such. However, the worst that would happen would be a small-scale coordinated attack taking out a few large cities. Yes, that would be horrible, but it is still much better than destroying the whole world.

    7. Re:ABL Systems are old by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No, it hasn't ended. It's just been made a lot more difficult for smaller nations. Larger nations like China and Russia (and perhaps India) can launch them from distances sufficiently far away from safe zones where this would fly to make it difficult to shoot them down. The ABL's primary goal is to take out missiles in the boost phase, often when they're over the launcher's territory, so they have to be within a few hundred miles of the launch site to be of any use. Whether they'd be good for downing warheads in the ballistic stage of flight is questionable.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:ABL Systems are old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose you point them down. Fry fixed installations with impunity. Assassination target in his car? Heat things up a bit with the Finger of God. Not that the US of A would make use of their weaponry in such an unethical way, though.

    9. Re:ABL Systems are old by insane_machine · · Score: 0

      Well they wouldn't be helping to destroy the world, the US will just have to use enough nukes to cover for everyone else.

    10. Re:ABL Systems are old by c_forq · · Score: 1

      My motto regarding military science: If they have publicly acknowledged it, it has already been used and the next generation is very far in development if not already seeing action.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    11. Re:ABL Systems are old by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      Yes, like that. Very true I would think.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    12. Re:ABL Systems are old by lesv · · Score: 1

      Cut the funding, dump the project and reassign the personel to more useful projects like laser based fusion power, or robotics, or composite smart armor development.

      Unfortunately, you've got to build them for them to be useless. If this works, long range missiles can become obsolete, not before.

    13. Re:ABL Systems are old by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      This is nothing new, this kind of thing has been underdevelopment since late in the Cold War. Unlike perceptions in the pentagon, times have changed. These missile systems will not prevent projectiles like rpg fire
      The military has dozens of systems that won't stop RPG fire - shall we get rid of them too?
      we need defense platforms for the present, not the past.
      The TBM (Theatre Ballistic Missile) is the threat of today - they are not uncommon, and them what doesn't have them are trying very hard to obtain them.
      There's no point in building an anti-missile laser when Iran or whoever developes a nuke can completly skip the missile.
      Without a missile, there's essentially no way to deliver the nuclear warhead. (Except by airplane, which a) we already know how to shoot down and b) is generally not the chosen delivery method of the average tinpot dicatator.)
      Whose going to build their nuclear weapon onto a missle delivery system if they know we can shoot it down?
      That is precisely the point - but this laser will also work against chemical or biological payloads as well as conventional ones too.
      Not being able to shoot them down was the reason we put nukes on missiles in the first place.
      You are confusing ICBMs (which this laser system isn't designed to defeat), with IRBMs and TBMs - which it is.
    14. Re:ABL Systems are old by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      That may have been true in the past, but that's old-school, bad-ass military thinking. In the present state, it's more likely to be code for, "This frigging thing is never going to work. Let's tell the public it does, and when it fails, we'll tell them it worked perfectly."

    15. Re:ABL Systems are old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Also on a somewhat scary note: the US would be able to nuke any country with little fear of reprisal"

      So long as you forget cruise missiles, SLBMs, etc.

      "In theory the US just became the only country capable of using nuclear missiles."

      Assuming you have hundreds of them and they work. One of the many failings of America is that it lies to itself and then believes its own propaganda. The Patriot system is a good example.

      Of course, if they do work, I would give it five years before all your major enemies have one as well. It was four for the nuclear bomb.

      Incidentally (and if anything gets me modded insightful, this should), I suspect the US is shooting itself in the foot by developing this technology. Its major military advantage over third-world nations at the moment is its air power. In that respect it is like Britain during the Empire, where any uprisings would be quelled by the Royal Navy bombarding the recalcitrant nation from a position of relative safety. Britain put a lot of resource into maintaining its navy, and became hugely vulnerable when the submarine (a cheap way of sinking a battleship) was developed.

      If laser technology works as described, it will be a particularly cheap and effective anti-aircraft weapon. I suggest that this is not what the US wants at the moment.

      The US has a touching faith in the ability of high tech weapons to solve political problems, an inability strategically to see further than the end of its nose, and a tendency to vote for paranoid idiots who wave a flag. These are vulnerabilities which more intelligent and sophisticated politicians/terrorists can exploit to place America in positions where it cannot win. All America's military expeditions for the last 50 years bear that out.

    16. Re:ABL Systems are old by dodobh · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even attack the US mainland. I would drop nukes at the bottom of the Pacific. Or really big ones under the Antarctican ice shelf.

      And I would just drop a large volume of radioactive material in the water sources of the mainland US.

      Your fundamental mistake is in assuming that nuclear explosions are the only way to use nukes.

      Remember, the only way to win is not to play at all.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    17. Re:ABL Systems are old by dajak · · Score: 1

      Sure there will always be the chance of suitcase bombs and such.

      The laser can also take out suitcases, and wearing a tinfoil hat would be a dead giveaway.

    18. Re:ABL Systems are old by dajak · · Score: 1

      Poor man's delivery system for smaller countries: a Diesel-electric submarine, a nuclear torpedo, and the Hudson Bay. The technology is there already, and the US Navy has demonstrated on several occasions it cannot detect allied DE submarines in NATO exercises. The best defense against that is making sure you never lose track of hostile nation's submarines (assuming a limited submerged action radius).

    19. Re:ABL Systems are old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet,cut ALL funding and use the fractually required Funding on Diplomacy,like training the US Elite Apes to get along with the rest of the World!

    20. Re:ABL Systems are old by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Chances are, like the F-22A, the ABL isn't made to take on a terrorist group or even Iran. It's made for the threats in the Far East--China and Korea. Of course the Pentagon won't come out and say that, because the idea that we're building hardware to fight a war against a country that isn't currently hostile isn't politically popular.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    21. Re:ABL Systems are old by BillGod · · Score: 1

      I saw this on discovery channel years ago. They were showing actual footage of missles being "shot down". The film was in black and white if that tells you how old it was. I am assuming that with some advancements in tech that this is possible now. They were able to do it before but with very little accuracy and it still took a few minutes to heat up enough to blow.

      --
      MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
    22. Re:ABL Systems are old by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · · Score: 1

      Alas, the Airborne Laser Project is in danger of being canceled. The reprieve is contingent on meeting a very tight schedule.

      ABL testing pushed back
      ABL demoted to "technology demonstration"
      ABL in danger of cancellation
      ABL given conditional reprieve
    23. Re:ABL Systems are old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any reason that this could not be used on a land based threat? Centrifuge facility in Iran say?

    24. Re:ABL Systems are old by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Deeper in the article there is mention that one of the spinoffs of this project, I think the THEL, has shown an ability to down Katyushas, mortar rounds, and field artillery. That sounds useful, even in today's threat matrix. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Israelis have already helped themselves to the plans for one of these and are beginning production to deal with the Qassam and Katyusha problems from their neighbors.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    25. Re:ABL Systems are old by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      This provides a way to thin them out, without using an expensive Patriot to take out a cheap rocket.

      The chemicals consumed from an ABL shot are expensive. Very expensive. On the order of a Patriot PAC-3 missile expensive. Can't just toss in some new AAs and call it good.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  13. Ob. reference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't bother reading the article, but how powerful is this thing? Like, 5 megawatts?

    Man, what I wouldn't give to see a 5 megawatt laser fire, just once.

  14. better yet... by xusr · · Score: 1

    imagine a beowulf cluster.

    1. Re:better yet... by dteichman2 · · Score: 1

      Who needs a cluster? Just use Blue Gene/L2 to array the things and make them work in concert.

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
  15. No, these weapons are already here by Toxicgonzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We all know the real reason America is winning the war in Iraq.

    http://tinyurl.com/r2t8q

    But on a more serious note, check out this video footage of new age technology

    http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_3 00.swf

    1. Re:No, these weapons are already here by Benzido · · Score: 1

      Hold on, did you say America is winning the war in Iraq??

    2. Re:No, these weapons are already here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      If this is for real, then no doubt that it will be used on commercial aircraft. I have thought for quite some time that the idea of abm on commercial aircrafts did not make sense, but this may. As it is, it is most likely a millimeter wave type system with a targeting of the rocket.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Super-powerful lasers? by the-amazing-blob · · Score: 0

    I have a very bad feeling about this.

    1. Re:Super-powerful lasers? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      That's no moon! It's an enormous Federal Boondoggle!

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    2. Re:Super-powerful lasers? by jftitan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my ION canon, was a bitch to use. it took over 5 minutes for that thing to recharge. And its damage was barely enough to take down those pesky Construction Buildings. However, I loved placing soldiers in groups and take out a whole squad with my ION Canon.

      those were the days!

      (Command & Conquer... original is the best EVER!!)

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
  17. fantastic new weapons by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hitler lost the war by micromanaging his army into the ground. But he had blind faith that technology would save him, and he always talked about the "fantastic new weapons" (jet engines, etc.) he was expecting from his scientists to save the war. Blind faith in technology is no substitute for a well run army.

    But we must not compare any contemporary politician to Hitler- that wouldn't be "responsible".

    1. Re:fantastic new weapons by jigjigga · · Score: 1

      um no. Hitler lost the war because he was obsessed with land and the "inferior" races. Go read up the accounts of German Generals and soldiers of the Wehrmacht, the use of trains to ship Jews rather than military supplies, etc...

    2. Re:fantastic new weapons by skam240 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hitler lost the war because he was out produced, not because of his faith in technology. The Russians and the Americans could just produce one hell of allot more "stuff" than the Germans. Granted this stuff was often inferior to the German's stuff (the Sherman's cannon couldn't even penetrate the front or side armor of a German Tiger) which resulted in far higher loss rates but even then the Germans didn't have the resources or the production capacity to keep replenishing their forces.

      So basically you're wrong :)

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:fantastic new weapons by quantax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, one could argue that technology could have, atleast temporarily, forstalled the inevitable loss of the war for Hitler. Two great examples, the Tiger Tank & the Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet. Both were better than anything else the Allies had at the time in their respective weapon classes, but both were then micromanaged by Hitler such that they lost their purpose. The tiger went from being one of the fastest tanks in the war to being the most heavily armored tank in the war with a giant gun, so much so that its ability to manuever in the Russian geography was terrible. They essentially turned into semi-mobile artillary placements. The Messerschmitt suffered the same fate; it was faster and more manueverable than anything else the Allies had but then Hitler said make it a bomber, eliminating its manueverability & range in favor of dropping more powerful munitions. In both cases, Hitler decided to micromanage these projects, ignored his own scientists and subsequently created weapons that were ineffective at what they were originally designed to do in the first place.

      As far as your comment on comparing politicians to Hitler, personally, I think this really debases just about any debate since a) most people really don't fully grasp what Hitler did when he was in power, so any metaphor they make is incomplete and quite likely bears no resemblence to what happened under Hitler, and b) theres tons of more moderate and applicable examples than Hitler to be used as reference that do not carry a fuckload of emotional baggage like Hitler & the Nazis do. Its merely used since even the slowest kid in the class knows that Nazis = Bad, and as such, panders to the lowest common denominator. If you think your audience is stupid, sure use the Nazi's, since everyone knows they're bad, but otherwise, show your audience some respect and get a bit of nuanced thinking in there.

      --
      "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
    4. Re:fantastic new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not wrong. Hitler had a big faith in that he would get yet another fantastic super weapon that would turn the tide of war. Now, this didn't happen... at least not in time. I recommend you to read Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II . It gives you an insight into the mindset of Hitler and you also get to see all the fantastic weapons the Germans developed (many of which the allies developed further after the war with the help of captured German scientists). Germany and the allies had two different approaches to building weapons... Germany went for quality, the allies went for quantity.

    5. Re:fantastic new weapons by XMilkProject · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I invoke Godwins Law.

      --
      Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
      Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
    6. Re:fantastic new weapons by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You have a rather unique view of history.

      The presumption on your part is that America had some sort of intrinsic responsibility to spend billions of dollars that it didn't really have on a war effort to save millions of Europeans who are now largely ungrateful, that corrupted our society and has caused us nothing but grief since. Up 'til the time of World War II, America was a relatively insular nation. We didn't want to be in that war, tried hard to stay out of it (see: Lend Lease) and yes we got into it when Japan foolishly attacked Pearl Harbor (which was a military base, in case you've forgotten.) Like it or not, we expended vast resources to put the lid back on when you Europeans raised yet another demagogic dictator and were yet again unable to handle him. So watch it with the snide remarks. They're not much appreciated at all. If the United States hadn't stepped in when it did, the results would have been very different. The remnants of the British Empire were no longer up to the task, and the rest of Europe combined couldn't stand up to the Axis. Yes, a lot of Russians died in that war ... but a lot of other Allied personnel died as well, and ask yourself just how far Hitler and Japan would have gone if the Allies hadn't gone after them.

      By the way, here's a picture of the Arizona resort to which you were referring.

      Jawohl!

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:fantastic new weapons by OldCrasher · · Score: 1

      I think this can be found in Churchill's History of the Second World War; German production in WWII was not exceeded by the Allies until mid-1944. Now, the Germans had an issue or two with oil, but it was late in the day that the Allies managed to out produce their foe.

    8. Re:fantastic new weapons by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hitler lost the war by micromanaging his army into the ground. But he had blind faith that technology would save him, and he always talked about the "fantastic new weapons" (jet engines, etc.) he was expecting from his scientists to save the war.
      Yes... and no.

      Hitler lost because the West outproduced him. He also lost because he didn't adapt new technology - in 1944 he was still fighting largely with 1938 era equipment, while the West was fielding 1944 era equipment. (For various political and economic reasons the Nazi hierarchy a) wouldn't disturb existing production for new production and b) couldn't agree on what to produce in the first place.)

      Hitler's much vaunted belief in 'wonderweapons' is an artifact of the last phases of the war, when the situation was starting to crumble.

    9. Re:fantastic new weapons by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Take German war memoirs with a major grain of salt. They often take credit for all the smart decisions and blame Hitler for all of the mistakes. They also often have large gaps where they decided not to write about their involvement in politics or possible war crimes.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    10. Re:fantastic new weapons by drachton · · Score: 1

      You're incorrect. I have R. A. C. Parker's "The Second World War" in front of me, and from 1940 to 1944, Germany is consistently outproduced by the UK + USSR in terms of aircrafts, tanks and self-propelled artillery, guns, trucks and surface warships. The only area Germany dominated is the production of submarines. Note that these numbers *exclude* US output, which from 1942 exceeds that of Germany by itself. Germany was defeated in WWII because it became overwhelmingly outnumbered (UK + US + USSR population in 1939 = ~300,000,000; Germany + Austria + Italy + Japan = ~190,000,000) and with enemies on two fronts besides. Again, note that these numbers exclude the British Empire (Canada + Australia, mainly).

    11. Re:fantastic new weapons by drachton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To imply that joining the Allies was not objectively in the best interest of the US is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. The US didn't join the war to help Europe out of the goodness of its heart (otherwise they'd have joined the fray at once, not years later). There exists *no* scenario where a Third Reich-dominated Eurasia was a good thing for the US, and considering the German technological lead in several fields with important military applications, it's not hard to imagine how such an alternate history might end badly for the US.

    12. Re:fantastic new weapons by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I invoke the codicil mentioned in your Godwin's Law wikipedia link ;)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:fantastic new weapons by Nocterro · · Score: 2
      We offer our sincerest thanks for working with us to prevent violent global domination of the many by a few. Now, for the love of god, will you please go back to isolationism? If you haven't noticed, there is not actually a world war happening any more. Stop acting like the global policeman, America is looking more like a country attempting (violent and otherwise) global domination each day.

      --The Rest of the World

      --
      [clever sig]
    14. Re:fantastic new weapons by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Europeans who are now largely ungrateful

      Why do you think this? Have you been watching Fox or something? This is a big distortion of the truth. When we have things like Remembrance Day in the UK, we remember everyone who has fought and died to help our country, and that doesn't just include British troops, but people from all around the world.

      Most of us recognise how important the USA were to freedom in Europe over WW2. I'm grateful to the people who risked their lives for that freedom.

    15. Re:fantastic new weapons by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1

      Again, note that these numbers exclude the British Empire (Canada + Australia, mainly).

      Excuse me?

      British Indian Army

      During World War II the Indian Army became the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size.

      It's sad that people forget the sacrifices made by non-europeans for what was partly an european cause.

      --
      -Shaunak
    16. Re:fantastic new weapons by mano_k · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, one could argue that technology could have, atleast temporarily, forstalled the inevitable loss of the war for Hitler.

      Whatever the reason, I am truly gratefull Hitler and his Nazis lost the war!

      As far as your comment on comparing politicians to Hitler, personally, I think this really debases just about any debate since a) most people really don't fully grasp what Hitler did when he was in power, so any metaphor they make is incomplete and quite likely bears no resemblence to what happened under Hitler, and b) theres tons of more moderate and applicable examples than Hitler to be used as reference that do not carry a fuckload of emotional baggage like Hitler & the Nazis do.

      Very true! Be it Hussein or Bush or Milosevic, alway the comparison with Hitler and Nazi Germany creeps up from somewhere. However bad the dictators of the present are, not one comes close to the horror and madness the was Germany 33-45!

    17. Re:fantastic new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you think your audience is stupid, sure use the Nazi's, since everyone knows they're bad, but otherwise, show your audience some respect and get a bit of nuanced thinking in there."

      One could easily argue that the audience in question isn't particularly smart -- especially when it comes to issues it's too scared to consider rationally.

      Its leaders are an exception. They may be smart, but they're manipulative enough not to deserve the respect you offer them.

    18. Re:fantastic new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "...America had some sort of intrinsic responsibility to spend billions of dollars that it didn't really have on a war effort to save millions of Europeans..."

      America never did this. It is a very greedy nation, as, in the limit, all are. If it spends billions of dollars it is for it's own self-interest.

      "..we got into it when Japan foolishly attacked Pearl Harbor ...you Europeans raised yet another demagogic dictator..."

      You can't have it both ways. If we raised the German menace by trying to appease Hitler then you unquestionably caused the Japanese threat with your 'starve-them' commodity and oil policies.

      "If the United States hadn't stepped in when it did, the results would have been very different."

      Not actually so different. Europe would have collapsed, the British Empire would have fought Germany to a standstill, and Russia would have taken the spoils. In fact, after El-Alamein the British had Germany surrounded, though still in possession of a lot of raw material. But I am assuming that Germany could have survived the usual British blockade weapon about as well as Napoleon did.

      The reason the Americans came in was to deny all of Germany and France to the communists. For America's sake, not for Europe's.

    19. Re:fantastic new weapons by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Hitler lost because he was crazy. If he'd left the russians and americans alone they wouldn't have intervened until later. Russia was an ally until he decided to attack them and thus fight a war on 2 (or maybe 3, I forget) fronts, in the middle of russian winter. As for america, just leave them scrapping with the japanese and don't blow up any of the america->england ships.

      Of course, anyone crazy enough to actually start a war wouldn't listen to little old me.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    20. Re:fantastic new weapons by Templaris · · Score: 1

      The Tiger tank's purpose was to be a heavy tank. It never became irrelevant all through the war. Only when it was first introduced were there some mechanical problems, but those mostly got ironed out. The Tiger was never produced in large quantities, but that was understandable considering the Nazi War Machine and all its issues, as well as the fact it needed a bigger gun and more armor to take out those T-34s. And in all those WWII non-fiction book, the allied tankers always talk about their fear of Tiger and King Tiger Tanks.

    21. Re:fantastic new weapons by dajak · · Score: 1

      An important factor in the loss of air superiority by the Germans was their inability to train sufficient competent pilots to replace the large numbers of well-trained and experienced pilots lost in the May 1940 campaign and the Battle for Britain. Once the air war was brought to Germany, the life expectancy of German pilots dropped considerably. They were sent into combat almost directly from the instruction room, and many planes (+ pilots) were lost at takeoff. The only solution would have been to stop throwing everything askedagainst the allied bombers, but this was unpalatable for Hitler. In these circumstances the Me 262 (as an interceptor) would have had great effect because you utilize your few experienced pilots, the scarcest resource, much better.

      Hitler's problem as a military leader is that he always wanted more than the German people where capable of. Hitler was not really a people person.

    22. Re:fantastic new weapons by Varitek · · Score: 1

      Hitler lost the war because he was out produced, not because of his faith in technology.

      Those two clauses aren't incompatible. The Tiger was a fantastic tank that was so complex, they only made a couple of thousand of them. The Soviet T34 was a very good tank that was simple enough to make tens of thousands of them.

    23. Re:fantastic new weapons by XchristX · · Score: 1

      What the hell gives you the right to speak for the "Rest of the World"? Do you know how everybody in the world thinks? There are many outside America who support American troops against the bloody terrorist swine that threaten to wipe out all unbelievers. Only a new-age European hippie would be crazy enough to think that his dogmatic narrow arrogant anti-American view would be accepted by "the world". "The world" doesn't hate The United States, only the enemies of the world hate the United States (which is more of a pluralist and multicultural nation than the racist skinheads in Ukraine, the Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists in England, the anti-semites in France, or the ISKON murderers in Russia). Why don't you take the Liberal idiots in America that give the country such a bad name and stuff them in your wretched chilly continent? Like begets like, right?

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    24. Re:fantastic new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh please get over yourself... Yehhaaaa America saves the day. Most historians agree that Russia would have finished Germany even if America had not joined in. Although by the sounds of it the school history books over there have their own spin too them. And of course most europeans are ungrateful, it is estimated apx. 20 million europeans lost their lives in that conflict before America decided to join in. America lost only apx. 295,000 in the whole thing. And you want thanks??? climb back in your box cowboy, you may of hastened the endgame but you never saved the day.

    25. Re:fantastic new weapons by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The British Empire was well up to the task of dealing with Germany by the time the Americans joined in, Germany could not have invaded the UK mainland and was no longer much of a threat to the her other territories in Africa and India. Britain could probably not have invaded mainland Europe so the end result would have been a standoff between Britain & Germany.

      In the meantime Russia would be still be winning on the Eastern front and would eventually beat Germany and take over Europe at which point both the future of both the US and the UK would be very different especially since it would the Russia and not the US making use of all the German developments in rocket science etc.

    26. Re:fantastic new weapons by anaesthetica · · Score: 1
      Hitler lost the war because he was out produced, not because of his faith in technology.

      Hitler lost because he made a very large strategic error: breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact thus opening a second front in the war. Hitler should have consolidated his position in France and the Low Countries while continuing to press for the subdual of Britain. Every other country in Western Europe was either an ally or neutral: Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Free Ireland (neutral). If he eliminated Britain and achieved a true submarine blockade, there would have been nearly no chance for the U.S. to invade Europe later in the war. Instead, he foolishly surprise attacked Russia, fighting Stalin. If there was a dictator who cared less about his people than Hitler, it was Stalin. Stalin sent 20 million undernourished, poorly trained, ill-equipped draftees to the front to get mowed down by the Germans. But eventually the massive numbers of Siberian draftees overwhelmed the superior German army. The two-front war delayed Hitler's consolidation of the West and subdual of Britain, allowing enough time for the U.S. to enter the war. With his forces split he lost. It was a strategic error, not an error in production or faith in technology.

      Meanwhile, another error Hitler made (but one which he was not entirely in control of) was his alliance with Imperial Japan. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the only way to get the U.S. public into the war. The United States public was still very isolationist after WWI and the Great Depression. There was little motivation at all to get into WWII, and Roosevelt had to content himself with the Lend-Lease program to assist the Allies. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, Roosevelt declared war on both Japan and Germany, although Germany hadn't participated in the attack or planned it. That alliance with Japan allowed Roosevelt to justify entering the war in Europe against Hitler. The alliance with Japan did more harm to Germany than good.

      In retrospect, Hitler should have kept the truce with Russia, while not bothering to ally with Japan (they didn't really have many shared interests in any case). But he made significant strategic errors on those counts.

    27. Re:fantastic new weapons by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      Um no he was addicted to Meth.

      he was having like multiple daily injections from his private doctor and THATS why he lost the war.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    28. Re:fantastic new weapons by Nocterro · · Score: 1

      Well, hate might be the wrong word, but the USA has a consistently poor image across most of the mainstream population in western countries, as well as the extremists. You can argue about the reason, but professional surveys return a fairly consistent result; America is untrusted at best. Perhaps if there were fewer arrogant individuals such as yourself who believe in the undying glory of your country this would be different?

      --
      [clever sig]
    29. Re:fantastic new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hitler was not really a people person.



      That is probably the understatement of the century ...

    30. Re:fantastic new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmmm I am not sure which world you live in, not the same one as me. I have lived in both Australia and the UK over the last 10 years and from what I see our governments may be all chummy with America but the majority of the population in these countries are not exactly happy with the way America is stirring up the next world war. Any country that can with a straight face say you can't have what we have got or we will invade/bomb you cannot expect to be liked.

    31. Re:fantastic new weapons by XchristX · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      fewer arrogant individuals such as yourself who believe in the undying glory of your country this would be different
      [/quote]


      1. I'm not an American.

      2. I'm an Indian Hindu. I proudly voted for the BJP/RSS alliance in every election since I was of voting age.

      3. I have no animosity, hatred or mistrust towards the United States or the conservative republican party. I can criticize some of their ideologies and actions, but not to the point of mania.

      4. We have been dealing with the terrorist burden in our own soil (Maoists in the mainland, Islamic militants like JKLF, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jamat-al-Mujahiddeen etc. in J&K) for a long time and thinking people (not the fucked up commie scum of the U.P.A. government presently raping our country and giving in to the terrorists' demands whenever they muck about, fucking communist cowards...) fully sympathize with America's overall reaction to the terrorists. These terrorists are barbaric savage swine and ruthless thugs who hate America, Israel, India and the entire cvilized modern world and none of our societies will survive their onslaught unless we are EQUALLY ruthless to them. The republicans get that. The American "Democrats", with their mindless Orwellian duckspeaker propaganda, are more interested in catering to "political correctedness" and other such rubbish than defending their rightful homeland.

      5. The Liberal "Democrat" (read communist) party that has been running things in the US have had more cock-ups wrt foreign relations than the republicans.

      6. Leftists in America (particularly in Academia) have carried out more acts of Racism, (new) Anti-Semetism, and Hinduphobia in the US than moderate republican politicians in recent years, despite what you may see on television.

      6. The Liberal socialists own the US media, the US academia, and thus any statistical data from biased sources are suspect.

      In conclusion, don't think "published" data says anything reliable. American efforts in combating terrorism are appreciated by many non-Americans.

      Anything that the Americans may have done in Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever, including the overhyped Abu-Ghraib and Gitmo-bay stuff (which supposedly are the reasons why America is so 'unpopular'), is preferable to the civilized world being overrun by terrorists.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    32. Re:fantastic new weapons by XchristX · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      Uhmmm I am not sure which world you live in, not the same one as me. I have lived in both Australia and the UK over the last 10 years and from what I see our governments may be all chummy with America but the majority of the population in these countries are not exactly happy with the way America is stirring up the next world war.
      [/quote]


      If you look at the pew global stats (which a parent or grandparent had posted in this thread), you will see that 71% of India's population supports America and her War on Terror. I can't help it if Europeans are ingrates.

      [quote]
      Any country that can with a straight face say you can't have what we have got or we will invade/bomb you cannot expect to be liked.
      [/quote]

      The Americans may be arrogant assholes, but damn it they have a LOT to be arrogant assholes about!

      This was the first truly modern democracy in the world.

      This was a country that rescued you Europeans from surviving by giving blow jobs to Wehrermacht soldiers in WW-II.


      America has been a great supporter of Israel, and have defended the country against Islamofascist aggression. All the while the useless United Napunsaks turned against the Jewish State and spread lies about it and secretly funded terrorists in the West Bank.



      I may not always agree with what they are doing in the name of democracy, but at least they are doing something. Because of Americans, the terrorists are confined in shitholes like Iraq and Iran and the desert which nobody cares about really.

      What are you Poms and Aussies doing? Oh yeah, NOTHING!!! Only rising Neo-Nazism and islamofascist sympathy in your countries. "White Australia" and the British division of the KKK are on the rise. These buggers love bin-Laden and the Islamists more than the Islamists themselves.




      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  18. Oh come on already... by tfoss · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Have we really slummed low enough that we are using cheesy 80's movies as inspiration for national defense?

    Seriously, where's the giant bowl of popcorn?

    -Ted

    --
    -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    1. Re:Oh come on already... by spxero · · Score: 1

      They're heating it up with the giant laser...

    2. Re:Oh come on already... by Endareth · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I was actually thinking Spies Like Us would be a more apt source of inspiration!

      --
      Disclaimer: The above comment was made while under the influence of too much coding and not enough sleep.
  19. 1.21 gigawatts by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1, Funny

    But can they do 1.21 gigawatts. If they could, it would make the beam go back in time and destroy the missile before it was ever launched!

    1. Re:1.21 gigawatts by dteichman2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and all they'd need is a Flux capacitor!

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    2. Re:1.21 gigawatts by cloudofstrife · · Score: 1

      It's not gigawatts, it's jigawatts!

    3. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not gigawatts, it's jigawatts!

      Jigga, watt?

    4. Re:1.21 gigawatts by absoluteflatness · · Score: 1

      ...but can it go 88 miles per hour?

    5. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 4, Funny
      Jigga, watt?

      Jigga, please!

    6. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jigawatt isn't a word. Gigawatt is. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/gigawatt.html

    7. Re:1.21 gigawatts by cloudofstrife · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I thought they were using a nonsense unit.

    8. Re:1.21 gigawatts by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      It's Slashdot joke - Dr Brown (in Back to the future) actually says 1.21 Jigawatts!!!!

      Hence the joke now about time travel, 88 miles an hour and Jigawatts.
      Yes we know it is none-sense - that's why we find it funny.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    9. Re:1.21 gigawatts by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      Giggity giggity giggity.

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    10. Re:1.21 gigawatts by BigChiefMunkey · · Score: 1

      Jigga who?

    11. Re:1.21 gigawatts by ginbot462 · · Score: 1
      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    12. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Bahumat · · Score: 1

      Say watt?

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
    13. Re:1.21 gigawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the first g in giga, the SI prefix denoting 10^9, can be pronounced either hard or soft (ex: Wikipedia).

  20. But how fast... by LOTHAR,+of+the+Hill · · Score: 1

    Can it cook a giant tub of popcorn!

    "Can you point an 8" spike through a rail road tie with your penis"

    1. Re:But how fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pound, dude. Not point.

      And yes I can

    2. Re:But how fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not right now, hopefully?

    3. Re:But how fast... by Churla · · Score: 1
      I believe the quote is...
      "Can you pound an 8" nail through a board with your penis?"


      But better would be
      "He has his name on his license plate, my mom used to do that to my underwear.."
      "Your mom put license plates on your underwear?"


      Possibly my favorite geek centric movie evar...
      For those with no Clue.... Val Kilmer has Already done this years ago!

      --
      I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    4. Re:But how fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. Oh wait, I misread that as 'can you point an 8" spike through your penis with a railroad tie'

  21. 10th joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what I called Powerpoint presentation.

  22. test firing by jjeffries · · Score: 1

    For the test, they should pack a house in the desert with a huge foil ball of popcorn, then attempt to pop it with the laser from 30,000 feet. That could cause the whole neighborhood to errupt into zaniness!

  23. Real Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing we have Marty and Chris to stop them!

    "The Crossbow project, there's no defense like a good offense."
    "No, Sir, this thing would take the skin right off, of Air Force One if you wanted."

  24. Great, but that was last centuries' war by Laurance · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Airborne Laser, a jumbo jet packed with gear designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light.

    And how does something like that help us fight an enemy that puts up a roadside bomb?

    Troops need body armor and armored trucks. Not, useless debt building toys that are made to fight a cold war enemy, long gone.

    Want more info http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/25 30001.html

    1. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, after all, the two are mutually exclusive. Also, the type of enemies we're currently fighting are the the type of enemy we will always be fighting, so there's no point in developing weapons to fight any other kind. Furthermore, the sky is green and I am Elvis.

    2. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by castoridae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not, useless debt building toys that are made to fight a cold war enemy, long gone.

      <cynicism>
      Debt-building toys aren't useless to those who are making this program happen. They are helping this LANL research push a research and personal branding effort (what better way to promote his book about giant lasers?) They are also bringing $ and "jobs" to any number of contractors actually building this system, which brings votes to their respective congressmen.

      So, while they may be useless to fight current enemies, and debt-building, I doubt they're useless to those who are actually pushing the program.
      </cynicism>

    3. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by tlynch001 · · Score: 1

      Actually, we can do BOTH!

    4. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an Iraq war vet. The problem with body armor isn't that it isn't there, it's just that it sucks. It's heavy and bulky, and developing better armor is not easy.

      Up-armored humvees suck for anything but small arms. But there have been developments in APCs (like the Stryker).

    5. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You can't see the value of being able to take down an ICBM ?? And by implication airplanes, IRBMS, and UAVS at range ?? Are there only enemys capable of using IED's ?

      Life in your world must be nice, Mine has Russia, China, Korea and IRAN in it. And in case you havent noticed IRAN seems to have bought the entire Russian back catalog of doomsday weapons.

      Hmmm you didnt think iran actually developed the Shkval high speed torpedo, the Ekronoplan ( the silly flying boat developed under Kruschev), or The Scud-C's they were firing off ??

    6. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Airborne Laser, a jumbo jet packed with gear designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light.

      And how does something like that help us fight an enemy that puts up a roadside bomb?

      It doesn't. But then, niether does about half of the US militarys arsenal - I supposed we should do away with all that too?
      Troops need body armor and armored trucks. Not, useless debt building toys that are made to fight a cold war enemy, long gone.
      The ABL is designed to fight a very real threat - Theatre Ballistic Missiles, which are being deployed ever more widely every year. It's not designed to defend against ICBM's.
    7. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      right now, i think i can say it's probably pretty hard to import a nuclear device to say, the united states. assuming you can get your hands on an ICBM, it changes the game a lot. in 20 years, ICBMs will most likely be easy to get one's hands on. it's not inconceivable that the US would want to at least be researching a defensive against this.

    8. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I figure a megawatt laser that can blow up a missile hundreds of miles away, could be used to take out inconvenient leaders.

      If you can ionize air with that beam, you can pass it by a thundercloud on the way to the target and make it look like it was a normal lightning bolt, and thus an "act of God".

      Even if the tech is not good enough to hit a fast moving missile, it should be able to easily hit someone walking about or even standing about in a public area - you could even aim it manually.

      Perhaps this is what the tech was actually intended for in the first place. But of course that can't be since assassination is a no-no right? ;).

      --
    9. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what troops need first and foremost is responsible politics that keep people from resorting to things like roadside bombs in the first place.

      Seriously, think about it. Have you ever asked yourself *why* people do things like that? Maybe it's just me, but it might have to do with the fact that we're constantly interfering with them - messing with their internal affairs, assassinating their politicians, selling chemical weapons to dictators, invading them, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, abducting people, torturing them, stealing their oil (not to mention their archaeological treasures etc.), and so on.

      What would you do when another country did that to the USA? Well, maybe most of us wouldn't put up roadside bombs if it happened to us, but would you think of those who fight the invaders as terrorists? You might not like what they do, but you'd probably cheer the attempt to get your country back, at least.

      Responsible politics would take this into account and act accordingly. Treat people with respect, and they will treat you with respect as well - or at least, they won't blow you up (some still might, of course, but there's always going to be nutcases, and we certainly have our own share, too - just take the Unabomber, for example). It might take a while until they really trust you that you have changed, but ultimately, isn't it worth it? Defend yourself if you're attacked, but don't attack others, and don't mess with their internal affairs. As soon as you do that, things like roadside bombs will stop being a real problem.

      Or, in other words... we've made our bed, so now we have to lie in it. We have nobody to blame for our problems but ourselves.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    10. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of people. On September 11th 2001, the US was attacked. They could have taken the standard terrorist approach and hit back. They could have launched a nuclear strike at Afghanistan. But they didn't. Bush asked the Taliban to co-operate, and they failed to, so they got hit then. And then various anti-war groups complained about it, as though there was an alternative.

      But when a terrorist blows up some people, the finger is always pointed back at the evil western powers who obviously drove them to it.

      "Treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect as well". Ask Neville "I have in my hand a piece of paper" Chamberlain about this. Sometimes, people are not reasonable, and you have to kick them in the ass.

      Personally, I thought that the Iraq war would be a mistake, and sadly, I feel proven right. That said, what do you think the people blowing up US troops want? In your worldview, once the troops leave, there will be peace and the people doing this will stand down and get involved in a democratic, political proces. Because after all, they are victims of US aggression, and not aiming for a power-grab.

    11. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by khallow · · Score: 1
      But of course that can't be since assassination is a no-no right? ;).

      Depends whether you can get them or end up looking like a fool. It's painfully clear from the US's experience that assassination needs some work before it'll be a viable tool to cull government empowered criminals.

    12. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who gave US permission to invade Iraq or any other country? If 9/11 was the reason, US should be in Afghanistan chasing Laden. Over powering Saddam was a good thing but the reasons were BS. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Why not invade Saudi, Afghanistan, UAE where majority of the hijackers came from? FYI, US created this Taliban monster. You are right about kicking people's ass who are not reasonable but my question is who decides who kicks who? People like Bush, Rumsfeld are no different from Saddam.

    13. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by FiveDollarYoBet · · Score: 1
      And how does something like that help us fight an enemy that puts up a roadside bomb?

      It could be very useful if they could shrink the size and make it more of a tactical weapon instead of a strategic one.

      We get hit by mortars / 107mm rockets A LOT and they do cause casualties. Also, we find MOST of the IED's & mines, but then you have to send someone (or a robot) out to defuse / plant C4 to on it. A point and click laser to remove an IED would be very welcome.

    14. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I think the main reason assasination is such a no no is that most world leaders realise if it became an accepted form of warfare then it would actually be their lives on the line rather than the lives of the hundreds of thousands of troops who aren't them and who they don't know.

      Assasination seems to be perfectly acceptable against targets which you are positive cannot retaliate or change the worldwide consensus of the merits of assination.

    15. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Speaking on putting leaders lives on the line, I'd prefer for there to be referendums before any country can start an offensive war.

      Because if the referendum fails, the idea is the wiseguy leaders who proposed or thought up the war get put on Death Row (another referendum is then taken in due course to decide which of the leaders get redeemed - if too many people decide to just stay home or do other stuff during the "holiday" instead of voting, those leaders get executed).

      The other benefit is if 70% of Country A are actually in favour of attacking Country B, then soldiers and people of Country B can feel a lot easier about wiping Country A out, and its even easier to justify nukes.

      This way you know that people really want war. And then they'll get exactly what they ordered.

      Whereas the current system seems to be people get dragged into wars they're half hearted about or don't even want.

      If turns out the leaders bluffed or deceived the population they get executed.

      If it turns out a war was actually justified but the leaders got executed, the leaders get a posthumous award and their families get pensions - just like can happen for soldiers.

      I'm not a soldier nor ever intend to be one (I don't really see the point of killing someone I have nothing really against, just because one or more leaders think its a great idea ), but I think this is a lot more fair.

      --
    16. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I think it's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden is the behind the events of 9/11, the US has my full support in hunting him down and capturing him. It's possible attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan helped this cause but it's certain that invading Iraq has absolutley nothing to with finding or punishing the people behind 9/11.

    17. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical American thinking.. because roadside bombs only happen against the US, oh wait, maybe it only "happens" because your "news" sources only report it now that it happens to US troops? Have you ever thought that maybe these things happened before the CNN's and FOX's of the world carried news about it? Sorry, but car bombing isn't happening because the US is there, it's happening because they have a few crazy people manipulating others over there.

    18. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of people. On September 11th 2001, the US was attacked. They could have taken the standard terrorist approach and hit back.

      Last I checked, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.

      Secondly, we were responsible for Taliban being in power.

      Do you remember the Afghan conflict? The one we sent Stinger missiles and butt loads of money and CIA advisors to Afghanistan? Did we help them rebuild after the Soviets left? No we left them to rot and didn't lift a finger leaving a power vacuum that lets the Taliban take over.

      Thirdly, we are responsible for Iran as well... We toppled the legitimate elected government and put the Shah in power and then after his brutal regime had its way with the Iranians they had enough... Unfortunately that revolution of leftist students got usurped by the Mullahs and look what we have now.

      A fanatical dictatorship that may eventually build nuclear weapons?

      And you know what doesn't work in the 21st century? Pissing around with other countries with Nukes doesn't work.

      We had to appease the Soviets and they had to appease us.

      Why? Because the instant we decided to go the Churchill route instead of the Neville we'd have something called Mutual Assured Destruction.

      Face it, we will have to learn to compromise... And get out of other people's yards.

      Do these people attack us because we aren't Muslim? No it is because we have military bases, constant interference via the CIA, and complete disregard for the Palestinians conflict by openly supporting Israel over them although the Palestine is just as guilty of terrorism, so we should wash our hands of the situation and stop supporting both sides... Israel has one of the best militaries in the world and doesn't need our support anymore and they can handle themselves.

      Please if you are going to use 9/11 in an argument... Study a bit of history of the Middle East and see what went wrong.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    19. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do these people attack us because we aren't Muslim?

      Sure they do. Every square inch of the Muslim world has been stolen from non-Muslims by Muslims in unprovoked wars of conquest. Think Constantinople-1400's, Southeast Europe, Spain-700's-1400's, Vienna-1600's. The only distinction between their world and ours is that ours hasn't yet been claimed for Islam - to them the fact that it will one day isn't in doubt.

    20. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Some of the "meddling" you mention also should include inaction as well. If a group inside a country is trying to work to overthrow the bastards in charge, and the ask the US for help, and we later retract that help or even change to working to help keep the bastards in charge stay in charge. some of the involvement in "internal affairs" is invoked when otherwise seemingly good working situations with US interests in other countries get messed on. Some of the interferences are probably justified, so why doesn't the US government instead crack down on those interests that are bringing the negativity on themselves?

      If Shell or ExxonMobile are being bastards in Nigeria, instead of getting pissed off at the pissants in Nigeria who are tired of Shell's dirty business tacticsand are pushing back, why doesn't the President talk to the CEOs and say, "You know, things would be a whole lot better if you just backed off a bit and treated the people around your Nigerian facilities a little bit better, maybe throw them some extra coin, for example, or build them some schools and medical clinics, you know, be a little more benevolent and a little less authoritarian, because just look at Robert Mugabe to see what the worst-case scenario will be").

      When one starts playing the Machiavellian political games, they eventually seem to come back to haunt you. Call it Karma, or whatever...

    21. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.

      Yeah, that's why the original poster writes, "I thought that the Iraq war would be a mistake, and sadly, I feel proven right."

      Secondly, we were responsible for Taliban being in power....Thirdly, we are responsible for Iran as well.

      Isn't that a good reason to clean up after ourselves and fix our mistakes?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    22. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by anaesthetica · · Score: 1
      Secondly, we were responsible for Taliban being in power.

      Do you remember the Afghan conflict? The one we sent Stinger missiles and butt loads of money and CIA advisors to Afghanistan? Did we help them rebuild after the Soviets left? No we left them to rot and didn't lift a finger leaving a power vacuum that lets the Taliban take over.

      This is a tremendous mischaracterization. We are more responsible for Al Qaeda than we are the Taliban. The Taliban was created, trained, and propped-up by the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence agency. Pakistan had a strategic need to keep Afghanistan friendly, because their other border was with hostile India. Pakistan could not afford a strategic situation in which both borders were hostile--Pakistan is too unstable, and already too consumed with their conflict with massive India.

      The United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China provided money, training, and materiel for the Afghans in their fight against the Soviet invasion. Believing that we could have influenced Afghan politics to create a moderate government after the first international jihadist victory in centuries (and against one of the two superpowers to boot) is pure fantasy. It's almost as silly as believing that our current efforts to produce a stable, moderate government in Afghanistan are going to succeed. Pakistan trained and funded a group of extremists who were willing and capable of taking power and holding it by force. Even Pakistan, through the Taliban, couldn't pacify all of Afghanistan, and spent then next ten years fighting the Soviet- and French-sponsored Northern Alliance.

      In sum, the U.S. did not create the Taliban, and we are no more responsible for the Taliban than Russia, France, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, and the Afghans themselves are.

    23. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should ask yourself why the US was attacked by terrorists in the first place. Not that i'm condoning the attack (at all), but 9/11 didn't happen in a vaccum where terrorists hate the US for their freedom.

          One also has to wonder what Iraq has to do with the Taliban in the first place.

    24. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      I don't know, perhaps a little body called the UN? You know, unanimous US resolution and all...

      Iraq agreed to comply with certain requirements, and failed to do so for the better part of a decade. They continued to possess banned weapons - including WMDs - and in general refused to cooperate with UN inspectors. Even Hans Blix said that the Iraqis were hiding things, and the onus was on Iraq to provide documenation.

      If you can't see the difference between Bush, Rumsfeld, and Saddam you simply are blind... Two answer to the people (whom seem to have voted Bush, and by proxy Rumsfeld into power twice), one only to his whims. Two played by the world's rules and those of the UN; the other bribed his way through the UN to try to get what he wanted.

      I haven't heard of too many US citizens being bathed in acid, or shredded alive, or getting your ankles drilled through, among other things...

      Yeah, Bush and Rumsfeld are JUST LIKE Saddam... The US is one big dictatorship with no personal freedoms and we're all just being used like cattle...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      Last I checked, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.

      No connections? Perhaps you should read more.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    26. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by ApostateApostle · · Score: 1

      Seriously, think about it. Have you ever asked yourself *why* people do things like that? Maybe it's just me, but it might have to do with the fact that we're constantly interfering with them - messing with their internal affairs, assassinating their politicians, selling chemical weapons to dictators, invading them, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, abducting people, torturing them, stealing their oil (not to mention their archaeological treasures etc.), and so on.

      I'm sorry, when exactly was the last time the United States armed forces killed "hundreds of thousands" of innocent middle-easterners? Hell, when have we ever killed any group of people on that scale that were not declared enemy combatants, for that matter?

      Oh, since it seems you're making a case for their current activities and tactics, please don't say "Iraq."

    27. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No personal freedom? You insult those that live under real regimes... you know the one's where typing what you just did would cause you and your family to "disappear" for retraining? Go live under a real one and you'll realize how lucky you really are, even taking all the bad part's of the US you live in. Be thankful in four years or so you get a chance at someone else in power, vs 40-50 years, or whenever the next coup happens.

    28. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so is Saudi Arabia, UAE and France. The link you posted is just a speculation. Countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE have established connection with Al-Qaeda. Why Iraq?

    29. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      What "responsible politics" do you propose would prevent these terrorists from attacking pilgrims on thier Haj, suicide bombing mosques during prayer services, attacking parks where celebrations of the birth of the prophet (peace be with him) are being celebrated, and from bombing schools where good islamic children are attending class? Or do you really beleive all these acts of Muslim-on-Muslim violance are soley motivated by reaction to the US mismanagment of foreign policy?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    30. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Damn... there you go... gettin' all frickin' serious... taking wind out of the sails of all these dirty, myopic politicians...

      Actually, I agree with what you've written. And, a LOT of people conveniently forget that the various US intel agencies WARNED congress, state, and everyone who needed to know, that Belfast, Tel Aviv, Sri Lanka and similar were coming to the US. Not a matter of if, but WHEN. They predicted about 20-30 years or so. They said that about 20 years before 9/11...

      You're RIGHT. When you build up dickheads and dictators, run schools teaching people how to torture, build bombs, how to gas and manipulate, and more, you're ONLY BUILDING BAD KARMA.

      It's time for humans to be humbled... at least ALL of the universally corrupt ones...

      Personally, I find it disgusting to say, "take the war to the enemy", when it's OUR practices that piss off SOOOOOO many people around the world, then we have our ass-kissing media and rabid leadership lying to us, telling the non-literate, non-travelled 'merkuns the world loves us and our ideals...

      Hell, they DID feel sorry for us-- on a HUMAN level, the tragedy and such. But, on the vengeance, jealousy, or karma level, I bet 99% of them said, "BOUT TIME! BE HUMBLED", except here, humility is outpaced by power and shiny toys and people willing to gloss over their OWN shitty policy in order to justify using weaps, influencing others, and refusing to be humbled or be second in anything.

      I really wish some ETs would come here and straighten our asses out... Unfortunately, if they exist, they probably figure we're not worth the diversion other than for distant entertainment...

      (Shit, where are my sedatives? Better go get some tea and cookies...)

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    31. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by couch_warrior · · Score: 1

      The problem in Iraq isn't politics, it's obsolete weaponry.
      Our troops wouldn't be dying in roadside bombings if they were replaced with robots.
      And we won't even have to send in ground troops once we can target and kill individuals from the air.
      Missiles are only the initial target of an airborn laser. In the long run, we can use it to surgically remove the leadership of terrorist states without risking a ground invasion.
      Snap-crackle-pop Al-queda crispies!
      And unlike nukes, we can actually USE it!
      Nuts, if you use an X-ray laser, you can even use it to change the leadership of "friendly" countries without getting caught.

      --
      "Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
    32. Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Isn't that a good reason to clean up after ourselves and fix our mistakes?

      If I took my car to a mechanic and he forgot to put oil back in it, then rebuilt it, but left the oil out again, I certainly wouldn't be taking my car back to a mechanic that has a proven track record of making things worse than how he found them. It shouldn't be any different for countries that screw up other countries, and the US put Noriega in power, Castro in power, supported Saddam, supported the Taliban, and many other such interference. Shouldn't it be time for the US to stop interfering? We have more confirmed kills of "terrorists" in Iraq than the suspected world-wide total at the start of the war. Either our intelligence is worthless, or we are creating enemies faster than we are killing them. Either way we are incompetent and would do better doing nothing.

  25. I love that movie! by n9uxu8 · · Score: 1

    I remember the first time I saw that movie! It was called the Crossbow Project, right?!? And Jordan...don't get me started on Jordan...perfect woman!

    Dave

  26. Question: by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one here who looks at Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and thinks our money would be better spent on a few crates of AK-47's, body armor, and more benefits for the troops?

    --
    Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    1. Re:Question: by dteichman2 · · Score: 0

      As the ballistic missile with the nuclear payload falls on your town, you'll wish that the military had spent more money on it...

      --


      Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
    2. Re:Question: by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope.

      As one who grew up in the shaddow of "Reagan's thumb" I will wish my governement had resulted in a more intelligent population. Once those missles go up, it's all a hope and a prayer, friend.

      Back in the 80's, evern aithiests understood this.

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    3. Re:Question: by Laurance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We already have a missile defense system. This laser is a tool for fighting yesterdays war. The cold war is over, our new enemy can not be beaten with these kind of weapons. Lasers on jets can not stop a road side bomb or a suicide bomer.

    4. Re:Question: by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've already spent the money on an immensely effective ABM system; it's called MAD. It's the solid belief that if you nuke anything that we value, we're going to make the rubble bounce from one end of your "now a historical question on Jeopardy!" ex-country to the other. It's why we fought only proxy wars after 1945, and didn't, despite the urges to the contrary, use tactical nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, or any other number of flash-points. This is actually the best incentive certain nominally middle-eastern states have to keep a lid on their stockpiles. It's probable that even if they don't nuke one of our cities, if it happens they're going to get blamed and made an example of. Basically, we need the old Kissinger/Nixon team at the helm. One of them negotiates with the other power, and says that the President is crazy, and is going to bomb them, then the president acts crazy (and in the case of Nixon and the North Vietnamese), does bomb them, but just enough to get them back to the negotiating table. Same deal here; rail against the imperialist foreign hedonistic infidel running dogs all you want, but don't get too antsy, or bad things happen. None of the ABM systems we've tested so far has been nearly as successful as good old psychology and enlightened self-interest. We'd be better off spending the money on a couple of underground tests capable of rattling seismometers on the other side of the world and more money for scanning cargo containers as they enter port than on jumbo-jet mounted lasers, missile batteries that have to be told where the missile is coming from, or the rest of the Reagan-era Sci-Fi retreads we are now.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    5. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAD was the most irresponsible stupid policy ever invented. Fortunately, the Soviets (who never truly subscribed to MAD) were smarter than us and decided we were obviously too stupid and fanatical to continue to try to fight.

    6. Re:Question: by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Great point, re: Nixon/Kissinger. I can see the logic here, failing one catch-

      As I understand it, all of our "pals" in the Middle East are either a.) still developing nuclear programs (i.e. Iran) and/or b.) those with weapons are still developing the mechanisms to deliver them ICBM-style. The present threat is a "dirty bomb" detonated from the ground (hence my original comment).

      Have I fallen for more media lies? If so, I'd appreciate a link to some better info.

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    7. Re:Question: by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one here who looks at Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and thinks our money would be better spent on a few crates of AK-47's, body armor, and more benefits for the troops?


      I would look back to WWI. Giving the WWI equivalents would only get more people killed in the trenches, and would fail not break the trench deadlock.

      "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.

      Naturally, this scientist was short-sighted - and would be considered a liability as soon as the enemy had the exclusive aircraft advantage.

      The same applies to WWII, where Radar/Sonar would be considered something taken from a bad Sci-Fi story, and WW III, where this type of weapon is considered taken from a bad Sci-Fi story, and where people recommend sticking with whatever works, and finally WW IV, where Arquebus/Muskets are silly Sci-Fi stuff.

    8. Re:Question: by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes and when they smuggle one into the States put it inside a foundation of a NY skyscraper and detonate it, we're going to know who did it right?

      People like to think that there is a defense but there's not, they don't nuke you because they don't want to.

      Let's all just be useful to each other, it's so much more... pleasant.

      No shoving children.

    9. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fortunately, the Soviets (who never truly subscribed to MAD) were smarter than us and decided we were obviously too stupid and fanatical to continue to try to fight."

      Yeah... obviously...

    10. Re:Question: by kkoning · · Score: 1
      The problem is that while MAD may have worked with the Soviets, the situation with other countries is different. As yourself how sure you are that-
      • Their leadership is rational, and will properly consider the consequenses to their population in the event of nuclear retaliation?
      • They will have sufficient command and control over them to prevent theft/unauthorized use?
      • That a limited ABM strategy cannot be effective against a very small number of missles? (compared to the 1,000s in the theoretical Cold War exchanges)
      • That the existance of such technology disclosed publicly, with the possibility of more advanced (classified) capabilities, will not have an additional deterring effect?
      • That the development of this technology is not a necessary step towards the development of something more advanced and useful along the same lines?
      • Massive overkill in retaliation will be politically acceptable even with the impact to neighboring countries?

      Wanting something a little better than MAD isn't crazy.
    11. Re:Question: by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Agreed, agreed and agreed.

      But haven't the wars after WWII shown us that technological advantage alone can not win a war?

      I am willing to accept a "war on terror", but what good are these hi-tech weapons against enemies without ICBMs or even jet fighters?

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    12. Re:Question: by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      No, because really we should be avoiding those kinds of wars in the first place.

      It is one thing to shoot down missles if someone is firing at our country (legit self-defence). Or to launch an accurate pin-point strike on an Al-Queda leader without harming nearby civilians (in the case of Al-Queda, legit self-defense).

      It is another thing to have large numbers of troops occupy a foriegn country (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). Nothing will ever make that safe and trouble free, because it is a stupid thing to do.

    13. Re:Question: by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Basically, we need the old Kissinger/Nixon team at the helm
      Great - so whichever country gives the biggest bribe gets to set foreign policy - just like the big donation from Indonesia the day before the East Timor invasion. There was a corrupt bunch in control then and they are now infamous for it.

      Also consider some history - Vietnam didn't go well and many mistakes the French had already made there were stupidly repeated by people who were not paying attention.

    14. Re:Question: by jsoderba · · Score: 1

      Roadside bombs and suicide bombers are not a threat to the United States and it's allies. Ballistic missiles are. While it's nice that Bush has staged a nice big live-fire exercise for the Army, the Pentagon has to focus on real threats.

    15. Re:Question: by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      "what good are these hi-tech weapons against enemies without ICBMs or even jet fighters?"

      Forget the wars we fight these days, let's asume we're at total war against a nation such as you describe. Assume they have overwhealming manpower, hand weaponry, tanks guns etc. If it was Army vs Army, then in those cases you'd be right and they'd probably win

      But instead we get a single Trident sub and tell it to obliterate that country. about 40 minutes later that country would glow in the dark; end of that threat. Even without that, see any recentmilitary campain, where one air force gains air supremacy, and then the ground troops are in a whole lot of trouble! Just remember the damage an airstrike can do against infantry.
      A country without ICBMs and Jets is powerless by itself if we choose to invade it.

      So I'm really not sure what your point is. This weapon isn't about this War on freedom (one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter). It's about another tool in the arsenal to protect our troops in whatever they're doing. It reduces the effectiveness of a single threat, that is all. In time I'm sure they'll develop it both ways to be more effective against larger weapons (ICBMs) and smaller weapons (RPGs for example) but for the moment it reduces the threat of a single weapon and serves as a building block for future defesive technologies.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  27. Hmmmm. by spxero · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now if only we could find a giant shark to attach the laser to...

  28. Jiffy Pop by aaronaskew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lazlo, call me for the coordinates of Professor Hathaway's new house.

  29. Eh..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just what indeed IS a garden variety laser pointer?

    I mean, if you just wanted to point out flowers, you'd normally use your finger.

  30. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Funny

    > I think the bigger question is this: Can they mount those frickin' laserbeams on sharks?
    Does slashdot have a policy on censorship?


    Yeah - any time anyone says "frickin'", it automatically converts it to "frickin'"

  31. BEJEWELED ON GOOGLE PERSONALIZED HOMEPAGE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. Plan For Success by Metabolife · · Score: 1

    Star wars fails miserably, so they decided to move the laser from a stationary object to one moving at mach 2. Sounds like a plan for success.

    1. Re:Plan For Success by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 1

      Star Wars never failed but succeded in doing what it was intended to do. Bankrupt the Soviets and bring them to the table.... they could'nt compete... calculated risk by Reagan ....

      --
      *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
    2. Re:Plan For Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is hilarious. Do you really believe the Russians were so shocked by our blatantly rigged demonstrations and military disinfo that they ran out and blew tons of money they didn't have on their own missile defense system that noone's ever heard of, and bankrupted themselves in the process?
        Listen, anytime there's a parade, a politician has to run out in front and pretend that it was his idea and he's leading it. Reagan was no different. The Soviets were collapsing in on themselves by the mid seventies. It was not a product of an elderly actor's sudden political genius in the 80's, but was the result of a deeply flawed and unworkable economic system that was doomed right from the start.
        Reagan's friends in the "Office of Special Plans" buried this fact under a mountain of "Evil Empire" bullshit as long as they could, and then Reagan turned around and took credit for the inevitable collapse when it finally happened. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is akin to "Sun, come up tomorrow." They both had to happen sooner or later, and any politician worth his salt knew it, but only the hardcore faithful would give a politician credit for the latter.
        I don't blame Reagan for the taking-credit part, I'd do the same thing in his position. I'm no stranger to taking credit for shit that was going to happen anyway with or without me. However, inflating the Soviet threat for years to justify massive pork-barrel military spending to fill your buddys' wallets is something I do kind of have a problem with.

        (OTOH, Reagan's pushing the Soviets into fighting in Afghanistan did help the process of collapse along, but we're talking about Star Wars here. What's more, the Afghanistan operation had severe drawbacks, like the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.)

  33. Yeah so what.... US probably had worst ideas by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    But he had blind faith that technology would save him, and he always talked about the "fantastic new weapons" (jet engines, etc.) he was expecting from his scientists to save the war. Blind faith in technology is no substitute for a well run army.

    Lets look at the bat bomb:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
    How about project pigeon:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon
    The Japanese had their fire balloons that killed one person
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  34. What a horrible idea by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    Now if only we could find a giant shark to attach the laser to...
    Anyone with Bat shark repellant will be able to overcome the lasers.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  35. Just gotta watch out for friendly fire... by BobSixtyFour · · Score: 1

    Remember what happened with the CIWS missile intercept system in 1991 and 1996?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Phalanx_ in_combat_.28at_sea.29/

    Just gotta be careful of hitting friendly targets... After all, this is no ordinary laser pointer!

  36. Testing the new weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rumsfeldt - Yeah... I know exactly which evil-doer country we're going to test this new breed of weapons on. You know that annoying country between Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Bush - I see... you mean China, right?!

  37. Yes, but... by serutan · · Score: 1

    Can it fill up Dr. Hathaway's house with fresh hot popcorn?

  38. Oh my gosh by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't want to put the blame on anyone but when few years ago US was 'freeing' Jugoslavia flying off from bases based over here (Bulgaria), it was happening that from time to time they accidentally were dropping their radioactive bombs over houses in our capital city (I'm not kidding).

    I just hope this new weapon doesn't make it too easy to destroy wrong targets when your aim is kinda off, given the power and distancees we're talking about.

    Not that I blame anyone. But I don't want a hole through my house (or me).

    1. Re:Oh my gosh by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly what radioactive bombs were they dropping?

    2. Re:Oh my gosh by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's pretty well known that US troops used depleted uranium weapons in Yugoslavia, just like they did in the gulf war. I'm not aware of the specific incident the grandparent is talking about though.

    3. Re:Oh my gosh by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Hoy ta cushta da te chuka. ...Or something. My Bulgarian is really, really bad.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    4. Re:Oh my gosh by colganc · · Score: 0

      In the Gulf War(s) the weapons that used depleted uranium were the sabot rounds from the M1A1/2 tanks. What bombs do you know of that use depleted uranium? How radioactive are those bombs? How radioactive were the sabot rounds?

    5. Re:Oh my gosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe we have a type of bunker-buster that uses a depleted uranium tip for its penetrative power. Depleted uranium should be no more radioactive than background, though how good military suppliers are about verifying this I don't know.

        What I do know is that the low radioactivity of depleted uranium isn't likely to be the cause of the reported sicknesses -- uranium is a heavy metal and much like lead or mercury, is HIGHLY poisonous. Scatter it about enough and all sorts of nasty problems will show up. If every so many shells were a bit "hotter" than it said on the label, it would only add a nice bit of cancer, later on down the road, to the other symptoms.

    6. Re:Oh my gosh by MMaestro · · Score: 1, Troll
      Uh, weren't depleted uranium weapons first and only used during the Gulf War and then almost immediately decommissioned when the U.S. military suddenly realized they couldn't even clean up the destroyed U.S. tanks that used them? The fact that U.S. soldiers were handling the stuff BARE HANDED sometimes didn't help either. (Cue Gulf War Syndrome cases 2+ years later.)

      As for depleted uranium bombs being used in Yugoslavia, I have no clue where the parent post got that. Given the amount of media attention given to the war at the time (ZOMG genocide in Europe again?! Its a modern day Hitler, someone bring Churchill back from the dead!11!!) I think this fact (if it was true) would be more common knowledge.

    7. Re:Oh my gosh by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
      Depleted uranium should be no more radioactive than background
      It is a lot more radioactive than background but a lot less radioactive than the other isotopes that have been removed. All Uranium is radioactive. Small amounts at a distance would be ignorable, as would exposure for a small amount of time. Small amounts of Uranium used as a ceramic glaze on some old bowls produces enough radiation that daily use would be stupid. Look up a Material Safety Datasheet for details - there's been copies online even on gopher before www was thought of.
    8. Re:Oh my gosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem with depleted uranium is not that it is (slightly) radioactive, it is that it is a "heavy metal" (duh !) -
      meaning that it is highly toxic, and almost impossible to get out of the food chain once it has gotten in. In short,
      depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon, it is a chemical weapon.

    9. Re:Oh my gosh by rldkfl · · Score: 1

      I can't remember any radioactive bombs dropped at Sofia. However, I remember there was one anti-radar missile that dropped over a family house here in Sofia, about one mile of the office i used ot work. Didn't explode( deffective, or some there was safety lock) The roof and upper floor were demolished, anyway. I wonder what would be reaction of average Joe from NY if bulgarian rocket crashes into his house. What would be reaction to such incident of his fellow americans?

    10. Re:Oh my gosh by lliinnuuxxlover · · Score: 1
      Its a modern day Hitler, someone bring Churchill back from the dead
      On the subject of Hitler and Chrchill in todays world, do check out http://www.4guysfromviewpoint.com/?p=76
      --
      This Post was entirely made up of recycled electrons making up recycled signals to generate recycles ASCII to generate t
    11. Re:Oh my gosh by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Informative

      The depleted uranium munitions you speak of were not "dropped", they were fired out of a barreled weapon.

    12. Re:Oh my gosh by dbIII · · Score: 1
      depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon, it is a chemical weapon.
      Vastly incorrect on both counts - it is a momentum weapon picked for it's high density and much higher strength than lead.
      it is that it is a "heavy metal" (duh !)
      Heavy metals are toxic because they replace other elements and give undesired effects and each heavy element will thus act in a different way. Even mercury is not immediately toxic enough to be considered as a chemical weapon if you poured buckets of it over people so I suggest a simplistic generalisation is not a good way to look at it.
    13. Re:Oh my gosh by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      I sincerely doubt the Gulf War Syndrome was caused by handling depleted uranium ammunition. For one thing, it is almost always enclosed in a sabot. Look up sabot ammunition. Then look up the Gulf War Syndrome since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, the effects of radioactive materials on the human body are well documented and I don't think they correlate with the Gulf War Syndrome.

    14. Re:Oh my gosh by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      Density is key, yes, but it's not strength per se that makes it better than lead. DU has this wierd "self sharpening" quality that causes it to focus pressure into a smaller and smaller area as it penetrates armor. Apparently the second choice after DU is tungsten. Tungsten is also much heavier than lead.

    15. Re:Oh my gosh by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      "I can't remember any radioactive bombs dropped at Sofia. However, I remember there was one anti-radar missile that dropped over a family house here in Sofia, about one mile of the office i used ot work."

      I think those used depleted uranium. It was disputable if it's depleted uranium is radioactive enough to harm, but yea...

    16. Re:Oh my gosh by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Also, as far as I know DU tends to self-ignite when penetrating armor so you get a great armor-piercing round with added incendiary effect. It's still a bitch to clean up, though.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    17. Re:Oh my gosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a HARM missle. The major SAM (Soviet era) installations of the country are arround the capital - 15-20 miles from the border with Yugoslavia. A very young pilot, reported to be 19 years old by the media got confused. Our brave and stupid military men had used a tracking radar and after the missle was fired stopped it (this is entirely my speculation, based on my knowledge as reservist officer for the same type of system deployed near the damaged house). The missle hit a house less than 1 km away from the installation.

      Media hysteria brought the uranium nonsense.

    18. Re:Oh my gosh by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Gulf War Syndrome is also associated with soldiers who were in-theatre who were nowhere close to where any shooting was done with DU ammunition (M1A1 APDSFS rounds, 30mm rounds for A-10 cannon, 25mm rounds for Apache Chaingun/M2 cannon). My personal opinion is that it is some sort of low-grade viral infection that had sub-acute symptoms, but has long-lasting chronic after effects (kind of like West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, etc).

      M1A1 DU rounds are handled by the case, not by the "bullet" part, and the penetrator is encased in a sabot anyways. Most of the ammo handling for the A10 is done with machines, unless you are counting loading the loader.

      At some point, the arguments about DU rounds just start looking silly. Why is one DU round worse than hundreds or thoudsands of smaller 7.62 or 5.56mm lead bullets shot off equivalently instead? Or any residues left behind from exploded ordnance, trashed vehicles, burning buildings, etc?

    19. Re:Oh my gosh by prurientknave · · Score: 1

      only white anglo saxon americans are people everyone else is expendable.

    20. Re:Oh my gosh by nasch · · Score: 1

      The effects of large rapid doses are well understood. IIUC, the effects of small doses over longer periods are less well understood, if at all. That's not to say they cause Gulf War Syndrome, but one shouldn't dismiss possible effects simply because they're different from the kind of radiation sickness seen in, for example, Hiroshima.

    21. Re:Oh my gosh by nasch · · Score: 1

      I think my first question would be "WTF is Bulgaria doing in US airspace?" I would be more upset with Dept of Homeland Security and the Air Force for letting a potentially hostile figher/bomber into our airspace than I would be with Bulgaria. Of course, that just points out how inadequate your analogy is. :-)

    22. Re:Oh my gosh by mfrank · · Score: 1

      HARM missiles don't use DU. Just high explosive. I used to work for the company that makes them. Walked by a full size model of one on the way to my cube every day.

      Think about it. It's homing in on an antenna, which usually isn't encased in armor (wrapping an antenna in metal tends to reduce its effectivity). You want something that goes BOOM, not a kinetic weapon.

    23. Re:Oh my gosh by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Why is one DU round worse than hundreds or thoudsands of smaller 7.62 or 5.56mm lead bullets shot off equivalently instead?

      Smaller doses, lead bullets are encased in metal casing (not to mention the encased within clips as well) and radiation has this tendancy to leak through anything less dense than lead.

      M1A1 DU rounds are handled by the case, not by the "bullet" part, and the penetrator is encased in a sabot anyways. Most of the ammo handling for the A10 is done with machines, unless you are counting loading the loader.

      True, but again when your talking about HUNDREDS of these rounds being loaded, unloaded, carried and then put into tanks the radiation adds up. If I sneeze on you once chances are you're not going to get sick. If I sneeze on you everyday, over the course of a few months and you don't take any medicine chances are you're going to at least develop some symptoms.

    24. Re:Oh my gosh by rldkfl · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point. You shall reap, as you sown. Bulgarian rocket? Hardly :) We are too small to dick around the world. We just like to lick as*es to the powerful and mighty ones. There was a joke that most complicated surgery ever was to detach tongue of our communist leader Zhivkov from the butt of comrade Brezhnev. However, there will be always more and more things that can drop over your house and more people willing to do it purposely, too :) Remember some big tragedy from the past? Usualy people don't get born crazy, someone makes them crazy. You will need more and more mighty lasers drilling over half the world to protect your as*es especialy ones that rule your country.

    25. Re:Oh my gosh by nasch · · Score: 1

      I guess I understand your point even less now. You first said that the US accidentally dropped an unexploded bomb onto someone's house. To illustrate how shocking (offensive? sad? something else?) this was, you asked us to imagine Bulgaria dropping an unexploded bomb (actually I guess you said rocket) on our houses. I pointed out how flawed the analogy is since the situation would be totally different. Now you're talking about crazy people, and reaping what we sow, and protecting ourselves with lasers, and Bulgaria kissing Russian azz. So... what is your point?

  39. Friend worked on this project..... by TK2K · · Score: 1

    Its cool to see its in public light, but a friend of mine actually worked for a company that designed the power units for this, and other high powered lasers. One of the more impressive ones was mounted on a flatbed truck (this sucker was huge, or so i am told) and could, I BS you not, burn through a tanks armor in under 30 seconds. Very scary, very cool. Now, i cannnot confirm the legitimacy of this, but i can say for sure that i trust this guy, he isnt the kind to BS.

    1. Re:Friend worked on this project..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 seconds for a laser to burn through a tank? Anti-tank rounds can burn through a tank in fractions of a second.

      Maybe the anti-tank round doesn't make a tank-shaped hole but the target tank crew is still just as dead, but faster, and the target is destroyed just as much, but faster.

      Anti-tank missiles can be carried by one or two footsoldiers and go anywhere they can walk. Not much gear needed.

      A tank-killer laser probably needs a flat road, a big trailer, a support crew perhaps with support vehicles, assorted technicians (aka people for the baddies to shoot at), power generators with lots of fuel, clean optics, no dust or rain or mud, etc.

      I'd place my money on the two footsoldiers with the backpack anti-armor launcher. And I'd have a LOT of money TO place since they don't cost anywhere near the price of one laser system.

    2. Re:Friend worked on this project..... by solitas · · Score: 1
      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    3. Re:Friend worked on this project..... by TK2K · · Score: 1

      wow, thats pretty weird! sounds about what something like this would do as well............ accidently friendly fire with a high powered laser? iffy but pretty cool to think about. also, a bit useless if you use it in that manor, i mean, one little hole doesnt do too much unless you hit the amo dump or something of that sort

  40. Re:laser pointers and planes: Geneva Convention by thepropain · · Score: 1

    The Geneva Convention says you can't use lasers to blind people on purpose, but if it just happens to blind people while using it for its primary purpose, it's OK.

    --
    "You know you're narcissistic when you quote yourself in your sigs." -- PRoPAiN!
  41. Star Wars! by a+gash · · Score: 1

    I think we've all heard this before.

  42. wait a second here.... by skam240 · · Score: 1

    So if we're developing lasers that shoot down missiles "half a world away" why on earth are we also developing a missile defense system that uses other missiles to shoot down incoming ballistics? It's much easier to shoot down an incoming missile with something that will get to its target almost as soon as it's fired. This becomes an even more relevant question given that the missile defense system hasn't even had one successful real world test yet!

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:wait a second here.... by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

      The BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defence System) is fulfilling all its objectives perfectly: namely, providing pork in the states where the system is made and "tested".

      There's certainly no question that the BDMS can never work as sold to the American people: you just can't hit missiles with other missiles in any reliable way. Not unless the target sends signals to say "shoot me".

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    2. Re:wait a second here.... by DoctorStarks · · Score: 1
      So if we're developing lasers that shoot down missiles "half a world away" why on earth are we also developing a missile defense system that uses other missiles to shoot down incoming ballistics?
      Layered defense, for one thing. There are three places you can try to hit a ballistic missile. Boost phase -- when it is on its way up -- Mid-course phase -- when the warhead is separating from its booster and coasting -- and terminal phase, when it is on its way down.

      The airborne laser is a boost-phase system for in-theater (it can only hit things above its horizon). The "missile defense" you are thinking of, using ground-based interceptors and radars, is also boost-phase, but is typically conceived as being located much farther away, using long-range interceptors.

      There are also ideas to provide mid-course and terminal defenses. The hope is that anything that gets through one layer will get caught by the next one.

    3. Re:wait a second here.... by OldCrasher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And half a world away is about 400 miles. Horizons, boost phase topping out at say 100,000 feet before rockets contain insufficient fuel to blow them up, and incidentals like atmospheric pollution, sort of limit this 'half a world away' drivel.

      Americans have such a poor sense of Geography.

      One of these ABL's will have to fly within spitting distance of NK to have a hope of shooting down something coming from that country. With the other 3 ABL's we will have lots of opportunities to burst party balloons all over Nevada and California.

    4. Re:wait a second here.... by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Upper, mid and down-range support.

      THAAD, airborne lasers, etc can operate in the uprange -- we're talking when the missile is fired and still climbing.

      Satellite systems, and airborne lasers can still work in the mid-stage if you're really good. This is a very hard time to get to the missile -- it's cold-soaked in space with no plume or anything. Just a piece of space debris flying way too high, way too fast, out thousands of miles from anywhere.

      In the down-range, that sucker is flying right for a US city. This is the most likely scenario -- by the time we see the shot, identify it, and try to scramble troops it's in the down-range.

      These missiles have a total flight time of under 30 minutes. You need permanent ground emplacements that operate in the down-range. AKA ground-based missiles and ground-based lasers. You do not have time to scramble a plane and get it in position, even if you start an hour before the missile is even launched!

      But, if you need to project missile-defense capability to say, a fleet or another country, you use the plane and some AEGIS ships with THAAD. Totally different uses.

  43. hype, old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been working on this for a long, long time.

    But the article is correct in one thing - there's more directed energy weapons along the way... and they won't need a 747 to house them.

    Your tax dollars at work....

  44. 1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by M0b1u5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I'm all for megawatt class lasers - as this means the technology is about 1/1000th of the way towards using lasers for something useful: Beamed Laser Launching of hardware into space.

    Liek Myrabo of http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/ has been developing beamed power launch technology for some years now. In my correspondence with him, he has estimated that a 1-ton payload can be launched into low earth orbit using a 1-Gigawatt class pulsed laser cannon.

    This ground-based launcher is the ultimate tool, and if you build a ring of them around your country, you can be pretty well assured of having utter domination of not just the sky above you, but the skies above everywhere. The first to deploy the network wins the game!

    There is almost no end of uses for this array of gigawatt laser cannons:

    1) Beamed Laser launcher, with total cost to orbit of just cents per kilo.

    2) Inbound missile melter, extraordinaire.

    3) Extreme Bug-eyed alien tamer. Unfriendly invaders might think twice before tangling with a species capable of focusing better than 100 Gigawatts of energy at inbound bogies.

    4) Surgical Strike weapon par excellence. Reflected back to earth via large space-based mirrors allows you to wave the thing in a decreasing spiral which will turn your neighbours house to molten slag, but barely singe your fence.

    5) Galaxies' brightest Search and Rescue spotlight: defocused in orbit, and reflected to earth to illuminate areas currently under search and rescue operations.

    6) Illuminate work sites on the moon during the long luna night. Defocused to make a nice night light back on earth.

    7) Interplanetary messaging system: embed knowledge into the beam, and send it to likely looking planets. Long term payoff - unknown.

    8) Asteroid deflection device: light pressure alone is enough to deflect an inbound near earth object. Just 2cm/s velocity change is enough to deflect most inbounds.

    9) Interstallar probe launcher: lightsail driven robot craft accelerated to a decent %age of light speed in fairly short order.

    I'm sure there are other uses too - but these would seem to be the obvious ones.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    1. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On proposition 1, using a laser to beam something into orbit: The value of the kinetic energy of something in low orbit (roughly 8.8KW-h/kg) is indeed cents, depending on where you live. However, it promptly becomes dollars when you consider the efficiency of the driving laser (Typically 1-3%, 25% for CO2) and the efficiency of converting laser joules to kinetic energy joules (?). If you get the power for $.10/KW-h, and assume the laser and propulsion to be 10 and 50% efficient, the cost to orbit becomes 8.8KW-h * 10 * 2 * $.10/KW-h = $17.6/Kg.

      Vastly superior to $x00/KG, and good enough to put the cost of reaching orbit within reach of the affluent (75Kg adult + 500Kg of vehicle -> $10000), but until power is too cheap to meter, the cost will never be pennies/KG.

    2. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by khayman80 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      3) Extreme Bug-eyed alien tamer. Unfriendly invaders might think twice before tangling with a species capable of focusing better than 100 Gigawatts of energy at inbound bogies.

      I'm not too sure about that. Any spacecraft can defend against a laser weapon by making the hull a very good reflector- the maximum power that could hit the craft without damage would just be limited by how perfect the reflectivity could be. In fact, if your spacecraft had a smart deformable concave mirror on the front of it, you could actually reflect the beam back to the attacker. That's assuming, of course, that the beam is either turned on long enough for the mirror to adjust to the right concavity or that the target spacecraft had some advance warning about the placement of the laser's output coupler.

      But more fundamentally, laser weapons can't penetrate very deeply into its target. The reason is that the beam vaporises the surface of the target, creating a reflective plasma that effectively shields the target from further damage.

    3. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by sootman · · Score: 1

      In my correspondence with him, he has estimated that a 1-ton payload can be launched into low earth orbit using a 1-Gigawatt class pulsed laser cannon.

      Rounding error--should be 1.21 Gigawatts. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
      3) Extreme Bug-eyed alien tamer. Unfriendly invaders might think twice before tangling with a species capable of focusing better than 100 Gigawatts of energy at inbound bogies.
      If they can do interstellar travel using high-velocity travel through normal space, then they could just hit us with a very fast space-rock.
      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

    5. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

      4) Surgical Strike weapon par excellence. Reflected back to earth via large space-based mirrors allows you to wave the thing in a decreasing spiral which will turn your neighbours house to molten slag, but barely singe your fence.

      I'm pretty sure that a documentary I saw about laser weapons in the Regan-area, included one test done with a pretty powerful laser against a house like structure. What happened is that it did not melt, but blew up quite "nicely". Adding power to the laser would most likely make it even more of a violent explosion.
      Wood/bricks/concrete doesn't seem to heat up that well, and would rather try to brake apart in a kind of violent way...

      Would be a pitty to hit a very polished window? Wouldn't there be a possibility that for a brief moment the laser would reflect or at least scatter off some of it's energy?

    6. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by Mixel · · Score: 1

      ...and this is why I charge my laser overnight, when the energy is cheaper.

    7. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by Morrigu · · Score: 1

      While most of these are intriguing, I've got to argue with (3) above.

      If I'm a big bug-eyed alien race intent on conquering a planet, why would I even bother with getting within a light year of the planet in question until I need to? Aim lots of big rocks on the right trajectory, wait a few months or years after impact for the dust to die down, and swoop in to gather whatever resources you need, minus any pesky things like planetary defense systems. Or civilization. Any surviving members of that planet's previous inhabitants wouldn't pose much of a risk at that point.

      And as for the "light pressure alone is enough to deflect an inbound NEO" - I really don't know enough to argue the physics of that case, but I'd imagine it'd be a different proposition between deflecting 1 or 2 NEOs whose orbits might come close enough to Earth to enter the atmosphere, compared to deflecting dozens of asteroids or planetoids aimed directly at the Earth and timed for near-simultaneous impact.

      --
      "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
    8. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously we have no idea what aliens might put on the outsides of their UFO's. (I've heard about confederate flags being seen painted on them, but that's not relevant.)
      With that said, the problem with trying to make a reflective surface that'll stop a laser of this power is that we simply don't know of anything that is 100% reflective at UV wavelengths and at those wavelengths absorbed photons have sufficient energy to instantly break molecular bonds. This isn't melting, where you have to heat atoms up enough that their kinetic energy enables them to break their bonds -- this is ablation, where the photons actually affect the bonding electrons and the bonds just go away. If you pulse the laser at a high repetition rate the debris from each ablation blast clear out pretty well, increasing your material removal efficiency at the cost of time.

      It is possible that incoming UFO's or whatever might have external armor screens and return fire if those screens get hit, while they soak up (briefly) the laser power, analogous reactive armor on modern tanks. But just polishing them up so they're good and shiny, probably isn't going to work.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Plus, if the target is moving through the atmosphere at high speeds, any cloud of ablated material or plasma is not going to stay around the ablation point for very long.

      The problem with the mirrors is that they will still absorb some of the energy of the laser as heat. Adding some sort of cooling system or heat mass will then require other changes to the missile system, such as smaller payload to compensate for the added weight of those kinds of countermeasures.

    10. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      One question I haven't heard answered is where they're hitting the missiles. It's possible that they're above (for reasonable approximations) the atmosphere when this is going on. That's supposed to be the case for the impact-based ABM stuff.

      Something that's not discussed at all in this article, and most people don't think about, is that it's probably harder to see the incomings with enough resolution to accurately hit them. You have a small window of time to notice them in the first place and then accurately locate them and their vector. A big problem that complicates this is: you can't rely solely on satellites, because you might not have them anymore. That's more of a Cold War worry, but if one missile gets through, its effects might sufficiently disrupt your communications that you can't get good data on the subsequent ones. The ABM missiles rely on stars for locating their targets because they don't think satellites and ground-based detection-and-ranging are going to be available. (Sobering thought: if enough has been destroyed that they can't get data from any ground-based sources, what, exactly, are they protecting?)

      Huge flying lasers were originally proposed as Star-Wars-Era weapons, to stop many big intercontinental missiles (and shoot down the other side's satellites, by the way) but since the DoD's mission has changed, now they're being thrown at that problem instead. (where it makes more sense...)

      I'm babbling about stuff that would be better as a root-level comment rather than a reply-to-reply-to-reply. You're entirely right: trying to protect against a laser is probably pointless. What happens then is someone trying to get a missile through just makes more cheaper ones and relies on quantity. In this circumstance, that's in the defender's favor, though, because the amount of support equipment is huge compared to the amount of offensive material, and engineering a small-but-still-effective payload is *much* harder than a big dirty payload.

      Which is why it'll be transported by truck rather than rocket.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

      Not if we detect it first, and turn the lasers on it, focusing say, 100 launchers directly at the thing. That'd be enough to deflect all but the very largest asteroid...

      Diverting space rocks for combat seems like a poor use of energy, and a method which lets your target see it coming a LONG time before it hits.

      In this regard, it's probably most effective as a terror/worry weapon, than as a device to pound a planet's surface.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    12. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I'm sure the destructive power of a gigwatt focused on an area say 1.5 metres across (With a starting beam of 1.0 metres in diameter) is liable to just "blow shit up" rather than melt it. It's the air trapped inside what you are heating which does the damage I'm sure.

      However, the "surgical" part is relative: a lot less damaging than dropping a Daisy Cutter, or a MOAB bomb on something. But the real advantage of this kind of orbital assault is that they never see it coming, nothing can stop it (although clouds may reduce its efficiency), you can't protect against it for long (even mirrors will break down rapidly under such a pounding), and there's probably no limit to the amount of time the energy can be focused on a single spot. Eventually, enough energy would be expended to literally create a magma lake around your target.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    13. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

      No, I can't believe any alien race would be silly enough to telegraph their actions in such a way. The energy bill dopesn't make sense.

      Of course, in any interstellar conflict, the advantage is always going to be on the side which has more energy and better tech.

      Frankly, if aliens are anything like us (and of course, they might be!)... well, we wouldn't attack a planet until we were 100% sure we'd take very few losses, and our victory would be overwhelming. We're lazy, and scared, so we don't tend to fight in situations where we are not sure of the outcome.

      If bug-eyed aliens try to attack our solar system, the only chance we'd have is if their tech is only slightly more advanced than our own. Otherwise we'd be facing simply stunning energy weapons which would be measured in the PetaWatt range or greater. Maybe advanced aliens can cause the sun to send out Coronal Mass Ejections such that the earth gets toasted. We would not have any defence against that.

      What I'm saying is that having the ABILITY to pour hundreds of gigawatts of infra-red laser light into the space around earth makes us a different proposition to a civilisation which can NOT. Hell, who knows, maybe the interplanetary definition of "civilised" is "able to protect one's planet from NEOs"?

      I mean, we're talking about "Type I" civilisations here - and we are still a "Type 0". We couldn't face a Type I opponent.

      Holding big guns simply says "Hey, we aren't sheep. Please don't mess with us."

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    14. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      4) Surgical Strike weapon par excellence. Reflected back to earth via large space-based mirrors allows you to wave the thing in a decreasing spiral which will turn your neighbours house to molten slag, but barely singe your fence.

      As long as you're using "space-based mirrors", wouldn't just reflecting sunlight be a lot more cost effective? Or do you really think you can build a laser that puts out more energy than the sun does?

      5) Galaxies' brightest Search and Rescue spotlight: defocused in orbit, and reflected to earth to illuminate areas currently under search and rescue operations.

      6) Illuminate work sites on the moon during the long luna night. Defocused to make a nice night light back on earth.

      Wouldn't these goals be much better and more economically served by simply using orbiting mirrors reflecting the sun? Or do you really think you can build a laser that puts out more lumens of visible light than the sun does? In fact, while we're at it, why not make these lasers solar powered!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    15. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Huhhh???

      "3) Extreme Bug-eyed alien tamer. Unfriendly invaders might think twice before tangling with a species capable of focusing better than 100 Gigawatts of energy at inbound bogies."

      I'd dare venture to say that ANY "Bug-eyed alien" capable of getting here (by intent not by accident) in the first place is likely to be packing some seriously humbling firepower, too.

      If we DARE send a shot across it's bow, we'd better be ready to have the Ring of Fire ignited or loosened. They don't EVEN have to crack the core... just zap a few plates here and there, uncork a few fickle/hesitant volcanoes, and release some toxins into the water supply here and there (not poison the 74% water, but just key population centers to kill off economy and start a slow death spiral of organization...)

      And, since we'd likely NEVER know the "bug-eyed alien"'s base, no sensible communications or retaliation plans could be formulated.

      Contemptable Humans (the subset of them just dangerous enough to make us ALL a subject to wholesale obliteration)... sheesh...

      But, IFFF I had a huge-assed laser... I MIGHT just transmit "Come and GET us....Hit our "reset" button" cuz if you DON'T slow us down or stop certain people here, they'll be a galactic pain in your ass or the asses of life unwilling to "play ball" Earth's (certain governments') way...But, if you DON'T believe in planet-scale genocide, the do an immolation hit-and-run on the major governments, then set up a "this is why we zapped their asses" telecourse, and then keep your word not to do it again as long as Earthlings stay in their small vacuum of space... until we "grow up"....

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    16. Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

      SURE! Why Not?

      My only issue with doing that, is that your mirrors must have simply stupendous ability to adjust focal depth.

      Nothing special about lasers. Just that if you aleardy have several sitting round on earth, doing not much in between launches, what else can you use them for to amortise the cost of them?

      IANAE - so I do not know the engineering side of things. All I'm trying to point out at this juncture, is that Gigawatt-class lasers have a whole new range of applications - ALL of which are very useful, not just to the owners, but to humanity as a whole, and society in general.

      This as opposed to the billions of dollars quite literally wasted by the Ballistic Missille Defence system which:

      1) Can not possibly work as advertised.
      2) Will NEVER perform ANY useful task EVER.
      3) Will never be completed.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  45. Lasers... by JavaFTW++ · · Score: 1

    LASERGUNPEWPEW

    --
    I won't admit I'm paranoid...or the people listening will know they've won.
  46. times have changed but the politicians havent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    go look at the senior pentagon and goverment staff and how many of those where fighting the cold war ?
    they are all back and in full effect, its party like its 1970-1990 all over again for them

    you can't teach an old dog new tricks

  47. Overcoming countermeasures? by MBAFK · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Your micky taking hints at part of a good question. The article does not explain how reinforcing the casing or rotating the missile so it takes longer to heat effect the performance of the laser. How does this implementation overcome these countermeasures? - I assume it already takes them into account.

    What increases the protection of the missile most effectively? I realise this is probably all top secret, 'mums the word old chap' etc.

    1. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      All of this research was done a long time ago. The laser delivers its power in such a burst that no amount of mirroring or spinning will make a difference. As to the atmospheric attenuation, that's what the laser's adaptive optics are for. It's kind of like a telescope in reverse. In any case, this sort of thing was tried for short-range defense in the 70's, and even a small laser was capable of shooting down Sidewinders (mounted on a KC-135.) We're talking about serious firepower here...this thing was tested at a low-altitude range of 50km, and worked fine...up in the high atmosphere where they hope to catch boost-phase weapons, it should be much easier. It's not like the things can evade or maneuver, after all, they're called ballistic missiles for a reason.

      http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ -4ZPQHJ?OpenDocument

    2. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These lasers are by no means pulsed, also a cursory google search shows the American Physical Society seems to disagree.

      http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmd 03.cfm

    3. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explode a nuke in space and wipe out all the satellite and high tech gear . The enemy doesnt need fancy smancy weapons

    4. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your micky taking hints at part of a good question. The article does not explain how reinforcing the casing or rotating the missile so it takes longer to heat effect the performance of the laser. How does this implementation overcome these countermeasures? - I assume it already takes them into account.
      It doesn't have to take them into account - as they are strawmen, not countermeasures.

      The laser deliver it's energy in a few milliseconds - it's simply impossible to spin the missile body fast enough to make a difference.

      Reinforcing the casing means increasing the weight (and the cost) of the missile. This means the bad guys can build fewer of them, thus the number of weapons they have to toss is reduced - which is precisely the purpose of the ABL. (Not to mention that coatings that can stand up to megawatts of power and the (relatively) rough handling of a field missile are essentially non-existent.)

    5. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one countermeasure it can't defeat is the simplest to deploy - raw numbers. For a small engagement you might stand a chance, and arguably the nutjob with one missile is more dangerous then somebody with a thousand bcause that nutjob is more likely to use it.

      But vs. even a relatively smal mass launch forget it.

    6. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by MBAFK · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      You'll be able to fire multiple times, and basically when you lase a target, you have to lase it for some certain amount of time in order to get the weapon effect. The effect that it wants to gain on these tactical ballistic missiles is that it heats up the skin of the missile and then the internal pressure of the fuel tank actually causes the missile to explode."

      The article never mentions pulsing but the wording in this excerpt suggests that lasing to destruction takes time, it does not say how long. Depending on the relationship of the rotating to the time required to deliver a killing blow for a given material rotating the missile may have an effect.

    7. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by fossa · · Score: 1

      Would that even work? Space is... big. Geosynch orbit is what, 42,000 km out? Compared to 12,000 km earth diameter... The shockwave from the blast needs a medium through which to propogate I think, e.g. air. The EM pulse would need to overcome the fact that space is big.

    8. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 3, Funny

      The article does not explain how reinforcing the casing or rotating the missile so it takes longer to heat effect the performance of the laser.

      I recall a General being asked this question in a news conference a while back. He said something to the effect that spinning the missile would make the missile immune to the laser to roughly the same degree that a spinning ballerina is immune to a machine gun.

    9. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      For mirroring & spinning to have an effect, the mirror would have to be of an incredibly high quality. If even a percentage point or three of that coherent beam gets absorbed as heat instead of reflected away, the missle loses.
      It's not like the things can evade or maneuver, after all, they're called ballistic missiles for a reason.
      Actually, didn't the Ruskies test an Intercontinental Not-So-Ballistic Missle? IIRC, they designed a launch vehicle that can change it's trajectory before coming down. http://www.google.com/search?q=russian+icbm+maneuv erable+warhead

      Other key words you can us to find more infor are 'trajectory' 'evade' and/or 'midcourse'
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time the US test EM-pulse by exploded a bomb out in the pacific (above ground) all the radio went dead from Hawaii to India.

      To control that big laser gun, I bet there are tons of electronics that can't handle EM Pulse very well.

    11. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I was going to quote this, but you beat me to it- I thought the weapon involved was a shotgun. Anyway it's a nice analogy, but not for the ballerina.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    12. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course ballistic missiles can maneuvour? Been doing it for a while. check out shahab-3B

    13. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That's coming down. It still has to gain altitude to begin with. Theses are designed to be flown in say Germany, or japan. Destroying the missiles before they hit a 1000,000 feet.

      And yes with one of these you could shoot down the space shuttle. Or at least target the main fuel tank and give them a really bad day.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by stormhair · · Score: 1

      I remember this quote (with "shotgun" not "machine gun") from Cardinal of the Kremlin by Tom Clancy.

    15. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Oh noes, I've been rumbled :o)

      Yea that's where I got the quote. Clancy's characters also talk at length about how the movement of the laser through the atmosphere when tracking the target horizontally means that the beam constantly has a new patch of atmosphere to cut through, making delivering power to the target difficult etc. I always liked Clancy's stuff for that- the technical side etc.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    16. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      there are other potential countermeasures. Thick smoke or a substance made out of tiny reflective particles streamed out front of the missile to defract the beam and obsorb some of it's energy, missiles covered with ceramic tiles that are resistant up to 3000F ( with an insulating layer underneath). From what little is known about the system, targeting is so hard that it's hard to get a lock on for extended periods.

    17. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT missiles?

      I hate to break it to you, but the only nation that would EVER launch a nuke is the USA. Not even the vile Israelis are THAT stupid. DO people REALLY think that Iran would launch a nuclear ICBM (even if they had such a thing, which they don't)?

      Really, I worry about the American state of mind more and more.

    18. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      I assume that some kind of mirrors are used in the generation and targeting of the laser beam, and that they don't immediately vaporise when the weapon is fired. Why not use the same material as a casing for your missile?

    19. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow!! Check the incompetence!

      As an aside, I note that the author of the cited paper (University of Texas? Didn't a well-known intellectual president come from there?) Hans Mark.

      He says that it would be 'hard' to provide countermeasures at 'militarily interesting distances' (what ever they may be).

      "It's kind of like a telescope in reverse." Welcome to the Texas laser optics research institute!

      TFA talks about 'full path distances' of 50km, not 50km between laser and target. It could mean that the radar is 25 km away.

      He also says Iraq is within 18 months of having a nuclear bomb.

      If you believe this character, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.. somewhere..

      Why are all redneck warmongers so incompetent? Is it something in the regressive genes? Do they think we don't check?

    20. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      To control that big laser gun, I bet there are tons of theelectronics that can't handle EM Pulse very well.

      In fact, you'd lose that bet. The US military has had 60 years to learn how to deal with EMP, and frontline military equipment is generally quite EMP-hardened.

      What, do you expect B-2 bombers to fall out of the sky after they drop a nuke? That didn't even happen with the B-29s in 1945. I'm sure the ABL is just as impervious.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    21. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point, but not your example. The B-29 would have been unaffected by EMP because its flight controls were levers, pulleys, and hydraulics. I think it had electric trim tabs, but the primary flight controls were all boring ol' mechanical gear.

      I also submit that the bombs dropped over Japan were a rather different animal than modern thermonuclear weapons, and wouldn't have the same EMP "performance". This is an area I'm not well informed about, but nevertheless I'd hesitate to draw parallels.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, and a terrorist would never dare attack American soil either.

    23. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      I agree with your point, but not your example. The B-29 would have been unaffected by EMP because its flight controls were levers, pulleys, and hydraulics. I think it had electric trim tabs, but the primary flight controls were all boring ol' mechanical gear.

      You're ignoring the fact that the B-29 engines had electrical systems, and the plane had a radio and other electronic equipement. EMP could easily have disrupted both.

      I also submit that the bombs dropped over Japan were a rather different animal than modern thermonuclear weapons, and wouldn't have the same EMP "performance". This is an area I'm not well informed about, but nevertheless I'd hesitate to draw parallels.

      Here is a good page on EMP. What we're discussing here is SREMP, and that associated with thermonuclear weapons is no different from that associated with fission weapons. It is strictly dependent on the size of the blast, the atmospheric conditions, and the geometry of the receiver with the blast.

      The 20 KT explosions in WWII were small by today's standards, but the B-29 was also much closer to the blast than would be a modern bomber. Five times longer standoff distance would make up for a 25 times stronger blast, which would be 500 KT. Our largest weapons are 10 MT, and IIRC there are no plans to use anything larger than 1 MT from the B-2. (Larger weapons fell out of fashion, as they are inherently less efficient than smaller weapons.)

      If the weapon is delivered on something like the ALCM, the standoff distances get much larger.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    24. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Elaarni · · Score: 1

      It is? Havnt they been targetting very small things for years with simple systems for laser guided bombs and hellfire missiles for the entire flight time of the weapon? And as for the idea of streaming smoke or particles, it would have to last for many miles before being through the complete boost phase of the missile, and out of range, as it is, missiles re pretty packed, where are you finding room to add this item? not to mention that you would have to be sure the smoke wouldnt be outright burned off by the power of the laser itself. Applying a mirrored surface wont work either, we arent talking about going to home depot and buying a can of silver paint, it would require such a high degree of polish that only certain materials can be used, and glass isnt something you should be jacketing your missiles with, also consider that any mirror covering you got to near flawlessness would need to be kept in a very clean space, possibly a vaccum or dust and other impurities would settle on it, and if a laser was to flash heat one of these covering impurities, you would cause a flaw in the covering, and the missile is compromised. Not to mention the costs of covering your entire arsenal in a perfect mirror then having all of your launch silo's converted to handle keeping these beasts clean. none of these countermeasures will work, simply put, the beam is far too potent, we are talking about a beam that will burn through a couple of inches of titanium in under 2 seconds

    25. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Are you directing the "incompetence" comment at me? I am by no means a warmonger. All I am saying that directing a sufficient amount of energy to a ballistic missile so as to cause its explosion is an engineering problem, not a physics problem. It can be done, and it really doesn't take any huge advance in technology to do so. We have adaptive optics, we have high-power lasers, we have a tracking system, and we have a firing platform, all that is needed is the will and the cash to put it all together. Oh by the way, the MAneuverable Re-entry Vehicle or MARV was deployed on European-based Pershing II theater-type nuclear missiles in the 70's, as a means to get more precise targeting. I suppose it COULD be used to maneuver a warhead in an evasive way, but the lateral velocity relative to its forward velocity would be very, very small. It wouldn't make that much of a change in its path. If you slow it down enough to make it "evasive", you've made a glide-bomb out of it, and eliminated a ballistic missile's greatest asset: speed.

    26. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      The B-29 had magnetos to run the engines' electrical systems, which are pretty brute-force electrical systems. I'd be pretty surprised if EMP did anything bad to them. Could it happen? Sure...anything could happen. Clearly, it did NOT happen.

      I'll read more about EMP. It's an interesting phenomenon, and not one I understand well. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    27. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, mirrors won't work as a countermeasure. Yet the laser is itself directed by mirrors. Is it that only specially 'blessed' mirrors can affect the laser?

    28. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 0

      BBAAARRRGHHHHH
      Read a frickin' laser mailing list!!!! there are mirrors more than 99% reflective available to the hobbyist for under $2000. Plus, the missile would be travelling really fast (lots of air) and the stand for the mirror could have a radiator. It's just a matter of power and time.

      Regarding mounting it on a jet or on ground...
      If you're gonna use mirrors you have the same range from a static ground base as from a jet. The latter is more difficult to shoot accurately.
      On the other hand, a satellite with a nuclear power supply and a bigass laser...

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    29. Re:Overcoming countermeasures? by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      The laser's mirrors are highly polished, and kept under very strict environmental conditions. A missile, by virtue of its mission, must fly through the atmosphere, encountering dust and debris along the way. Simply launching one is a vibration-filled event. If you start with a missile built of highly-polished material, all it takes is one speck of dust, one imperfection, to ruin the whole thing's utility as a laser-deflector. There are plenty of chances for that on a ballistic missile's flight.

  48. in other news... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    the navy plans on having rail-guns replacing the 16 inch guns on ships by 2011 (wikipedia rail-guns article) - in the same manner, the US military is also looking into using rail-guns to replace mobile howitzers (such as the M109 Paladin)

  49. The Real Genius Behind Plan by Gryle · · Score: 1

    Unbeknownst to the reporter, these weapons were actually created by Bob The Angry Flower

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  50. Regarding Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hitler may have lost the war, but he sure had a great plan!! Yeah, you know - what he planned on doing to "the people".

    Yeah, providing them an inexpensive car. I mean - those Volkswagen Beetles were great!!

  51. Caution by TCQuad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait, Laser pointers grow in gardens?? THAT, is a plant I would grow.

    Do not look directly at garden with remaining eye.

  52. Real Genius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Doesn't this weapon smell of the 80's flick, Real Genius?

    1. Re:Real Genius? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      You mean smell like popcorn?

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    2. Re:Real Genius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I loved that movie when i was a kid !... just watched it again recently... still loved it :)

  53. Um, actually by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

    "Hitler lost the war by micromanaging his army into the ground."

    Hitler actually lost the war because he decided to split his attentions and attack the Soviet Union, who were perfectly willing to sit out the war on the sidelines till then.

    If Germany had smashed Fortress Britain instead of being greedy and turning east, the US would not have had a launching point for D-Day (unless you count the idiotic idea of attacking up through Italy from North Africa), and the US would not have had the millions of Soviet cannon fodder to grind down the Wehrmacht.

    Western Europe would have been fascist German lackeys for the last half-century, and the European Jews would have vanished without a trace.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Um, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Western Europe would have been fascist German lackeys for the last half-century, and the European Jews would have vanished without a trace."

      Which only goes to show that American intervention isn't always a good idea.

    2. Re:Um, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If Germany had smashed Fortress Britain .... the US would not have had the millions of Soviet cannon fodder to grind down the Wehrmacht."

      Um. Equally the Soviets would not have had millions of tons of US supplies to fight the Germans with? Why do you think the US 'had' the Soviets rather than the other way round?

      In any case, why would 'smashing Fortress Britain' have got rid of the Soviets?

      What would have happened is always moot, but the Germans accepted that they had no chance of invading the UK mainland after the Battle of Britain. Surely they were in the best position to know? Instead they tried to starve the UK, and failed at that, though it was a close thing.

      Note that during this time the UK was standing alone against the full might of Germany. The US was not helping. The German army was deployed in Russia because it was unable to get over the Channel. In fact, the UK was providing arms and support to the Soviets via the Baltic. So the US were not an issue during this critical time.

      Many historians think that Hitler made a mistake in invading Russia in 1941, but it's now being considered that it was a sensible move, which nearly paid off. See this link, for instance - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_russ ia_invasion_01.shtml.

      By the time the US came into the Western front it was all over bar the shouting. What D-Day meant was that half of Europe would be communist rather than all of it. That was why America fought in Europe If Hitler had won, the US would have been happy to deal with him - their businesses were doing so anyway.

    3. Re:Um, actually by Cigarra · · Score: 1
      "Hitler actually lost the war because he decided to split his attentions and attack the Soviet Union, who were perfectly willing to sit out the war on the sidelines till then."

      Sorry, but that's really wrong. You see, invading the Soviet Union was ALWAYS the plan. Western Europe got in the way, and Hitler had to deal with it because he had no other choice (Hitler attacked France, right, but 8 months after THEY declared war. He had to do it because he had to secure his back, and didn't want to lose more time, since USSR was also preparing for war and it was some 2-4 years behind Germany). Going EAST, Lebensraum and stuff, ever heard of it?

      Hitler DIDN'T WANT to fight France nor Britain. He had to do it, because THEY DECLARED WAR to Germany. That's also why he didn't crush the BEF (he let them go away instead) in Dunkirk: he wanted the peace with Britain ASAP, so he could take care of the USSR as initially intended.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
  54. ABL == Perfect AA system by narl · · Score: 1
    That's the point - one less delivery vector to worry about.

    Exactly. That alone completely justifies everything we spend on this system.

    But these Tactical High-Energy Laser systems aren't limited to just shooting down ballistic missiles, they make perfect anti-aircraft and anti-satellite systems as well.

    And the Israelis already had a ground-based THEL deployed - not for use against ballistic missiles, but against the cheaper missiles used by terrorists.
    1. Re:ABL == Perfect AA system by yabos · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, by the time the government actually gets the thing deployed in the air in the case where it's needed, the bomb will probably already hit it's target.

    2. Re:ABL == Perfect AA system by sconeu · · Score: 1

      The US is also working on an airborne laser for tactical use.

      One of the things that a DE weapon has over standard KE/HE weapons is the minimization of collateral damage. Consider: Terrorist group X has taken over a mosque, of considerable historical/cultural significance. Their equipment is parked all around it, close enough that conventional weapons would cause damage to the mosque. A DE weapon can disable the weaponry and vehicles without such collateral damage.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:ABL == Perfect AA system by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that you point the thing right. I seem to remember a little boo-boo about getting the steet address wrong on a "smart bomb" and have it hit the chinese consulate. Yes, it did hit the address give, it just that some bozo told it the wrong address.

  55. Been done before... by Agram · · Score: 1

    I've had reports from a close colleague of mine that similar projects were researched before by the US airforce. Granted, targets were not incoming rockets, but ironically it was the oxygen supply which was provided to the enemy pilots via a small tube. This was in part due to inefficiency of older day lasers which had to be carried in huge airplanes which stored immense chemical tanks that powered a single laser (one such airplane can be seen at the Wright Patterson Airforce Base in Dayton, OH). So, a huge airplane was flown in an attempt to cut such a tube by melting the cockpit window and cutting of the oxygen supply on a supersonic jet. If you ask me, this was more of a madness than sci-fi...

  56. oooo, popcorn...must be a genius or two here by geekbeater · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, well the implications are much more impressive. The acquisition, tracking and targeting system will be most impressive if it works well enough to fully utilize the lasers potential. But what may be most intriguing is how this could be used on stationary targets... say... Saddam's bunkers, (pastense) or perhaps... North Korean and Iranian nuclear potentials. And don't be so naive to think that the chicoms don't want to be on level ground with us strategically...they've been doing some major muscle flexing in the pacific rim as of late... the end of the USSR does not mean the end of potential threats to our way of life (translation, loss of ability for geeks to hang out at /.)

  57. This Sci-Fi weapon was developed in 1980 by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    And it was bomb then too

  58. SOL = Satellite Orbital Laser by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    So when are we going to get one of those? Give it a few solar panels and some fat-ass capacitors, it wouldn't be hard to do. I'm sure the satcom devision in our military would LOVE to perform an assassination on Bin Laden with this.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  59. Mmm, cheesy stem cells. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have we really slummed low enough that we are using cheesy 80's movies as inspiration for national defense?

    Oh, but cloning new organs with stem cells isn't cheesy 80's sci-fi as well?

  60. Just once by phorm · · Score: 1

    Changes are, given the brightness it would be at 5MW, even with minimal dissipation... you might only ever be able to see it "just once"

  61. Re:Regarding Hitler and Stupid Mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell was that a troll?!? Because I didn't put a little, stupid smiley faces at the end of it to signify that it is a joke?? Volkswagen Beetles were, in fact, one of the coolest cars ever made. Didn't you ever hear of "double entendre"?

  62. Re:SOL = Satellite Orbital Laser by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    what about Ace Combat 5's (by Namco) SOLG (Strategic Orbital Linear Gun)? ---- one letter off from being the same...

  63. B & S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe the pentagon cover story for the ABL. Big laser on a plane I believe, that it is intended (or would work very well) for ICBMs I find highly questionable. At best it would be a closer range weapon, perhaps to use as a blinding laser against enemy aircraft or very unsophisticated shorter range tactical artillery rockets, or for use against selected softer ground targets. Even crowd control in riots for that matter. Targeted assassinations like they use hellfires from predators now, along those lines maybe.

    And all of that is a big maybe.

    I think this is just another example of a huge mil/industrial complex pork project, like most of what they develop. A jobs program- "ooh, lasers, shiny!"

  64. Obligatory quote by darjen · · Score: 1
    Oh no, not the "Giant Laser". I suppose they will also turn the moon into a "Death Star" to shoot it from. And I guess we'll all have to watch out when Mini Bush (Bush Jr) starts humping it.

    Well ok, it's not quite as funny online. Guess you have to imagine those quotes are actually air quotes.

  65. Bunny Slippers by hcob$ · · Score: 1
    To quote a great 80's movie:

    I must compliment you on your choice of footwear...
    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  66. Re:Regarding Hitler and Stupid Mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, that was quick!!

    Well, now - since you are so easily swayed, I demand that this comment be modded as Score:5, Offtopic.

    Do it, I say!!

  67. Active Denial by dickens · · Score: 1

    Can anyone think of a "non-lethal weapon" that wasn't eventually used as a form of torture, whether deliberately or not ?

    Rubber bullets that tear off chunks of flesh when they strike glancing blows, tasers, "shock belts" put on unruly prisoners with the trigger given to the judge. Never mind the good old truncheon.

  68. A necessary ploy by narl · · Score: 1

    So if we're developing lasers that shoot down missiles "half a world away" why on earth are we also developing a missile defense system that uses other missiles to shoot down incoming ballistics?

    Oh, that's easy. You see, the missile-based defense system was just to distract the liberals in America while the real laser-based ABM system was silently completed (with the help of Israel).

    A very worthy expendature. The Democrats were so busy frothing at the mouth over the ABM missile tests, they didn't even see the ABL coming and weren't able kill it in congress.

    Now that we finally have a real, working ABM system, MAD, and the possibility of nuclear holocaust, is forever dead.

  69. We Now Take for Granted, What Was Science Fiction by tm2b · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hate to break it to you, but sci-fi weapons have been in our arsenal for years.

    Namely, the geostationary communications satellites that are the backbone of our military communications system (and not to mention the later GPS system). If you told a commander in the field in the early 1970s (in, say, Vietnam) that he'd be able to have maps with his location pinpointed by meters, or that he'd be able to guide a cruise missile air strike just by pointing a pencil-sized cylinder at a target, or that he could have a live, secure telephone call with anybody in the world from anywhere with open sky, he'd cream his pants.

    They're such a part of our everyday world now that many people forget (or never learn) that the notion of communications satellites were invented by Science Fiction author Arthur C Clarke.

    Yesterday's science fiction is taken for granted by tomorrow.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  70. How about put it on a satellite by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

    If this works, sure, our little F-16's and whatnot can use them. But what is the feasibility of mounting these things on satellites? No need to bounce them off mirrors on satellites, just mount it on a satelite on the first place.

    1. Re:How about put it on a satellite by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      1. Weapons in space would cause a new race.
      2. Once we have weapons up there, EVERYBODY will do so as well.
      3. Sat. are relatively easy to take out from the ground, if you know where they are and you have orbit capability. (brilliant pebbles, anyone?). At this time, that includes USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, China, Brazil, India, and shortly, North Korea and Iran.

      In contrast, once we have the 747 working, it will be only a matter of time before it will work on the F22, which is where we are going over the next 10 years.
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:How about put it on a satellite by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      For some reason I had thought we already had a bunch of missiles in space (and perhaps the US does, and also perhaps Russia and China). But, after a quick Google search, it appears that the US wants weapons in space, but hasn't actually put any up there yet (as far as they've admitted to). So, yes, putting this weapon there would have been a bigger deal than I was thinking.

    3. Re:How about put it on a satellite by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      1. Weapons in space would cause a new race.

      2. Once we have weapons up there, EVERYBODY will do so as well.

      It's a race we're already 3rd in. The Russians have had operational space weapons for a couple decades now. And the Chinese have a very solid, but more modern, space weapons program. The closest we've ever gotten has been a few testbed programs that never really went anywhere. We need operational, armed military capability in space, if only to protect our own commercial, scientific, and unarmed military interests up there which are only likely to grow considerably in the next several decades. As it stands, we've lost the high ground to potential enemies.
  71. They have already been testing inflight operation. by _mythdraug_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yep. I noticed this in the last month on a government website that maps NOTAMs.

    It is quite common for there at the national scale map, to see a purple dot. This purple dot indicates that there is scheduled laser activity in the area. Frequently a laser light show. The NOTAMs advise altitude and range for which precaution is advised.

    Then suddenly broad sections (that can only be assumed to be flightlines) stretching from Texas, down the Gulf of Mexico (just off the Mexican coast) to the Yucatan penensula and over to Florida. These NOTAMS frequently advised precaution of several thousand feet "below the aircraft" and "above the aircraft" and for a range that makes the "light show" type NOTAM seem laughable.

  72. other way around...they were making fun of SWD by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Have we really slummed low enough that we are using cheesy 80's movies [imdb.com] as inspiration for national defense?

    Real Genius was probably making fun of the Star Wars Defense project (and military-academia links, among other things.) The sad thing is that, yes, for 20-30 or more years, our military has been pumping billions into this prime example of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

    The script had some jabs at Caltech (coordinates for the house were a mortuary near Caltech) but I suspect they had MIT equally in mind.

  73. Well, you'll be surprised, but... by SysKoll · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Laser scientists are as smart as rocket scientists and slightly more paranoid. So they thought about that already.

    The laser pulse is so short and intense that the missile rotation does not matter. Same for mirroring. For all practical purposes, the rising edge of the pulse will destroy the surface layer of any mirror very quickly, and then the rest of the photons will be nicely absorbed.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:Well, you'll be surprised, but... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      So how come it doesn't destroy the mirrors that are part of the adaptive optics?

      Are there multiple smaller beams co-inciding on a single spot on the target?
      Or is it more subtle that the mirrors in the airplane can be higher quality and kept cleaner than ones strapped to the side of a missle?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    2. Re:Well, you'll be surprised, but... by SysKoll · · Score: 1
      The adaptative optics is, as you guessed, a secondary (smaller) laser, and there is another one used for tracking. From TFA:

      There are several other lasers that are onboard the Airborne Laser besides the weapons-class laser. There is a tracking laser, a laser that actually acquires the target, tracks the target. There is another laser that is there for the purpose of what is known as adaptive optics.

      Note that several beams can share the same optics if they have the same wavelength, although the article doesn't say.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    3. Re:Well, you'll be surprised, but... by 955301 · · Score: 1

      The focal point is on the target, not on the optics. But if the focal point was on the system's mirror, then yes, it would probably destroy it.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    4. Re:Well, you'll be surprised, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could use MOPA (Master oscillator/Power Amplifier) configuration. The MO could do the adaptive optics prior to amplifying the beam to the appropriate power.

    5. Re:Well, you'll be surprised, but... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      For all practical purposes, the rising edge of the pulse will destroy the surface layer of any mirror very quickly So, uh, why doesn't the rising edge of the pulse destroy the optics they are using to focus the laser beam?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  74. Gee, what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were the enemy - and want to disable those laser/high tech planes, all I have to do is explode a nuke high above the atmosphere. The EMG will knock out all those planes with those fancy laser+computers for hundred miles - half world away :)

  75. Enemies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we just need enemies to justify this thing. Actually we seem to be pretty good at making them lately.

  76. Old news, they already ripped off 'Aliens' by Gulthek · · Score: 1
    Check out the Advanced Hybrid Electric Drive (AHED) military vehicle and see how the US military was inspired by the armored troop carrier from Aliens.

    They know it too. From an article on new war machines in the Jan, 06 Maxim Magazine:
    The most conspicuous feature of the AHED is its uncanny resemblance to the troop transport in the movie Aliens. When I mention the likeness to the engineers, they reluctantly agree and quickly change the subject.
    So would it be infringement if I made a movie or designed a truck that resembled the Aliens vehicle; but not if the military does it?
    1. Re:Old news, they already ripped off 'Aliens' by Down8 · · Score: 1

      Many would disagree, but the military would not be profiting from the similiarities, whereas your copycat movie would.

      -bZj

      --
      .sig
  77. I have to ask... by Firehed · · Score: 1

    What happens when they miss? Obviously if their aim is true, those underneath the target missile get little chunks of MissileShit raining down upon them, but is some family in Tokyo going to get a nasty surprise if they aim a bit low?

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  78. It could be worse by FuzzyFromOz · · Score: 1

    It could be a jumbo with Ballmer, and a chair. He could f*&^ing kill those missiles!

  79. 30 Years Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dad is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force. During the 1970's, he was stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, as an Electronic Engineer. One of his projects was working on an airplane virtually identical to this. He spent part of his time working on the electronic controls for the aiming optical mechanisms.

    This project was almost identical in every way (I went over the limited information in the article and almost every technical fact my dad could say 'we did it that way too' to). We even have a picture of the modified airplane (only noticeable addition is a dome on top).

    The project was abandoned because it produced no viable results other than a few test cases in extremely optimal conditions.

  80. no they're not by circusboy · · Score: 1

    the latter video is just a small scale variation on this

    note they refer to it as a 'virtual' force field.

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  81. Interesting....if it really works that is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  82. ...And already tested...BY FIRING AT THE US!! by Tmack · · Score: 1
    This is nothing new, this kind of thing has been underdevelopment since late in the Cold War.

    Remember??? They had this secret base under a drive-in movie theater, where the movie screens turned into giant laser-charging thingies that would send their laser pulse to a satalite to bounce around and hit a target. Only problem was that they missed the russian Nuke they had a couple of spies reprogram and fire at the US as a test. Luckily the spies reprogrammed it in flight and caused it to change course and detonate away from everyone! Then they all played risk...

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  83. Stupid post and stupid mods by Flower · · Score: 1
    From TFA:
    The Zeus is actually a solid-state laser developed by the Army to heat up mines, to be able to clear minefields at a distance. In fact, the Zeus was deployed to Afghanistan, and several hundred mines were cleared by the use of this tactical weapon. There is another one called the THEL, or the Tactical High Energy Laser, that was developed for the Army, and this laser had actually shot down Katyusha rockets in White Sands Missile Range, and after over 30 Katyusha rockets were shot down, they decided to see if they could also shoot down mortars and artillery shells, and they were successful on that.

    It isn't an anti-rpg platform but it is in the realm of what could be encountered in a "Long War" scenerio (the mine issue is definitely present day thinking.) And once again some tool brings up the fallacy that if this wasn't being researched that other things would just magically become possible because people would be reassigned. Why yes, let's move the physicists on a high energy project and have them now work on a materials issue. Author also doesn't take into consideration that the pentagon has to consider scenerios involving China or better yet North Korea deploying ballistic missles. It also makes the assumption that if this is going through R&D that the desired anti-RPG platform is not going through R&D - another fallacy.

    Post is based on poor logic, poor assuptions, poor mods and smacks of didn't RTFA.

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
  84. One thing I never understood... by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

    I never understood how you protect similar systems from enemy action. If you allow for weapons in space, what prevents the enemy to park a shotgun near your mirror, and fire it five seconds before the missile? I assume that the cost of the counter-measure would be orders of magnitudes less than the relay system.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  85. so... by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

    How would this stop an attack wherein an enemy places a small nuke in several cargo containers and has them go to every city with a port on both coasts, hooked up with a gps system set to blow them as soon as they get in range?

    No fancy airplane laser will help with this. They are still fighting the cold war. All sounds like an excuse to transfer money from US taxpayers to defense contractors.

    I mean serriously, would any enemy worth his salt fire a big honking ICBM at the US? I mean, I could fit a single warhead from a soviet MIRV missile in a car and drive it into the middle of DC and detonate. And thats just me, thinking off the cuff, imagine what the chinesse are thinking up.

    1. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what if I wanted to use this "defensive" weapon to blow up your nuclear reactor(s) in Iran? I can see this thing being an extremely effective offensive weapon. ;-)

    2. Re:so... by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

      Now, IANA laser expert so forgive if i am wrong...it seems to me that the energy required to "blow up" (breach the reactor?) a nuclear plant would be a whole fuckload more than that required to burn through the skin of a rocket.

  86. Can they mount those frickin' laserbeams on sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be impressed when it peaks at one point twenty one jiggawatts

  87. SAVING LIVES IS 'SOMETHING USEFUL' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, I'm all for megawatt class lasers - as this means the technology is about 1/1000th of the way towards using lasers for something useful:

    Protecting our ground forces against TBMs carrying chemical or bio weapons is "something useful". Or is your definition of "something useful" restricted to sci-fi items of interest to middle-class caucasians and items of interest to lower-class minorities who make up our armed services don't count?

    1. Re:SAVING LIVES IS 'SOMETHING USEFUL' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The racial makeup of the middle-class or the armed forces has absolutely NO bearing on the merit of your argument. The fact that you decide to term it as such speaks volumes. Next time, try to avoid the emotional, knee-jerk nonsense and just explain your argument. It couldve been a decent one.

    2. Re:SAVING LIVES IS 'SOMETHING USEFUL' by m50d · · Score: 1

      I have a rock that prevents our armed forces being eaten by zombies. Seriously, when did you last see "TBMs carrying chemical or bio weapons" used against us?

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:SAVING LIVES IS 'SOMETHING USEFUL' by nasch · · Score: 1

      So that means it won't happen, ever?

    4. Re:SAVING LIVES IS 'SOMETHING USEFUL' by m50d · · Score: 1

      No. But it's unlikely enough that preparing for it doesn't qualify as useful in my book. It's not saving any lives.

      --
      I am trolling
  88. Re:SOL = Satellite Orbital Laser by ThePeices · · Score: 1

    Assinating bin Laden would not be in the current Administration's best interests. If bin Laden was dead, then how would the 'eternal war' (thanks Orwell) continue when no other militant currently has the 'boogey man' status as bin Laden does?

    Seriously, if the US really wanted bin Laden dead, they could do it. Enough troops and survailence would locate him, and then its simply a matter of munitions.

  89. safety for the masses, spare a few by icepick72 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what happens if a bird or sky-diver gets in the way? At worst, will it maybe delay the laser's ability to blow up the missle for only a second or so? Then I still feel safe ... as long as I'm not sky-diving.

    1. Re:safety for the masses, spare a few by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The probability of you being in the same bit of sky as the laser is infinitessimally small. Besides, if the laser is likely to be used in earnest, we are likely having a nuclear war and your skydiving operation will be grounded for national security reasons anyway.

  90. Re:SOL = Satellite Orbital Laser by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt it. While I wouldn't say impossible, I would say it's highly highly unlikely. Besides, wouldn't you want this reward? I don't know about you, but I could use the 25 mil bounty! Fat chance though. I'd get waxed by his loyal followers before I even got within visual range.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  91. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by online-shopper · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuck no.

  92. Result of budget cuts by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    Due to Congressional budget cuts, they had to settle for Freakin' Sea Bass with bad dispositions.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  93. Militarization, anyone? by monoqlith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These weapons may have been useful and valuable in the cold war era to cancel an airborne nuclear threat from our of our communist rivals. In this day and age, when nuclear weapons and other explosives are less likely to be airborne and more likely to arrive in a shipping container on one of our ports, doesn't it seem like we're going even further down the path of excessive militarization?? The military-industrial complex accounts for 30% of government spending, and it's because we keep launching projects like these airborne missile defense lasers that the upward trend continues. I agree that it's important to have technology in defense , but pouring all these resources into military technology that doesn't make a whole lot of strategic sense when we could be putting money into, say, education and health care, and actual national security concerns - doesn't it make you stop for a second and think?

    On the other hand, at least the airborne defense lasers fulfill the actual premise of a "defense budget" - it is meant to defend us, and not to invade or destroy other countries, though I could see its purpose being perverted there as well.

    1. Re:Militarization, anyone? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      These weapons may have been useful and valuable in the cold war era to cancel an airborne nuclear threat from our of our communist rivals. In this day and age, when nuclear weapons and other explosives are less likely to be airborne and more likely to arrive in a shipping container on one of our ports, doesn't it seem like we're going even further down the path of excessive militarization??
      No.

      First off, this isn't designed to shoot down ICBMs - it's designed to shoot down TBMs, which are not exactly uncommon and become more widespread by the day. Second off, nuclear weapons are about as likely to arrive via a shipping container as I am to grow a second head. (National leaders typically want such weapons closely controlled, because they are articles of statecraft, not weapons. There's a reason why virtually every nation that has built or sought to build nuclear weapons also seeks to build missiles.)

      The military-industrial complex accounts for 30% of government spending
      No.

      It accounts for 30% of the discretionary spending - but for only about 10% of the total spending. (The goverment has sytematically mislead the people about the true size of the federal budget, and how much goes to social programs, by classifying entitlements as 'non-discretionary spending' and not reporting it as part of the budget.)

      I agree that it's important to have technology in defense , but pouring all these resources into military technology that doesn't make a whole lot of strategic sense when we could be putting money into, say, education and health care, and actual national security concerns - doesn't it make you stop for a second and think?
      Between the discretionary and non discretionary portions of the budget (and setting aside social security), HEW's purse is already several times larger than the DOD's - with little noticeable impact after decades.
    2. Re:Militarization, anyone? by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      First off, this isn't designed to shoot down ICBMs - it's designed to shoot down TBMs, which are not exactly uncommon and become more widespread by the day.

      First: The major security threat that we have to defend ourselves against is (as has been hammered into my head for 5 years by the current government and the media) terrorism. Now, the airborne threat that terrorists are likely to deliver is via jet, since a grassroots terrorist organization is unlikely to have the financial means or the infrastructure to design, build, and launch missiles of any kind. A missile defense laser of the kind described in the article is neither designed to take down a jet used as a missile or an ICBM, if what you say is true.
      We are also unlikely to experience a missile threat from any well-defined enemy state, since a well-formed state incurring the wrath of the United States (the major economic power in the world) hasn't been a good idea for a while now. Again, the likelihood of an airborne missile attack of ANY kind, not just nuclear, has been greatly diminished since after the cold war. We are no longer in the age of wars between powers, but now in the age of many ill-defined, subversive cells fighting against a superpower(us) who have means available to them that do not include standard missiles of the kind that would be delivered by an enemy state.

      Second off, nuclear weapons are about as likely to arrive via a shipping container as I am to grow a second head. (National leaders typically want such weapons closely controlled, because they are articles of statecraft, not weapons. There's a reason why virtually every nation that has built or sought to build nuclear weapons also seeks to build missiles.)

      National leaders of rogue states are by and large more interested in profit and less in protecting the articles of statecraft. They can't and shouldn't be trusted to develop nuclear weapons and keep them safe from rogue terrorists with whom their religious beliefs or ideologies are aligned. Many leaders do not want to deliver a clear missile attack which would incite the direct and immediate wrath of the United States, but rather to give untraceable aid to terrorists who support insidious sneak attacks against public infrastructure in the United States. A subsequent attack is more likely to be delivered through trade routes and not through the US airspace which is purportedly well-protected by air guard(though I have my doubts after 9/11.)

      It accounts for 30% of the discretionary spending - but for only about 10% of the total spending. (The goverment has sytematically mislead the people about the true size of the federal budget, and how much goes to social programs, by classifying entitlements as 'non-discretionary spending' and not reporting it as part of the budget.)

      I'm pretty sure the 10% figure that you cite does not include the current costs of previous military spending, or the costs of social spending that are a direct result of military spending. The government is more interested in misleading us about the percentage of actual spending that they say goes towards social programs and other things when it actually goes towards defense spending. Moreover, either way, the disclosed spending on the department of defense is in the 2006 federal budget is $447.4 billion
      In 2002, this number was $343.2 billion.

      "These figures typically do not include combat figures, so 2001 onwards, the Afghan war, and 2003 onwards, the Iraq war costs are not in this budget. As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
      As Chris Hellman, researcher of many of these statistics, also notes, when adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed

  94. Still waiting... by Flame0001 · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for Gundams. Or maybe Transformers.

    --
    Slashdot, the only place where intellectuals can act like idiots... and still sound intellectual.
  95. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

    He meant to say, F r i c k No.

    --
    Sig
  96. Power is too cheap to meter... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    We're just too cheap and too greedy to spend money on developing the technology to harness that power efficiently. We've got a massive fusion reactor 1 AU away, showering us with more energy than we need.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Power is too cheap to meter... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I disagree. We put ample resources into developing solar power. And the performance of solar power is steadily increasing.

  97. nonlethal crowd control by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "The ADS would provide a nonlethal form of crowd control"

    I heard the tests involved the volunteers removing their eyewear and other metallic stuff, and people who missed out certain stuff got badly burned.

    So even if its nonlethal its not going to be as "rosey" as they seem to claim.

    --
    1. Re:nonlethal crowd control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until our police use it at protests. You know they cant wait to get their hands on something like this.

  98. Corner Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you don't need any gimballs, or fancy computing power, just take a corner mirror and put it on the satellite. They still have some from the 60's on the moon, and they work fine reflecting the laser back to earth.

    You may need a really big, or really polished mirror to reflect the beam with enough intensity to vaporise the target/source, but it's definitely doable, and with 60's technology no less.

    1. Re:Corner Mirror by mfrank · · Score: 1

      A corner mirror reflecting the laser right back at you would be a very effective way of destroying your own weapon system, wouldn't it?

  99. Sliding shield by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    To demonstrate the fallacy of a sliding shield, give a person a square of aluminum foil large enough to cover one eye, and a second person a laser pointer. Now have the first person protect both eyes while keeping them open.

    Good luck! And remember, "Don't stare into laser with remaining eye".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  100. yamato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your laser cannon is not match for teh almightly ZERGLING RUSH

  101. COIL vs. AGIL by sremick · · Score: 1

    Wonder why they're using a COIL laser vs. a more-modern AGIL laser. The benefits of AGIL over COIL are perfectly suited for aerospace applications like this, and would significantly reduce the loaded weight of the plane.

  102. It's being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mother works for a company that makes targeting lasers and satelites. I was going to name the company but thought better of it. We are already bouncing ground based targeting lasers off of satelites. No reason it couldn't be done for higher power beams. Posting anonymously because I don't really know if she should have been talking to me about this... But I don't think knowing we have this capability is really a threat to our national security. Just to be safe I took out some of the technical details I was going to put in. Like I said, believe it or not, your call, but I know for a fact it can be done.

    1. Re:It's being done by isorox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We are already bouncing ground based targeting lasers off of satelites.

      Hitting a mirror on the moon with a fixed ground based laser was done in the 60s. Hitting it when you are on a plane with a velocity changing almost randomly in 3 dimensions isn't easy

    2. Re:It's being done by bogado · · Score: 1

      The question is, if you going to bounce the lazer in a mirror why do you need the airplane? Simply moving the mirror could point the lazer to where ever you want, and with a land based lazer you could have a huge power station connected to the thing and the output power would be limited only by the capacity of the mirror.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    3. Re:It's being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is a lazer?

    4. Re:It's being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a Huked on Fonix version of "laser".

    5. Re:It's being done by angulion · · Score: 1

      One reason might be that satelites can be taken out much easier than unknown airplanes, in a war situation. I suppose.

  103. Beowulf cluster anyone ? by AwaxSlashdot · · Score: 1

    Nope.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  104. It's energy density that matters, not Watts by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Energy density is what does the damage. Enough energy delivered into a small enough volume to vapourise or whatever.

    Lasers used to mark ICs etc deliver a high energy density into the surface of the chip. You can get them to write on your fingernail (as I have done) by cooking just a few cells. They wont cook your whole finger.

    Getting whammed by high wattage for a very short amount of time is not going to hurt you much and nor will it knock a satellite out of orbit or kill a missile.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:It's energy density that matters, not Watts by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      What kind of lasers do you work with?

          I work with 2.5 kw Mazak Industrial Lasers.

          We can light cigarettes quite easily across the 17,000+ Sq. Ft. building or burn through 3/4" Steel plate in seconds.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
  105. I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Should Americans have a power source device with equivalent energy density for such weapon, they wouldn't be fighting desperately for remnants of oil today. Considering latest Russian rockets have unpredictable trajectory, targeting would be quite an interesting math problem. Unpredictable as in chaotic, not as in "we don't know where they shoot". Certainly a 747 is a much better target for identical weapon of an opponent than speedy rocket is... Optical properties of atmosphere are horrible, ask some pilot; so called "beam preconditioning" sounds pseudoscience bullshit to me. Possible iodine laser wavelengths will not be dificult to find, what if the misile surface will be polished mirror for that waves? Or maybe the opposite: vaporized metallic carbide of outer coat can serve as thermal isolation or even coolant..

    Anyway, high energy weapons projects for upcoming age of energy scarcity is a really challenging strategy. Water pistols in desert, anyone?

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      Heh. What an amusing response.

      Should Americans have a power source device with equivalent energy density for such weapon, they wouldn't be fighting desperately for remnants of oil today.

      Nice random troll. Irrelevant, largely based on ignorance, and reasonably silly... so I give it a 5/10.

      Considering latest Russian rockets have unpredictable trajectory, targeting would be quite an interesting math problem. Unpredictable as in chaotic, not as in "we don't know where they shoot".

      Ah yes, the "meat" of your post. First of all, there is nothing chaotic about russian rocket technology. Perhaps you might want to look up what that word means, mathematically. Secondly, you might need to properly define what you mean by unpredictability, before trying to armchair-scientist your way through this pretty complicated topic with more then 2 minutes of thought. Do Russian rockets have a magical gremlin inside making them capable of violating Newton's Laws? The truth is ballisitic missiles paths are _very_ predictable, despite whatever minor perturbations they induce inflight. The reason that 100s of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers have been working on this for many years is precisely because of all these variables. There are artificial causes of "unpredictable" trajectory, too, which must also be taken into account. The "math problem" is interesting... precisely for this reason... if it wasn't, a high-school physics student could solve the problem.

      The bottomline, mathematically, is these things have a very very very very high velocity, and a very very very low tolerance to accceleration. They move in accordance with Newton's Laws, and consequently, must induce forces, to accelerate, off their current path. That means they have a non-constant, time-varying acceleration. Determinging/approximating that function is the "math problem", from there it's pretty simple to predict it's path. Having good data on it's location, and a weapon that travels at the speed of light means, you don't need to predict very far into the future, correctly, to be effective.

      Certainly a 747 is a much better target for identical weapon of an opponent than speedy rocket is... Optical properties of atmosphere are horrible, ask some pilot; so called "beam preconditioning" sounds pseudoscience bullshit to me.

      Hahha. Instant dismissal of 50 years of laser technology.. because your gut says so. Hahah. Now _that_ is pseudoscience. You might want to like, try... reading... or something.. about how it works, why it works, and how it's proven over and over and over and over and over to be simple physics.

      Possible iodine laser wavelengths will not be dificult to find, what if the misile surface will be polished mirror for that waves? Or maybe the opposite: vaporized metallic carbide of outer coat can serve as thermal isolation or even coolant..

      Oh man, mirrors! I can't believe no one has ever thought of that before! You are a genius. Maybe you should try reading ANY THREAD EVER on military lasers on slashdot to see the 900 other arm-chair scientists that are completely clueless bring up the "obvious" countermeasure of mirrors, only to have it shot down instantly by 9000 people who have spent 10 minutes researching the topic.

      Anyway, high energy weapons projects for upcoming age of energy scarcity is a really challenging strategy. Water pistols in desert, anyone?

      Speaking of pseudoscience, nice predicition Nostradamus.

    2. Re:I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

      Do Russian rockets have a magical gremlin inside making them capable of violating Newton's Laws? The truth is ballisitic missiles paths are _very_ predictable, despite whatever minor perturbations they induce inflight.

      Technically, yes, they have a "gremlin" inside. It's called a computer. Russian latest generation of strategic rockets which shall counter illegal (as in treaty violation) Bush's defense programs are not ballistic at all, just like small guided misiles are not ballistic. Their trajectory is chaotic, as in math. Ballistic missiles are a Third World's tech today, so "high-school physics students solving the problem" wouldn't help you much.

      Hahha. Instant dismissal of 50 years of laser technology.. because your gut says so.

      I have a CO2 lasgun in my kitchen for years. I would hardly call THAT a "dismissal of laser technology"...

      Oh man, mirrors!

      Mirrors I am talking about can absorb energy at certain wavelength and emit most of it on several others. More effective than pure reflection.

      Note you didn't addressed a metal vapour cooling, a major problem in industrial laser/plasma technology. It's quite a difference between etching an image on your notebook plastic case and cutting through several inches of solid metal. You need to do it relatively slow and repeatedly. One big shot is not an option.

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    3. Re:I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Considering latest Russian rockets have unpredictable trajectory, targeting would be quite an interesting math problem. Unpredictable as in chaotic, not as in "we don't know where they shoot".
      To put it simply - if you want to fire from point 'y' to point 'x', you can't deviate very far without spending large amounts of energy (and decreasing the weight of the payload). It's simply ballistics - Russian propoganda non withstanding. (Thats even more true in the lower atmosphere, where the ABL is intended to intercept the missiles, because significant maneuvers cost greatly in energy and the required additional weight for structural reinforcement.)

      At any rate, the ABL is designed to hit TBMs, not ICBMs; and at the range in question - the missile simply can't move fast enough to outrun the targeting laser and then the main laser.

    4. Re:I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      As someone who did graduate work related to lasers, and has worked for the Air Force related projects.. allow me reiterate my original point: you are uninformed, and wrong. You repeating the same incorrect arguments, so I'm not going to refute them again. Choatic systems are determinisitic and highly sensitive to initial conditions. The path of a missile is _not_ chaotic. You, quite simply, are wrong.

    5. Re:I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Well the ABL (and US missile defense system in general), is not intended to counter a Russian or Chinese attack... but let's assume for the moment that it is.

      Regardless of flight path, the mauevering Russian reentry vehicle will not be able to manuever nearly fast enough to elude a guided energy weapon. It would be detected, targeted, engaged, and destroyed in milliseconds. Kill assesment would be instantaneous - if they miss they can reengage again - all in under a second.

      Also, you speak as if the RV will be a perfect spheroid of some (nonexistant) reflective material. It will not be. It will have control surfaces, imperfections, and thrust nozzles, all of which will be vunerable to the delieered energy.

      Assuming the missile survies long enough to get out of the atmosphere at all, which it probably won't as ascent phase defenses will have already engaged it.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  106. OLD news.. by geekcomputing · · Score: 0

    this was tested during vietnam. no news here.

  107. Energy throughput is the hard, but important part by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    > The difficulty is not in getting the MegaWatts up, but keeping the
    > laser trained on the same spot for long enough to penetrate the skin
    > of a remote missile and cause it to malfunction catastrophically.

    And hitting "the same spot" of a moving target for a microsecond is obviously easier than hitting the same spot for a second, which is the main reason the energy output per time (Watt) is extremely important. The other reason is that there will be less time to lead the energy away, so the area being heated is smaller, thus less total energy is needed.

  108. excellent... by ud+plasmo · · Score: 1

    now all they need to build is a deathstar. then we can take over the world! MuhaHAHAhaaha!!1. oh wait...

    --
    Norris Normal - Who am I?
  109. Active Denial a possible new interrogation device? by A3gis · · Score: 1

    So, it leaves no evidence of it's use huh? sounds perfect for that prison they keep having trouble with in iraq. scary.

  110. Ungrateful Europeans? ... by Savage650 · · Score: 1
    [.. America going to war in Europe ..]to save millions of Europeans who are now largely ungrateful

    If by "ungrateful" you mean "refusing to support a war of agression" then we are probably ungrateful. But then, we still remember the nuremberg trials, where YOUR judges convicted the former german leaders for (amongst other things) "planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace"

    Actually, even some people in the US seem to remember that (hence the The Hague Invason Act) to protect all "American Servicemen" (up to and including their Commannder-in-Chief) from "unjust" or "politically motivated" persecution by, say, "ungrateful" former allies.

  111. On... planes ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    I've been interested in this technology, I have read quite a bit about it. Apparently, the goal is to ignite the missile propellant, which is poorly armored and already at a decent temperature. The missile's head, on the contrary, is too hard to explode with a laser due to armor (and armor-piercing-armor). Considering most missiles and intercontinental missiles use their fuel in the first minutes of flight, travelling the rest of the distance in 'ballistic mode' (dude it's falling!) this weapon is only effective if you can hit the missile when only a few (hundred) kilometers away from its launching point.

    I believe that in this test they will launch a missile near the jumbo and that their objective is to put it on a satellite fleet to be able to hit anywhere in the world.

    While I'll give a thumb up to this new tech, it may be worth of note that russians have already started to develop a protection from it : now on their recent missiles, it takes only 30 seconds to use all the fuel, reducing drastically the "window of effectiveness" of the evil Freedom Overwhelming Orbital Laser.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  112. One tiny, weee little flaw with the plan by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    How long will it be before someone goes on Pimp my WMD and has their ballistic missile chrome plated and polished to a nice laser reflective mirror finish?

    Mind you shouldn't we have stealth missiles by now?

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  113. Re:We Now Take for Granted, What Was Science Ficti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't accept this!!

    Everyone knows that Sir Arthur is not American. Only Americans can invent clever technical space ideas.

    What you meant to say is that Edison's invention of the light-bulb paved the way for the geosynchronous satelite, since they are both round.

  114. China by Britz · · Score: 1

    This, among the ABM shield are weapons directed at the next possible adversary. China. This is simply an oberservation. And though Bush has had his diplomatic blunders for some reason he was able to keep his mouth almost shut over this. Imagine "We build weapons to take the Chinese apart!" or something along those lines.

    However, he did fundamentally and single handedly change the US policy on the Taiwan issue. It used to be "we will defend Taiwan, but for diplomatic reasons we won't say anything, since we play along with the One-China-Policy and the This-Is-An-Internal-Affair-Stand from Beijing" and changed to "of course we will defend Taiwan and say it out loud" by statement of the US President.

  115. not funny for a lot of people by fantomas · · Score: 1

    (ZOMG genocide in Europe again?! Its a modern day Hitler, someone bring Churchill back from the dead!11!!)

    Not funny. Grow up college kid (or at least keep your mouth shut if you visit that part of Europe or you'll find yourself in a lot of trouble). Several very nasty acts of genocide happened. For example - (from wikipedia)

    The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,100 Bosniak males, ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by a Serb Army of Republika Srpska under general Ratko Mladi including Serbian state special forces "Scorpions". The Srebrenica massacre is considered one of the largest mass murders in Europe since World War II and one of the most horrific events in recent European history.

    Mladi and other Serb army officers have since been indicted for various war crimes, including genocide, at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The ICTY's final ruling was that the massacre was indeed an act of genocide.

    1. Re:not funny for a lot of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,100 Bosniak males ranging in age from teenagers to the elderly, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by a Serb Army of Republika Srpska under general Ratko Mladi including Serbian state special forces "Scorpions".

      According to the report by the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, that led the Wim Kok government to resign, a number of Greek volunteers took part in the massacre of Srebrenica. These (about 12) persons belonged to the Greek Volunteer Guard, an integral part of the Drina Corps and were either members of the Golden Dawn, a Greek nationalist group, or paid-to-kill murderers. Ratko Mladi; himself had asked to put up the Greek flag after the massacre, while Radovan Karadzi; had honoured the volunteers.

      Sounds like it wasn't just the Serbian army. Wheres the international outcry? Greek nationalists entering Bosnia and assisting in genocide is terrorism at the very least.

      The Srebrenica massacre is considered one of the largest mass murders in Europe since World War II and one of the most horrific events in recent European history.

      Nice choice of words. Bolding mine. The world does not revolve around Europe, I was just making fun of the fact that Europeans are overly paranoid of what goes on in their backyard but are completely ignorant to what goes on globally. (Cambodia? Rwanda? Sudan? Tibet? More recently, Darfur?) I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect either (the U.S. should've stopped Pol Pot when we had the troops there) but the sheer inaction of the U.N. completely undermines its authority.

  116. Independent assessment of Airborne Laser by Keysh · · Score: 1
    The American Physical Society produced a report on the feasibility of various boost-phase ballistic missile interception capabilities, back in 2003. There's a brief summary here [www.physicstoday.org], and the full report is available here [www.aps.org]. From the section of the summary talking about airborne laser (ABL) defenses:
    In assessing the usefulness of the ABL, the study group adopted its publicly reported design goals: 3 MW of power focused into a 1.2-m-diameter beam (close to the diffraction limit) that could illuminate the target missile for up to 20 s. We also considered the utility of systems with greater and lesser capabilities. We found that if the ABL achieves its design goals, it would have a range of about 600 km against liquid-propellant ICBMs. That would be useful against liquid-propellant ICBMs launched from North Korea, but not from Iran. Against solid-propellant ICBMs, its range would be only about 300 km, too short to be useful in any of the scenarios we examined. The ABL's range is relatively insensitive to its power.
    Note that they assumed that all the publically stated goals could be reached -- i.e., they ignored any possible engineering difficulties. Also note that the laser needs to stay focused on the target for several seconds, not just a few milliseconds as some posters have claimed: given the proposed beam power, it takes that long to heat up the . Solid-propellant rockets are harder to destroy because they're structurally much stronger (most of a liquid-propellant rocket is a thin-skinned metal fuel tank).
    --
    -- Keysh (Peter Erwin)
  117. Active denial won't work by Viol8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why? Because if it only penetrates a 3rd of a mil into skin
    then how long do you think it will take before someone develops
    some clothing that absorbs in the same way as skin and keeps the
    heat off the person? Sure , the clothing will get hot but thats
    easily solved with insulation.

    Seems like a waste of time to me , not to mention somewhat
    dangerous (if you keep the beam on someone whats to stop their
    skin turning to pork crackling?)

  118. Cool, a partnership USA - Iran by happyrabit · · Score: 1

    As Iran is going to test their new misiles, and the usa their nice lazers, they could join their test plans together...

    Iran launches their brand new toys, and the Usa blast them away with their kill-O-Zap-Lazer-Beams

    --
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
  119. It's like lasing a stick of dynamite... by StringBlade · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alls you'd need is a spinning mirror and a tracking system and you could vaporize a human target from space!!

    Popcorn anyone?

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  120. military industrial complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. weapons contractors have .. cashed in by pursuing a few simple strategies:

    1) exaggerating the threats faced by the United States;

    2) marketing their weapons systems as the answer to national security problems ..

    3) exploiting well-cultivated relationships with Pentagon officials ..

    Profits of War Feb 2004

    Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northop Grumman

  121. My Theory by smchris · · Score: 1

    DoD is getting tired of arguing that land-based Stars Wars can so work.

    So you put the lasers on planes where you will be closer to the missiles and they will be moving relatively slower to you as they pass by.

    Now all we need are several thousand 747s running ellipses over Canada, the Pacific and the Atlantic 24/7 and we'll be safe!

    Makes sense! Er, sort of. It isn't like we have a deficit or fuel shortage or anything.

    [Realistically, it might be a way to save face and find some product that actually works from all that Star Wars research?]

  122. Sci-Fi? by msormune · · Score: 1

    I guess they are not science FICTION weapons anymore, huh :)

  123. I don't know how much good this will do by theolein · · Score: 1

    The way I see it, having huge laser cannons mounted in big jets (or even smaller tactical lasers mounted in big helicopters) will give the USA what it already has: a huge advantage in conventional warfare. The chinese might be able to make their own lasers or buy Russian laser technology from the cold war, but the USA is far head here.

    But the USA is already far ahead. No other country could seriously take on the USA in a conventional (and with lasers, even a nuclear war). Given how the USA has been throwing its weight around since Bush and friends got into power, I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Being able to threaten and use nuclear weapons on a country like Iran because there's no way the Iranians (or North Koreans) could fight back - conventionally, is only inviting some rabid fanatic to try and get one into the USA covertly after his country has been invaded or destroyed by the USA (again).

    Maybe the USA has decided that holding an occupied country is not such a good idea after all and that they should rather try to terrify a country into a submission instead using their insanely expensive military. Good luck on that, because it will only work as long as it takes for the other side to invent their own lasers.

  124. Um... this is only what they're ADMITTING to have! by Markvs · · Score: 1

    When I was very young (1980 or 81... 7 or 8 years old), I recall a "mysterious black plane" crashing in the eastern California mountains. It was reported either before or after Dallas in the 5 minute "news filler" CBS used to have back then. The next day --ZIP-- nothing in the papers, radio or TV. As a young kid that loved planes (and still does!), I read not too long ago in Air & Space or somesuch thing that it was indeed an F-117. Now, of course we had them then. But it's not like we admitted to it really until the Gulf War, some 10 years later.

    Heck, I recall The Washington Post running a story in the mid-90s about the testing of non-projectile weapons at Aberdeen, MD.

    Think about pagers, cell phones, LCDs, or any other technology. In general, there is a 10-15 year span between development and mass adoption. (I'm amazed nukes aren't more prevelant.) I fully believe that before I retire (2040 or so) that the US will have issued its infantry with laser and/or mass driver weapons.

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  125. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile your enemy is just about to detonate a suitcase nuke which they've walked in to your homeland on a donkey.

    And the next war gets fought with sticks and stones again.

    Fucking stupid humans deserve extinction. They still can't think beyond the level of a baboon.

  126. Misguided? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    My feeling, for the last 25 years, is that if somebody wants to nuke the USA, they won't send a missle, they will put the device on a ship, and float it into NY harbor. Or something like that.

    IMO: the USA is preparing to fight the wrong kind of war. The new enemies of the USA are insidious. The new enemies won't send missles, or storm the shores.

    FWIW: USAF vet, previous employee at General Dynamics with TS/clearance.

  127. Zippo Lighters by cyberscan · · Score: 0, Troll

    The P.S.A.'s military has the best equipped military in the world. On the conventional battlefield, the fight is over before it begins with the P.S.A.'s military in the winner's place. However, despite its armored exterior, the P.S.A. has a soft underbelly. As with the Roman Empire, the P.S.A. will be defeated from within. Many of its people and businesses are already poisoned with drugs, perversion, and lack of morals (along with the rest of the world).

    While the P.S.A's government may be able to destroy the most well hidden military equipment, it would have a hard time defending against hords of people with Zippo lighters bent on setting everything in the P.S.A. on fire. Look at the panic two guys with a rifle caused in D.C. a few years ago. The weapons that will be successful against the P.S.A. will be those which are routinely bought in the Walmart's or other discount stores located in nearly every American town. The enemy spends $1 to destroy a thousand dollars worth of our wealth while we spend a thousand dollars to destroy $10 dollars of enemy wealth.

    Go a few decades back (when the P.S.A. was the U.S.A.), one would find that this would be less and less the case. Back then, people had more freedom, and their purchasing power was much greater. Rather than spending most of their time adly playing video games, surfing the net, or watching one fo the four hundred channels of crap, they would be in their local communities talking with other members of the community. They would have had a much better idea of who belonged and who didn't. There was also reasonable tarrifs on imports which allowed goods entering the country to be more carefully inspected. This is no longer the case since large companies are allowing to import super cheap goods while having to pay few taxes and comply with even fewer regulations. The P.S.A. government giving special privileges to companies created by enemy countries also does not help our situation.

    The only way for the P.S.A. to be secure again would be for it to return to being the U.S.A. It would have to return to basic morality as well as the principles on which it was founded. Since most people are now hostile to this idea, it can not possibily happen until major castastrophy strikes this nation. We have to heal the internal rot before we can effective fight against an enemy that remains largely invisible, and which changes shape and size. The P.S.A. is not only facing terrorists, it is also facing MS13, drug cartels, corrupt government officials (at all levels) as well as a corrupt "entertainment" cartel. Once the P.S.A. heals internally and returns to being the U.S.A., we have a chance of winning against our enemies. But unless that happens, we as a nation will be through.

  128. They were testing these in the 1980's!!!! by gabrieltss · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is OLD news!

    The U.S. Air Force was testing airborne pulse laser weapons in the 1980's (I was in Junior High at the time.). They had them mounted in the inside of C-130's and the pulse laser shot out the back of the C-130. The battery pack in the C-130 was only good for about 3-4 shots before it was depleted. About 3 months after they announced they were testing them they said they were discontinuing testing because they said the lasers "tended to cause blindness in the enemy.". HELLO! Sounds like the typical LAME excuse they give for everything.

    I wish I could give you some URL's but they didn't exist back in the 1980's. But this was happening around the same time Russia was testing their "Killer Satalites" and around the same time the "G.E" satalite "dissapeared". Anyone remember these things?

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  129. Mod The Parent Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this provides a complete answer to the original post!

  130. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by bohemian72 · · Score: 1

    Come on this is Slashdot, I'm sure he meant "Frack No!" ;-)

    --
    The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
  131. Easily Defeatable with low-tech by andydread · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I really hope that our military realizes that laser beams are still er well, light. If we plan on shooting down warheads with this thing then it would be very difficult to do so if the warhead has micro polished mirror finish. It would simply reflect the beam or deflect/defract it in some fashion.

  132. Half a thousand posts... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    ...but not one asking the most important question of all:

    WIll the mirrors make the enemy look fat?
     

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:Half a thousand posts... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      The first time I read that, I thought it said "will the mirrors make the economy look fat?" I thought that my subconscious might have a point...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  133. G.I. Joe! by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    Of course accuracy is a problem with lasers. That's why on G.I. Joe, there would be a hailstorm of laser beams flying everywhere, but nobody would get hit. Luckily, when planes were shot down, the pilots were able to parachute to safety. I guess powerful lasers don't hurt people, just machines.

  134. This is a WMD by houghi · · Score: 1

    This is clearly a weapon of mass destruction. To defend ourselves, we will attack.

    -- Rest of the world.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  135. APS Study by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    A study for the American Physical Society concluded the ABL range against solid fuel ballistic missiles would be about 300km. This is too short to be effective in any of their tactical scenarios because the platform is so valuable it has to stand off a long distance from hostile territory. A range of 600km against liquid fuel missiles would make it useful against North Korea, but probably not Iran.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  136. scifi in both 1986 and 2006 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A few of us geezers can remember when Reagan bought into the "Star Wars" defense in the mid-1980s on the basis of flimsy experiments. Twenty years lter they have yet to pan out, even in the most contrived missile tests.

    I recall the stimulus was that MIT Prof Peter Hagelstein demonstrated the first XRay laser (which required a nuclear explosion source at that time). The late hawk Stanford Prof Edwin Teller (developer of the US hydrogen bomb) persuaded the Reagan administration you could build a missle defense with XRay lasers.

    1. Re:scifi in both 1986 and 2006 by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      Teller always gets credit for the US fusion bomb, but Stanislaw Ulam is thought my many to deserve it more. Chalk that up to Teller's oversized ego. Here is an interersting article.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    2. Re:scifi in both 1986 and 2006 by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      >A few of us geezers can remember when Reagan bought into the "Star
      >Wars" defense in the mid-1980s on the basis of flimsy experiments.
      >Twenty years lter they have yet to pan out, even in the most
      >contrived missile tests.

      Uh... what? Your comment makes no sense. That's like saying there were plans to go to send men to Mars in the 1980s, but 20 years later, they have yet to pan out -- so, therefore, sending me to Mars is impossible. That's just stupid. It hasn't "panned out" because it was never actually FUNDED, fully DEVELOPED, and then DEPLOYED. The initial plan for space-based missile defense was never followed.

      However, we currently DO have a GROUND-based missile defense system in place, TODAY, and it is OPERATIONAL. Every year, the system is tested multiple times and it is gradually proving itself capable against increasingly sophisticated targets. Will it actually work well enough against a REAL attack? Let's hope we never have to find out.

      Bruce

  137. No. by 2names · · Score: 1

    You put it on a Jumbo Jet so it is no longer limited to DEFENSIVE operation.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  138. Real Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a working weapon by the end of June. We got plans for your little ray gun this summer!

  139. What we have here is a weapon, not a defense by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    The Soviet Union was never going to commit suicide by launching missiles. Russia will never commit suicide by launching missiles. China only has what, a dozen warheads? China, a four thousand year old civilization, is also not particularly suicidal. They have a track record of not dying. North Korea is merely desperate, not suicidal, and doesn't really have a missle worth firing.

    "Terrorists" don't actually exist, as a real entity that one can point at, but even if they did, over in Terroraland, their goals are to make points or to alter the policies of countries that they can't take in a proper war. They won't use missiles; they don't need missiles. Any country that hosted the launcher, even accidently, like say Afghanistan did with the al Quaeda bastards who ran away and let the innocent Afghans die in their stead, would be exterminated by whatever President was in office. It is in no nation's interest to give a lawn chair to people playing with rocketry or homemade cruise missiles.

    The only people about to use nuclear tipped missles is the U.S., and soon. Read the news; Bush is enamored with using nuclear tipped bunker busters on Iran -- a nation that is not threatening us, but merely trying to stave us off from attacking them. A number of the high command are ready to resign if he goes ahead with this idea.

    There aren't any nations who hanker to use nukes. Or missiles, for that matter. Maybe Israel, because we have their backs with 100K warheads of our own. And even they live in a pretty small fishbowl, and aren't about to contaminate themselves.

    What we have is the dawn of the age of beam weapons. Yadda yadda missles, what these monsters will be used for is assassination and pinpoint destruction. No noise, no warning, just megawatt and eventually gigawatt death from afar for those who displease us.

    What I dread more than airborne or truckborne beam weapons is handheld units in the hands of police or the military. The sign to look for is a breakthrough in miniaturizing power supplies -- fuel cells, high density batteries, however -- which will lead in short order to troops standing over protesters with megawatt laser rifles, or tripod mounted laser cannon. The criminals will snatch up cheap imitations shortly after that. No crack of a gunshot, no triangulation via microphones to local the killer -- just silent death, death by flashlight.

    And think -- it's not like Star Wars or the other un-science-fiction flicks. They always depict lasers as operating like a chattergun in WWII -- pulses, the shooter choosing his shots. A beam weapon is different in that you can sweep a crowd -- targeting is not necessary other than running the line of the focus across the target, like a water hose. And lasers are their own targeting system -- low power to light up the target, than high beam to kill. It's a perfect hand weapon.

    1. Re:What we have here is a weapon, not a defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      China, a four thousand year old civilization, is also not particularly suicidal.
      Besides, they've been smart enough to figure out that our "representatives" are perfectly willing to sell our children's organs to zoos for meat at low, low, prices and they have a lot of money. A lot of money. And a lot of leverage because of U. S. national debt that they own.

      People who think the Israeli lobby was able to get us to do insane, anti-national interest things should wait to see what the soon to be richest, most powerful country on Earth, which is also the country that gave us Sun Tzu and more recently Mao Tse Tung, will be able to do...

      I really, really need to start learning Mandarin and Cantonese....

  140. WRONG MOVIE! by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    IT was called Real Genius

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    1. Re:WRONG MOVIE! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      True. But the parent has a point. In "Spies Like Us" they used lasers bouncing off satellites to strike down missles (or at least tried to). But they didn't use a jet as an initial delivery system, which "Real Genius" did.

    2. Re:WRONG MOVIE! by temojen · · Score: 1

      In Real Genius they didn't use lasers to shoot down missiles... They used them to make popcorn (but had planned to use them for political assassination).

  141. Not To Mention.... by LordPhantom · · Score: 1

    .... the "disturbing sizzling sound" the guy who fired it off made? I'd be pissed too - what a mess!

  142. FedEX by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    When you absolutely, positively have to nuke overnight! Do use use UPS, the last package that I sent to SE went there via SN. Africa has enough problems without a mis-routed nuke.

  143. Re:Regarding Hitler and Stupid Mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting. :P

    (See, I even remembered to tack a stupid smiley face on the end this time.)

  144. An interesting tidbit on the design... by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    My father has done design work on the type of laser used on this project, and possibly even this particular project (I'd never know, he's got top secret clearances and only speaks about such technologies in the abstract). However, he was telling me that when they were designing the laser optic systems "like the one's they'd use in the 747...we were having problems with focusing the beam..."

    Turns out that when the beam is fired from the nose of the 747, the beam is not focused, it is a 1m (3ft) diameter beam. It is designed to focus all its energy once the beam reaches its target. If the beam were focused when leaving the nose of the plane, within milliseconds it would burn out the laser optics (mirrors) used to aim the beam at the target, that and the beam itself would simply superheat the air along the beam path and turn it into a plasma!

    So, by scattering the beam at the source (747 nose cone), they can account for atmospheric distortions and have the beam's energy focus precisely on target, from a 1m diameter down to 5mm or smaller diameter at the target.

    I thought that was pretty darn cool!

    With all the military posturing that Iran is doing, their nuclear missle ambitions are useless as we can destroy the missle while its still ascending over their own landmass, without any physical object of ours even entering into Iranian airspace. To them, it would appear that the booster just exploded just after liftoff and they'd be left wondering why all their beloved missles are now suddenly defective.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  145. What, is Kuro5hin down or something? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    What is with all the pinkos lately?

    IMHO it is better to have missile defense (SDI, Star Wars, whatever you choose to call it) than to not have it. If only to provide it to American allies such as Taiwan, Israel, Japan, South Korea, etc. Also, it's a great jobs program for smart Americans. Additionally, there are bound to be handy spinoffs.

    Yeah it won't keep out the suitcase/shipping container nukes. So what, move out of the major cities until another strike hits, so we can then turn everything from Morocco to Pakistan into an elongated glass crater, I'll bring the marshmallows.

  146. Star Wars II by berenixium · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that 'The Imperial March' has to be played every time Dubya enters a room or walks down a street? Or what about Emperor Palpatine's theme tune?

    And will Dubya start spouting things like: 'The power to destroy a missile is insignificant next to the power of The Lord!', to his lackeys?

    Cue to enter stage a village idiot, his teen-sister with a bad-hair year, a tall trash-can and a smaller bin on wheels, a smuggler with a carpet for a friend, and here be starting a rebellion...

  147. Hitler lost for one reason only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colonel Robert Hogan and his heroes always sabotaging the German war effort.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan's_Heros

  148. Guidance by sconeu · · Score: 1

    The way I've seen this work, is that because it's line-of-sight, there's visual confirmation of the target.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  149. Missed one by Skyshadow · · Score: 1
    There is almost no end of uses for this array of gigawatt laser cannons...

    You forgot making gigantic swiss cheese.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  150. Pot, meet Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Every square inch of the Muslim world has been stolen from non-Muslims by Muslims in
    > unprovoked wars of conquest. Think Constantinople-1400's, Southeast Europe,
    > Spain-700's-1400's, Vienna-1600's

    Think almost every damn inch of US soil, unless you happen to be an American Indian. It's called the "Trail of Tears", not the "Trail of Welcoming Our Happy White Friends".

    Back in the day, cultures expanded militarily - that was just the way of the world. Trying to use that fact to cast aspersions on one culture or religion while conveniently ignoring the fact that other cultures and religions did the same thing is misleading to the point of being lying. Christianity and western culture are hardly lily-white in this regard.

  151. And if the sites are off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sir, I think we just melted the Eiffel Tower."

  152. I have some real-estate spanning a river... by FWMiller · · Score: 1

    "and so therefore it's an inherently defensive weapon and not an offensive weapon, because you can't attack large amounts of areas." Uh, yeah, right.

    --
    Frank W. Miller
  153. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny? Mod parent "Informative!"

  154. Pointing accuracy is the big problem by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Let's say that "half a world away" is 10,000 km, and that the target missile is 3 meters wide. To hit within a 3-meter ring at 10,000 km, you'd have to point your laser with an accuracy of .000017 degrees. At a high-speed moving target. From a moving, vibrating aircraft. The laser may have the power to make the shot, but I seriously doubt that they've yet managed that kind of accuracy.

  155. I say good money spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say its good money spent if it performs the mission as advertised. Then leverage its capabilities against other nations that piss us off and carry on production/R&D for improved systems to use against future yahoos who annoy.

  156. Counter Defense? by B.+Pascal · · Score: 1

    Hello all:

    Interesting... If it is possible to shoot down an enemy missile, would it not be possible to shoot down a plane?

    Without going into whether an air-borne laser missile defense is feasible or not, I wonder what counters an "enemy rogue state" would do in response to this?

    * Send more missiles in an attempt to overwhelm the system, a twisted version of denial of service?

    * Plan software trojans in the control system to hijack it.

    * Use more low-tech approach... With payload assembled and planted within the border.

    * Another low-tech approach... Get the payload shipped to Mexico or Canada first, and then smuggle into our land...

    The list goes on and on... What I am trying to say is, you close one hole, but there are still many others to fill. We are still not yet ready to impose our policies on others without repercussion yet.

    Cheers.

    B. Pascal

  157. ABL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for a company who made the optics for the ABL. Very cool stuff, it has been close to operational for awhile now. Also did stuff on the Mars Rover, Paveway Penetrators, HARM missiles and the VLA (very large array) as seen in contact.

  158. Re:Half a world away? Only up so high... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Hell, the plane can fly only so high. If IIII were a dictator or ruler of some land and had a VALID reason to launch a missile and some country decided to exert preeminence over ME, and I had MY airspace to cover and delouse I'd think about Black Sunday... the movie in which a news blimp had it's gondola replaced with millions of fleshette needles aimed to take out the SuperBowl patrons.

    In my case, had I the money, I'd set up batteries of these things. I might not be able to hit the bastard pointing the laser, but I'd sure aim it at recon planes that even hovered 15 miles outside my borders (assuming my borders coverage didn't directly harm or piss off a border-adjacent country...)

    There've GOT to be better things to do with all this frickin' money instead of propping up retired officers, senators, czars and others who thrive on "preparedness for war" when they'd be better off (and we, the CITIZENS of the world not in uniform nor carrying hated or urges to "go and fucking kick some ass") improving trade, dialogue, and doing something about drug problems, hunger, disease, joblessness, and more...

    Oh, I forgot, defense is just "part" of the tapestry of things going on...

    (hunts for tritium and valium pills)

    Hmm, the pills didn't work....

    Nope, I'd make high-EMP, low-ground-effect nukes and send them in the likely direction of the spy and laser planes... they'd better have hydraulic and optical backups for those supposedly "hardened" electronics. Maybe the absolute, cold, ruthless fear of being at war should be adapted to DEfusing rather than EFFUsing war... Deranged boys and their toys? Fully? Maybe not. To an extent? Yes...

    Those boys need RealDolls

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  159. Re:ABL Systems are old... But fear is Eternal and- by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    PRICELESS...

    Maybe they plan on playing La-zeh-pendence day on somebody's Capitol building? A quick fly-by and a laserlight show in RWB colors might look pretty spectacular... but the plane and its lasing gas better not get hit...

    Hmm. If all that gas is hit, would the plane explode, freeze up, or turn molten then fall like solid iron?

    I suppose a contingency plan for these laser planes would be to fry hijacked planes. Maybe lase off part of the wing, or an engine, or even knock out some windows port to starboard to depressurize the cabin and make it land (if they get up close...)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  160. You are mistaken by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

    > The laser pulse is so short and intense that the missile rotation does not matter.

    Based on what do you say that? You're directly contradicting all available evidence about the system. For example:

    ---"It should be made clear at the start what the beam does not do. It does not vaporize or even melt the missile's skin. Instead it heats the skin until whatever internal forces present cause the skin to fail." (link)

    ---"the main laser is fired for 3 to 5 seconds from a turret located on the aircraft's nose, causing the missile to break up" (link)

    ---"Once the target "sweet spot" has been designated and the deformable mirror attenuated, the COIL fires, sweeping the target area for several seconds until the enemy missile's heated casing ruptures" (link)

    Basically, all evidence suggests you're flat-out wrong: the ABL takes at least several seconds to destroy a target, which is enough time for a rotating target to spread the beam over a wide area. Unless the ground tests have been against rotating targets---which does not seem to be the case based on the photos in the links---rotating targets are likely to significantly affect the viability of the system.

    1. Re:You are mistaken by SysKoll · · Score: 1
      Hum, you might be right. The way I interpreted this, I pictured the laser shooting a large number of pulses during these 3 seconds, any of which would be enough to destroy the target. Just like the ship-mounted Aegis anti-missile cannon paints an incoming missile's vicinity with a large number of shells, any of which is enough to destroy the warhead.

      If the ABL needs to focus on the target for more than about 1 second, then yes, you're right, rotating a missile could pose a problem.

      However, please consider that current missiles have fins to prevent them from rotating. New finless, rotating designs would take at least a decade to be diffused in large numbers.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  161. BTW, it's satellites. by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    There are two Ls in satellites, not one. Unless they're, you know, miniature satellites with fewer calories or something.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  162. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by online-shopper · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me what I meant. I meant *FUCK* *NO*.

  163. The Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > That said, what do you think the people blowing up US troops want? In your worldview, once the troops
    > leave, there will be peace and the people doing this will stand down

    Historical evidence says yes, many of them will. From American Conservative magazine's piece on "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism":

    RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign--over 95 percent of all the incidents--has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

    TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush's policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here.

    RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

    Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.


    (For the curious, Pat Buchanan was one of the founders of American Conservative magazine, suggesting it really does approach things from a US conservative viewpoint.)

  164. Why doesn't a laser destroy its own optics? by SysKoll · · Score: 1
    Laser optical systems are made from high quality optically transparent material with negligible scattering and absorptive losses at the interfaces. In other words, they absorb only a few photons per million. Not only that, they are designed for maintaining their characteristics even if they get very hot (high damage threshold).

    That's why this kind of hardware isn't cheap.

    Even so, today's most powerful lasers would self-destruct if they were able to shoot continuously. But they fire pulses so it gives time for the system to cool down.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  165. Re:laser pointers and planes: Geneva Convention by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    since when does the US care about the Geneva Convention?

  166. hmmm by fantomas · · Score: 1
    Nice choice of words.

    wikipedia, not mine.

    The world does not revolve around Europe

    I agree. Hence I would say the value of international fora such as the UN to get everybody round the table and offer common sense when one country gets too high on its own self belief.


    I was just making fun of the fact that Europeans are overly paranoid of what goes on in their backyard but are completely ignorant to what goes on globally.

    First of all I still think you're being insensitive. I'm guessing you're from a part of the world which has been lucky enough not to have terrifying acts of genocide occur in its locality. My pet theory for the US govt hawkishness is that the USA has never experienced a modern war on its own soil. Be thankful and have some sensitivity. Maybe I am being over sensitive but have some respect for folks who've lived through it. Secondly I see a lot of European aid agencies in these parts of the world and I'd dispute Europeans are "completely ignorant to what goes on globally". Probably just as much ignorance as anywhere else in the world.

    (Cambodia? Rwanda? Sudan? Tibet? More recently, Darfur?)
    We hear about them a lot on the news (BBC). We should do more I agree. I am sick of developed countries only seeming to help out places where there are resources (oil etc) or geopolitical advantage. I think we agree with each other here. I've been to Cambodia a couple of times, I've got a friend working there on a health project. I know what you're saying. My life is so good, I don't have to worry about landmines in my day to day life.



    I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect either (the U.S. should've stopped Pol Pot when we had the troops there)

    It was very complex indeed. The USA complicated matters by the nature of its engagement with the Sihanouk administration before then after all. The Arclight missions didn't help either. The Khmer Rouge indeed committed terrible attrocities. I've been to S-21, I've been to Choeung Ek. We need some sort of international agreement on stopping these kind of insane crimes.



    the sheer inaction of the U.N. completely undermines its authority

      Yeah sometimes more needs to be done but we definitely need an international body rather than individual nations deciding what's best for the world. Plenty of historical precedents suggest that's a bad thing...