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."

89 of 601 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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"
    7. 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?
    8. 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)

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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"
    12. 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."
    13. Re:Half a world away? by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    14. 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.

    15. 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
  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.
  3. 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 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.'"
    3. 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...
    4. 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.

  4. 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."
  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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 Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Do not look into ABL with remaining head"

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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...
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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]
    7. 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!

    8. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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."
  14. 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 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>

    2. 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? ;).

      --
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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)
  15. 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.
  16. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
  17. Jiffy Pop by aaronaskew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lazlo, call me for the coordinates of Professor Hathaway's new house.

  18. 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.

  19. 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'"

  20. 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 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.
    4. 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.

  21. 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 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.
  22. 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 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.)

    3. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

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

    It's not gigawatts, it's jigawatts!

    Jigga, watt?

  26. 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 /.)

  27. 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
  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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/

  31. 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.

  32. Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship by online-shopper · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuck no.

  33. 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.

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

    Jigga, please!

  35. 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.
  36. 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

  37. 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.