67-Kilowatt Laser Unveiled

s31523 writes "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has announced they have working in the lab a Solid State Heat Capacity Laser that averages 67 kW. It is being developed for the military. The chief scientist Dr. Yamamoto is quoted: 'I know of no other solid state laser that has achieved 67 kW of average output power.' Although many lasers have peaked at higher capacities, getting the average sustained power to remain high is the tricky part. The article says that hitting the 100-kW level, at which point it would become interesting as a battlefield weapon, could be less than a year away."

Comments

Blind Soldiers

[MrSteveSD]

If such weapons make their way onto the battlefield, you're going to end up with a lot of blinded soldiers. Any beam powerful enough to be useful will be capable of blinding everyone near the target with the reflected light. In fact, if you put some kind of corner cube reflective coating on the target, there might be enough light sent back to the source to blind the people firing the beam.

Re:Get real

[vandan]

First, don't complain about weapons research!

Good to see you're starting out from a defensible position ... NOT! You then go on to make the point that weapons research leads to non-weapons technology. Sure. But that in no way validates weapons research. You can create new technology, indeed the SAME technology, while not researching and creating new weapons. For example Japan's government also pumps an incredible amount of money into high-tech R&D, including developing lasers, but they don't do it via the military-industrial complex. They invest directly into consumer technology. This is much more efficient in coming up with your consumer technology, as well as not creating new weapons. So I'll complain all I want about weapons research, thankyou very much.

After the cold war the US generally started to influence clients to become democracies where it is not against their direct interests.

BULLSHIT! You mean like in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan ( while they were setting up the Taliban, and now )? Or when they assassinated the democratically elected leader of Chille in 9/11, 1973? Don't give me this 'America support democracy' crap please. I didn't come down in the last shower.

We earn more money because the economy of a democracy isn't so likely to be sh.t and they become better customers

It's true that the economy of a bourgeois democracy under a capitalist system will grow the fastest out of all the organisations structures that we know. That isn't necessarily a good thing, but this is a topic for another discussion. The cold hard truth about the US economy is that it's not exactly riding the wave of exports at the moment. The US economy owes a lot more to its imports than it does to its exports . For example, the US is unbelievably dependent on China for a source of cheap labour. You don't see them pushing China towards a democracy, do you? The only places where the US mentions the word 'democracy' is where they have a natural research worth stealing, and then you can bet it's not democracy that will eventuate, but exactly the opposite. You see, democracy isn't something that is handed down from on high. It's something that people have to struggle for. It's a process. You can't bomb a country into democracy. And I'll say it again: the day when the US pushes for democratic reform in China ( and not via bombing, mind you ), is the day that I reconsider my statement that the US hates democracy.

You US bashers are as boring as the McCarty communist scare or Mid West brimstone preachers -- you just think another group is responsible for everything bad.

Well, the thing is that there are plenty of US-bashers around at the moment. It goes without saying that the Arab world thinks as I do. Europe is no different ... when asked to choose the biggest threat to world peace, they choose the US first, and Israel 2nd. The simple fact is that the US, by virtue of its postion as the No 1 imperialist power in the world, is responsible for a great deal of what's wrong in the world. That's why they need more lasers and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and cluster bombs and immunity from prosecution in the World Court.

Germany (and other civilized countries)

[k2r]

>> Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot.
> Name one,
Germany.

> and explain how it's more free (not "a better place to live" or "more friendly to the environment").

If I'm a 17yo guy I can make pictures of my 15yo girlfriend and send them to my email-account
without both of us getting sued for posession and production of child pornography and being
trialed as adults and jailed for my own good.

Of course, I can't yell "Heil Hitler" on the street in Germany without getting into legal trouble but frankly,
I prefer to live in a country with people taking dirty pictures of themselves than in a country where
people feel the urge to yell "Heil Hitler" on the street.

Or being 17yo and getting a blowjob by a 15yo and 10years in jail?
(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page =wilson)
Or being 15yo and being charged with sexually abusing YOURSELF?
(http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlif e/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm)
Or just google about your sodomy-laws?

You are only free if it comes to destroying and consuming.

(and yes, there are a lot of things wrong in Germany, too.)