DARPA Developing Defensive Plasma Shield

galactic_grub writes "According to an article at New Scientist, DARPA is developing a plasma shield that would allow troops to stun and disorientate enemies. The system will use a technology known as dynamic pulse detonation (DPD), which involves producing a ball of plasma with an intense laser pulse, and then a supersonic shockwave within the plasma using another pulse. The result is a gigantic flash and a loud bang in a the air. 'The company has also pitched a portable laser rifle, which would be lethal, to the US Army. It would weigh about fifteen kilograms, would have a range of more than a mile, and could have numerous advantages over existing rifles - better accuracy and the ability to hit a moving target at the speed of light.'"

Comments

Lasers?

[kungfujesus]

Any chance we can put them on sharks? I believe that would greatly increase the lethality of the lasers.

Re:Lasers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it won't greatly increase the quality of your jokes

Re:Lasers?

[shawnap]

They all laughed at my project to breed sharks with picatinny rails on their heads.

Gentlemen,...who's laughing now!?

Re:Lasers?

[coaxial]

No. Dolphins only. Seriously.

Re:Lasers?

[Dred_furst]

One major problem of lasers as weapons, the enemy goes "oh no lasers!" rolls their tanks/troops back, then paints the tank/armour silver, and bingo, problem solved. Lasers simply bounce off them!

Re:Lasers?

[KDR_11k]

Not really. Making your armor reflective will bounce a lot of energy off but not all of it so most likely the armor would still heat up, although slower. Bright, reflective armor makes you highly visible so you get shot down in no time with conventional weapons. Of course it's doubtful that these laser guns would get used against armor, even without any reflection you'd have to burn through the armor and hit something, if the target moves you'll have a hard time keeping the laser on the same spot and your "drill" will be at the wrong angle so you lose most of the penetration you have already archieved. And even then you still have the molten material in the way that blocks your beam for a while making the whole process take much longer than simply firing a rocket at the target.

This seems to be intended for anti-personell use though, you probably don't need to burn as far in to kill a person.

"disorientate"?

[kalpol]

God forbid they should be terminatated.

Re:"disorientate"?

[HaeMaker]

I imagine it would be used for crowd control or hostage situations. There are many situations where non-lethal force is needed against an enemy.

Re:"disorientate"?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disorientate

Re:"disorientate"?

[FMota91]

*Whooosh!*

Re:"disorientate"?

[Shivetya]

plus disorienting may be more valuable when it comes to groups you cannot guarantee an instant kill on.

in other words, disorient then kill if necessary, a kill shot is not a guarantee but if you can keep them from taking any real action you open yourself more options, which includes a few important seconds to kill the baddies. think hostages, who cares if you give the hostage a headache or such, its better than the baddies getting shots off at him if you only wound one.

let alone the fact that the public seems to take a dim view lately of actually killing enemies...

Re:"disorientate"?

[ElBorba]

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=disorientate

Re:"disorientate"?

[ElBorba]

Yeah, I know, preview first...

I had meant to mention that "orientated" is my favorite college idiot word.
Too bad that it's terribly underused these days. Ever since "whatnot" started making the rounds "orientated" has fallen back out of favor.

Re:"disorientate"?

[kalpol]

guess i was wrong, learn something new every day!

Re:"disorientate"?

[russ1337]

>>> imagine it would be used for crowd control or hostage situations

Why do they need controlling? Why are they taking you hostage?.........

I don't think the problem is with the overpowering the enemy; I think the problem is with identifying the enemy.

Oh, that, and 'winning their hearts and minds'.

Using non-lethal force on crowds that 'inadvertently gets innocent people' just pisses them off.

Re:"disorientate"?

[Anonymous Coward]

A bird? A plane? No! It's low-flying joke!

Re:"disorientate"?

[FiloEleven]

"I read it in the papers, it must be true!"

I recall a Slashdot post from a while back in which a British citizen poked fun at our American use of the word "burglarized." A burglar burgles! There's no need for the extra syllable! (The reason I remember this was the humorous follow-up of, "You're right; we apogle.")

Seeing a word in the dictionary doesn't automatically make it a good word. Sure, it's in use, sure some group of people decided it should be put there, but that doesn't make it any less foolish. Language is a living, growing thing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prune out the rotten bits.

I, for one, don't want to give the Brits any more ammo for their merciless mockery.

Re:"disorientate"?

[hazem]

I think the problem is with identifying the enemy.

That confusion apparently goes all the way to the top. We get attacked by a bunch of Saudis and to retaliate, we invade their neighbor. That's like when I was in the 2nd grade and this guy got mad at a bigger classmate... so instead of hitting the guy who made him made, he went and found the guy's sister sister in the 1st grade and sucker-punched her.

Re:"disorientate"?

[Anonymous Coward]

let alone the fact that the public seems to take a dim view lately of actually killing enemies.

That's your interpretation. Maybe you should go back and read that part of Greek mythology where Hercules had to fight the Hydra. The public isn't exactly opposed to killing enemies, they're opposed to doing it stupidly and winding up with more enemies than you started with.

Re:"disorientate"?

[Jorgandar]

And why the hell is this called a "defensive plasma shield." There is nothing defensive about it. its used to attack something and it's certainly not a shield. wtf? "plasma disruptor cannon" sounds cooler anyway.

Re:"disorientate"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The public isn't exactly opposed to killing enemies, they're opposed to doing it stupidly and winding up with more enemies than you started with.

In wars where we could IDENTIFY our enemies we did fairly well: japanese in WWII, Germans in WWII (and WWI). We won those. Korea: the friendlies looked identical to the enemy. Ditto Viet Nam. And so many more places - iraq included. We didn't win, and aren't winning, those.

TOO much effort is spent trying to determine who to deactivate, because it doesn't play well with the friendlies when you mistakenly off their blood-kin instead of their in-laws. (the wearing of military uniforms helped a bit too)

---
If we have to fight wars, we need to get back into those kinds of wars where it's okay to kill everybody.

Re:"disorientate"?

[OminousZ]

That's like when I was in the 2nd grade and this guy got mad at a bigger classmate... so instead of hitting the guy who made him made, he went and found the guy's sister sister in the 1st grade and sucker-punched her. Sounds good to me, at least then I'm pretty certain I can win the fight with the girl. *flexes muscles*

Re:"disorientate"?

[kfonda]

If they are all disorientated who will administrate the computer networks?

Re:"disorientate"?

[ElBorba]

Oh, I am by no means attempting to validate usage of the alleged "word" disorientate.
I just find it amusing that it's even in the dictionary. I guess I find it even more amusing that it appears in the headline of a slackdot. As I mentioned immediately after the first post, this is a total "college idiot" word, the mere fact that someone could make the jump from orient to orientate is pretty terrible. Then to go so far as to use DISorientate... it's either ebonics or a PhD talking. :)

Re:"disorientate"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine it would be used for crowd control or hostage situations. There are many situations where non-lethal force is needed against an enemy. So you're suggesting we confuse them with improper English? I'm so confusated!

ASMD Shock Rifle

[npaufler]

Unreal Tournament-esque Shock Rifle, anyone?

Re:ASMD Shock Rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, it's to small scale. Put it on a satellite so you can get an Ion Cannon/Hammer of Dawn thing.

Re:ASMD Shock Rifle

[mattcoz]

That's the first thing I thought of. It's only a matter of time before they develop the tech to shock rifle levels. :)

Seems like a typo...

[Sicily1918]

"...disorientate enemies"? It's correct, but it shouldn't be. :)

Re:Seems like a typo...

[thatseattleguy]

It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, too. But a quick half-dozen references derived from Googling "orient orientate" lead to the surprising conclusion that yes, both are acceptable - and "orientate" is apparently even preferred in parts of the Commonwealth. "Two peoples divided by a common language", indeed....

Re:Seems like a typo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to the inexorable rise of the working classes 'orientate' has, indeed, become accepted.

Just not by me.

I would not offer a job to someone that used it.
I would not be proud of my daughter for dating someone that used it.

In the commonwealth it is rather 'blue collar'

Re:Seems like a typo...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot.

I grew up using 'orientate' not 'orient'. In my country (NZ), it is the preferred usage.
I have a PhD. I am as 'white collar' as they come.

If you really discriminate against people based on a word they use, you need to get over your inferiority complex. People who are confident in their own abilities and lives don't have time for such petty little games. It sounds like you might be one of those social climbers from the "middle classes". I hope that one day you realise that superficial differences like use of language don't have any bearing on the true worth of a person, but I'm afraid you'll be too busy making sure your neighbours see you going to church on Sunday, or polishing your car in the driveway, to work that out.

I actually pity you.

I'd better get one, too

[iminplaya]

If there is to be a balance of power of any kind.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[Sperbels]

I don't think you'll have to worry about that. A weapon with such perfect accuracy would allow some crazy person to sit a mile away popping little cauterized holes through people's heads with ease. And the police wouldn't be able to do a thing about it as the beam (unless I'm mistaken) would be practically invisible. I don't think any government would sell something like that to its citizens.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[shaitand]

'I don't think any government would sell something like that to its citizens.'

If governments wanted the people to have power (utlimately all power is derived from force) our rebel leader forefathers wouldn't have had to put the right to bear arms in the constitution. It exists precisely because power must be distributed and a disarmed citizenry only have power at the mercy of the government.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[textstring]

if you're wearing your tin foil hat you may be able to reflect the beam back at the shooter

Re:I'd better get one, too

[iminplaya]

I don't think any government would sell something like that to its citizens.

But they'll sell it to a friendly terrorist that is working for the "right" people. And then they flip it for a small markup. Like in every prohibition, the more "obscure" markets will take up the slack. When they get them down to pocket size, it will be fun to watch them try to control its distribution. Besides, none of this is absolute. Defenses against these weapons are one the way. Just another arms race we are in...or the same one actually.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[samkass]

A [laser] with such perfect accuracy would allow some crazy person to sit a mile away popping little cauterized holes through people's heads with ease.

Not if I'm wearing my tin-foil hat!!!

Re:I'd better get one, too

[misleb]

Well, I dunno about a mile away... your scope would have to be pretty powerful. But I suppose it isn't impossible...

-matthew

Re:I'd better get one, too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's done regularly today by hunters. It could be easily managed by a trained sniper.

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/longrange_sho oting/shooting_hunting.htm

Re:I'd better get one, too

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is...

HEADSHOT!

Re:I'd better get one, too

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not if I'm wearing my tin-foil hat!!!

You should upgrade to a full-head tin-foil helmet. It's safer.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[Jerry Smith]

Reminds me of the 80's when Stinger SAM's were sold to nowadays terrorist states. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5137264/ "According to intelligence sources, thousands of MANPADS may have been provided to Iraqi security forces or were stolen during hostilities in Iraq immediately following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003," notes the report.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[Nemetroid]

Likewise, a government should only have power at the mercy of the citizenry.

Re:I'd better get one, too

[iminplaya]

That's kind of my point. The US is THE biggest arms dealer(pusher) in the world, legal and illegal(iran-contra for example) and play both sides of most conflicts (Hey, double the profits) They won't pass up the opportunity here either. We'll all have one soon enough, especially if they become very small and portable.

New products

[spleen_blender]

Fresh from the R&D of UAC, we today present you with... THE FUTURE. BEHOLD THE BFG-9000! The future of all warfare, never again will the people of your country stand a chance of usurping your power even if they are the majority! I for one welcome our superiorly armed overlords. (Two memes in one post!)

Re:New products

[Bugs42]

(Two memes in one post!) In Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman imagines a Beowulf cluster of BFG 9000s!

(Three memes! Top that!)

Re:New products

[cpuffer_hammer]

Meep

Re:New products

[revengebomber]

Everyone knows you can't kill someone with a BFG if they charge you with rockets or a SSG. Noob.

Lasers efficient at killing?

[Dan East]

I thought lasers made inefficient weapons because they cauterize the wounds they create.

Dan East

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two Words: "Head Shot"

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could use another hole in the head. It could come in useful to hold many things, extra pencils, screw driver, the possibilities are endless.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Carnildo]

Depends on what the laser is tuned for. If it's tuned for cutting, then yes, it will leave a cauterized hole. But if it's tuned for energy transfer (think: turning water to steam), it's more like being shot with an exploding bullet.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[streptocopter]

Two Words: "Head Shot" Two words: "Tinfoil Hat"

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[geekoid]

imagione a whol appearing anywhere in your torso. Now does it really matter if it keeps bleeding through the hole?

You are screwed.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Un pobre guey]

To say nothing of the mayhem they cause due to some of the beam reflecting off the target, or missing it partly or completely. As I recall, this was deemed a major drawback to the airborne laser discussed here about a year ago. Also, the lasers require very large amount of input energy in order to generate a militarily useful beam. This means consumables, added weight, transportation, firing prep, detectability by the enemy, etc. This sounds like Pentagon bullshit to me, disinformation designed to frighten and fake out naive Third World military.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I could use another hole in the head. It could come in useful to hold many things, extra pencils, screw driver, the possibilities are endless."

New fangled porn.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it depends on how much power the laser has. A laser just barely strong enough to make a hole, that might be an effect to think about.

OTOH, if a bunch of tissue in your chest instantly is cooked into steam, that might have a somewhat "explosive" effect, amplifying the damage.

But as someone else noted, if you have a hole that enters into your body you are having a bad day.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[hostyle]

a whol? like a whole new me? a twin? hey, i think i quite like that ... conjoined lesbians twins ... oh wait

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

i suspect that a trained sniper using one of these would fail to see the downside of a cauterized headshot. ;)

BOOMHEADSHOT

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they did say it'd have a mile range. Primitive sniper rifles were heavy and took some prep time as well, didn't make them non-lethal when you have it sitting (concealed) a mile away from the main fighting.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[ChrisMaple]

The high inherent accuracy of a laser means that if you can see 'em, you can kill 'em, first shot. This is a considerable advantage over current weapons in some situations. It's cheaper than a guided rocket, more accurate than a rifle. Possibly an ideal sniper/assassination weapon.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bullshit, it's pie in the sky. It basically relies on being able to make hundred or thousands of tons of nuclear material that's currently only available in grams with considerable effort. Basically, assuming this is the same or similar to the last laser rifle pitch would create a portable nuclear pile that would last as a suitable powersource for a laser for a little more than a decade. Yeah, no ammo. Build and use till it's used up. If anything what this should really illustrate to you is how much enegery atomic energy stores relative to chemical energy. DARPA is one of the few instances where the government does a good job looking ahead, which is all the more important now that American business doesn't do it AT ALL anymore.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Faux_Pseudo]

Laser weapons are ineffective because they react in a double ungood manor with Holtzman shields.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Phanatic1a]

Lasers make inefficient weapons because they cost a shitload more than a 10-cent bullet. Small bits of lead propelled to high velocity by a small chemical charge are extremely efficient ways to kill people.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[zippthorne]

One word, a number, and some math glyphs.

Reflectivity 70%.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[KDR_11k]

Depends on where it is aimed. Stomach wounds are often fatal, not because a vital organ is destroyed but because of the resulting blood loss. Also depending on the shape of the hole it might do too little damage to kill (even vital organs can take some damage and the less volume you damage the less likely you are to get a kill).

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[KDR_11k]

Not really, the brain can remain operational with some damage (some people lose a hemisphere and while crippled they still live and in combat that could be enough to get more shots off than you want him to), you want to destroy as much as possible to make sure it dies.

Re:Lasers efficient at killing?

[Un pobre guey]

I understand your point, but the target will be moving, sometimes unpredictably. Even if you actually hit it, reflected rays may cause a lot of unintended damage, possibly even to your own team, depending on the circumstances.

Snipers are a special case, as someone else posted "primitive sniper rifles were heavy and took some prep time as well, didn't make them non-lethal when you have it sitting (concealed) a mile away from the main fighting." However, closer in with a rifle that is not as securely fixed on the target can be more trouble than it is worth. Blinding friend and foe alike with light reflected from the target, raking unintended targets with stray beams as the rifleman tries to stay on the target, dealing with the heat signature the rifle will surely generate when it fires (not the laser beam itself, but heat dissipated by the mechanism) and which anyone with IR detection capability can zero in on (especially at night), dealing with radiactive materials if the mechanism goes that route, etc.

Military planners know about all of these issues. That is why I think it is partly disinformation for the gullible, and government pork for those who will justify expensive R&D on this for many years to come. This is too exotic and wacky to be of any military use for the foreseeable future.

I'll wait for the next model

[Anonymous Coward]

It's range is only a mile. It weighs more than thirty pounds. It emits a laser beam that can be seen with the right equipment. I think I would much rather have a conventional (much longer range, lighter) sniper rifle.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[hedwards]

Over the course of a mile, a bullet would drop by about ~18 feet over that distance. As well as taking a couple of seconds to arrive at the target. A laser would take a small fraction of the time and not drop at all.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[Gregb05]

Fuck Einstein! Light doesn't bend with gravity any more!

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the light bends. But so does the light that you're using to sight your target. In fact, the degree of bending is *exactly the same*. So, as far as the user of such a weapon is concerned, the bending is totally irrelevant; the beam hits whatever its aimed at, regardless of the gravity field that it passes through.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[mangu]

It's range is only a mile. ... I would much rather have a conventional (much longer range, lighter) sniper rifle.

The longest range sniper rifles I ever heard of, like a WWII Mauser or a modern Dragunov SVD, have an effective range of about 1300 meters, somewhat short of a mile.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[Grashnak]

The longest range sniper rifles I ever heard of, like a WWII Mauser or a modern Dragunov SVD, have an effective range of about 1300 meters, somewhat short of a mile. The WWII Mauser is the longest range sniper rifle you've heard of? What rock have you been living under? Let me introduce you to the Barrett Light 50 - currently in use by fine snipers around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle This has an effective range of 1500+ metres. And I should note that the longest combat sniper shot was recorded in Afghanistan in 2003 by a Canadian sniper - a shot of 2450 metres with a MacMillan TAC-50. Mauser my ass.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[deimios666]

Hot air doesn't just bend light... It also focuses/disperses it. So you can lose a LOT of energy if some heatwave disperses your beam.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[aliquis]

Yeah, I thought I had read about long ranges from weapons of this type: http://www.snipercentral.com/psg90.htm but it seems like the ranged speced in the text is much shorter, so I guess the other things where just very lucky shoots.

Re:I'll wait for the next model

[mangu]

The WWII Mauser is the longest range sniper rifle you've heard of?

Not really, I was thinking in terms of something practical, that you can carry anywhere and use in practical situations. Of course, if you extend caliber to .50 disregarding portability, then why not go further still, to the ultimate limit in precision weapons?

Laser rifle

[wmwilson01]

It's amazing to imagine how much something like the laser rifle would change the military. Sniper school spends a lot of time on the details of a bullet's behavior over time with the obvious affects of gravity and the wind, especially when you're dealing with a moving target. To be able to shoot a laser without really any of those constraints, that travels at the speed of light... A sniper's job will become a whole lot easier... unless you want to get into the fact that the majority of a sniper's job is about getting in and then hopefully back out.

Re:Laser rifle

[brit74]

Not to mention the fact that it will be that much harder to locate the sniper. At least a gun produces a muzzle-flash and sound.

Re:Laser rifle

[einhverfr]

Couple points:

A laser of this size would be unlikely to be a sniper rifle. I.e. you would be talking about maybe a vehicle-mounted or stationary weapon (1 or 2-man portable) of the size of a heavy machine gun. It would still be a major change, but not in the same areas. It would be unlikely to be a reasonable stealth weapon because of its size and it would not be quiet either (you are likely to get a crackle from the plasma generation by the laser).

On the other hand, armored fighting machines would be greatly changed by this sort of thing.

Re:Laser rifle

[einhverfr]

A laser of this size is likely to provide a flash of light and sound (not stunning as in the other technology). This is due to the laser ionizing the air it travels through (creating the same sort of plasma as the other part of the story). I would expect the path to be very visible to anyone looking in the right direction at the right moment.

33kg is not a light weapon, and not something a sniper could simply hold up for precision firing with his hands. You would probably need a tripod, etc. So in the end you are looking at a not-very-sniper-like weapon.

Re:Laser rifle

[steveha]

A sniper's job will become a whole lot easier... unless you want to get into the fact that the majority of a sniper's job is about getting in and then hopefully back out.

Actually, this would be a win from that standpoint as well. Current sniper bullets are always supersonic, and thus there is a loud *CRACK* sound that helps indicate the location of the sniper. The laser beam would be silent.

(If you are interested in snipers, you ought to read the book Marine Sniper, a biography of Carlos Hathcock. Hathcock commented that a sniper usually gets one free shot, because no one is expecting the shot, and surprised people don't do a good job of figuring out where the shot came from; if the sniper fires a second shot, all the people in the area will start looking in the correct direction, because this time they are expecting something. So he figured it was better to get close enough to get a guaranteed one-shot kill; even though he would be closer, he would be much harder to find than if he had to take a second shot.)

Imagine a sniper killing someone, and the only sound is the body falling over. Kind of creepy. The sniper might be able to kill the person without other people in the area even noticing!

On the other hand, assuming a high-tech enemy, it might be possible to track the sniper by waste heat from the laser. If you are putting enough energy to kill out of a laser rifle, there will be nontrivial amounts of waste heat. So there might be a special "sniper model" battlefield laser weapon that contains the heat somehow (cartridges with compressed gases, and you use the expanding gas to cancel the waste heat?). Thus the sniper model would probably be the heaviest model.

(Or perhaps the heaviest model would be the "squad automatic" laser, which could be fired many times rapidly...)

Actually, a physics question: would there be a trail in the air, caused by the laser traveling through the air, that could be seen with some sort of vision enhancer goggles? Would the air molecules be ionized or something, and could that be used to track a sniper? If so, there would be a line drawn in the air pointing from the target straight back at the sniper. But I really have no idea if that is possible.

steveha

Re:Laser rifle

[FredThompson]

Where do you get the idea that snipers hold rifle's standing up?

Methinks you're confusing sniping activities by infantry (Saving Private Ryan movie, for example) with real snipers.

Real sniping is long distance and some of the rifles ARE quite heavy. Putting a bullet into an electrical generator or an engine is also sniping.

Re:Laser rifle

[fm6]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that early laser development was funded by DoD people who were hoping it would make a good death ray. Of course, they were disappointed. I remember Arthur C. Clarke making a big thing out of the fact that nobody has ever managed to find a way to kill someone with a laser. Sort of sad that this particular technology has finally been robbed of its peacenik status.

Trekkies will recall that in the original pilot, Captain Pike and his crew brandished laser guns. The "phaser" was invented because they were afraid that by the time Star Trek came out, lasers would be so commonplace, they wouldn't look futuristic enough. The compulsive need to meet "audience expectation" about the future has always been Star Trek's weak point.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Sound? Maybe.
Light? The weapon is light. If you are looking in the right direction at the "right" moment to see the beam, you'll likely get hit by the beam.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

you are looking at a not-very-sniper-like weapon.

If you read the book Marine Sniper, you can read about Carlos Hathcock using an M2 machine gun for extreme long-distance sniping.

He put a sniper scope on the M2, sighted it in, and then would just briefly touch the firing trigger to fire a single round; IIRC he made kills about a mile distant.

So, even if the laser isn't good for the kind of shooting where you hike in from miles away, it might have a niche.

Re:Laser rifle

[einhverfr]

I never said standing up. But either you have to support a weapon with your arms or rely on external supports (like a tripod). Otherwise you don't have the mobility needed to aim the weapon. Ideally the supports need to be properly mobile and uniform (supporting on an uneven rock might not be a good thing).

Re:Laser rifle

[Cadallin]

Actually, despite other errors in the GP post, you're missing something important. Scattering even by molecules of air is significant at power levels much lower than this thing operates at. Watch videos at http://www.wickedlasers.com/. Their 100mw pen sized lasers scatter enough to look like a fucking light saber swinging around, and this laser rifle is probably hundreds of times more powerful. If its in the visible range (although probably it isn't) in battlefield condition it would probably make a flash like some kind of Anime Superweapon. Even if its not in the visible range, the same effect is going to apply, it'll just need special gear to see it, something like night vision for IR lasers, and for UV it'd be easy enough to rig something up (it's not like plenty of types of sensors aren't UV sensitive). Also, unlike a ballistic sniper rifle, Anybody watching with such a system will instantly know the exact location of the sniper.

Re:Laser rifle

[einhverfr]

No. If you are looking in the right moment and the laser is weak enough, you won't see anything unless it is smokey or dusty. I.e. you have to have something to reflect the light to see a weak laser.

If the laser is stronger, that is different. It will ionize the air, which will generate a glowing plasma. You aren't seeing the laser's light, but rather the plasma it generates.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, no kidding. Over/under on when a package from GP arrives in NBC mailroom: 6 months.

Re:Laser rifle

[vought]

Not to mention the fact that it will be that much harder to locate the sniper. At least a gun produces a muzzle-flash and sound.


I dunno. Every futuristic movie I've ever seen is full of PZEEW! and PKEEZ! as the "laser" guns are fired. There's goes your element of stealth!

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Thank you.
If the laser is too weak to see, could it still be strong enough to do damage?

Re:Laser rifle

[einhverfr]

I have looked into that. Although it may depend on a variety of factors (wavelength etc), it looks to me like a laser which is powerful enough to cause a lethal strike is likely to cause ionization of the air.

Remember, it takes a lot of energy to burn through the skin and into vital organs, and being able to do that with a rapid pulse is going to mean a heck of a powerful pulse.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

The Barrett M82A1 sniper rifle, presently in service with the U.S. military, weighs 33 lbs. (It's not clear from Wikipedia whether this is loaded or unloaded -- with .50 BMG ammunition, this is not a trivial consideration, but we'll assume it's the loaded weight.) Even the M40, the military variant of the Remington 700, weighs 16 pounds. Both are commonly supported with bipods, so it's clear that this weight is by no means out of the range of what's acceptable for use by snipers.

Weight in a conventional firearm actually has some significant benefits, reduced recoil being chief among them. This isn't the case with lasers, obviously.

Re:Laser rifle

[chanrobi]

It is already possible to track snipers given just the one shot. And it's not very high tech either Just google counter sniper systems or anti sniper systems. Like so

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/09/snipin g-at-us-forces-beginning-to-boomerang/index.php

Incoming fire detection and shooter position are determined and reported in less than 2 seconds. False shot detections are less that one per thousand hours of system operation at vehicle speeds under 50 miles per hour. Bascially, position is triangulated using a bunch of mics.

Re:Laser rifle

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The problem is that the scatter of laser light that's intense enough to damage something is probably going to have enough scattering to cause blindness of people that see what's getting hit.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Ouch! That would damage both sides!
Or do you propose disposable snipers?

Re:Laser rifle

[FredThompson]

I did project "standing up" into your post. My apologies, sir.

Re:Laser rifle

[FrankieBaby1986]

Perhaps, this being an electronic gizmo, a decoy emitter(s) could be designed to be placed several hundred yards away, pointed in the same general direction to confuse people looking for such fire? Then it would "fire" at the same time as the weapon by remote. Eh, just speculating weird ideas. Beats me how to get around it.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

The sniper would know that the shot is coming, so he'd simply close his eyes.

Or wear sun glasses.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

M82 Barret weights exactly the same so I dont think it's an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle

Re:Laser rifle

[Cadallin]

OK, so then you have two (or three, or more) locations to hit with mortar shells instead of one? Wow, that's really going to slow them down. I think this is actually a major drawback of laser based weaponry. Unlike ballistic or direct fire projectile weapons, where the enemy would actually have to expend some significant effort in locating your munitions/soldiers a Laser weapons instantly gives away its exact location every time it fires.

This has some fairly interesting implications for space based combat with such weapons that I'm not sure many Sci-fi authors thoroughly thought through. Utilizing high powered lasers by their very nature completely eliminates stealth capabilities.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anarchofascist]

Yawn. An effective countermeasure exists.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

Re:Laser rifle

[Wembley00]

The path is not ionized and is not visible, though it is possible to do this -it's called 'filametation' - with other short-pulse lasers.

Re:Laser rifle

[schnipschnap]

Also something to look out for is the range. I don't think the beam would lose too much power when hitting a target, causing everything else behind it to become more or less destroyed (depending on material etc.) as well. This is something that you don't get to see often in FPS's and Science Fiction movies, I guess ...

Re:Laser rifle

[Jesus_666]

1.) Less scattering in space. Unless you're in some kind of nebula, the laser beam might not be visible enough.
2.) Before you can work on making undetectable weapons you should first make your ship undetectable. I'm talking about things like zero emission on all EM bands etc.
3.) What's the alternative? Ballistic weapons are slow and have recoil, missiles are slow and probably easy to detect (especially guided ones). Direct-energy weapons have the advantage of the enemy not being able to dodge the shot. Besides, missile bays, cannons etc. also need to be zero-emission or the enemy can see you firing.

I think that space combat and stealth don't go well together; not with currently feasible technology.

Re:Laser rifle

[Jesus_666]

1.) As was already pointed out, a pulsed laser strong enough to kill is strong enough to ionize the air it travels through, generating a glowing line straight from the firer to the victim. Even seeing that line for a fraction of a second allows people to deduce the rough direction from which the shot came - that's what our brains are made for.
2.) I'm not entirely sure about this one, but I think that the ionized air gives off a fizzing sound, which means that yes, it becomes possible to identify a laser sniper by sound. Also, light bounces off the victim, resulting in at least a small flash as (s)he gets hit. No inexplicable deaths.

I think the advantages are more along the line of "we get long-range kills without having to calculate the effects of wind and gravity" than "our snipers become undetectable".

Re:Laser rifle

[toQDuj]

I've read about a subsonic firing sniper rifle though. I can't imagine it having any range, but it sure must be quite quiet.

B.

Re:Laser rifle

[toQDuj]

yes, here's one http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn20-e.htm and at a mere 3 kilos it is quite light as well.

Re:Laser rifle

[KDR_11k]

Why not just mount the whole weapon on the remote-operated gizmo? Set a few of these up and one sniper can cover many more angles than before.

Re:Laser rifle

[KDR_11k]

In space combat you could catapult a missile out of your ship and ignite it much later to make the shot come from a different position (I think that can be done by submarines already). You could also catapult other weapons as remote-operated (wire if need to be) drones but with those it's a bigger loss if they are destroyed. Not that it matters if you can kill fast enough. As for emissions, you don't need zero, you just need to have them below the noise level and possibly scattered by some means (e.g. smokescreen, these days they include substances that emit huge amounts of IR noise, having all other spectra the enemy may be scanning in there wouldn't be impossible). Of course you probably only need stealth until you've spotted your enemy and readied your weapons, noone's complaining that stealth fighters are unstealthed when they open their missile/bomb bays.

Re:Laser rifle

[KDR_11k]

Considering thunder is also generated by ionizing air like that I don't think it's necessarily limited to a fizz.

Re:Laser rifle

[Shihar]

A few points:

1) The laser does not need to fire in the visible range. The red glow from a laser firing is laser light scattering off of air. If the laser is not in the visible spectrum, you could fire it through fog and see none of this glow.

2) The heating of the air would not make much of a visible trail. It isn't going to cause the air to glow or anything of that nature. At worst, you might see a 'ripple' effect along the trail the laser followed very briefly (like looking down a hot road on a summer day). Even then, I doubt that the laser would be able to transfer that much heat into the air that quickly because air is a terrible conductor of heat. For a laser in the non-visible region, you would likely see nothing.

3) There might be a 'crack' noise if the laser fires long enough to create a vacuum along its trail, but all sniper rifles today make that same noise as the bullet travels as super-sonic speeds.

4) If the laser is high powered enough, the 'shot' could be short enough that the human eye would not register it, even if it was in the visible spectrum.

Finally, if the laser is powerful enough, you could shoot over miles. Imagine if this 'sniper' laser is really massive laser strapped into the body of a cargo airplane. Imagine if the 'sniper' on the ground has a non-visible, completely harmless, low powered, laser pointer like weapon. He just shoots the target with his laser pointer, the airplane sees it, and fires off its massive laser from a few miles away, hitting that spot. Sure, the bad guys know where the airplane is, but they don't have a damn clue where the sniper is. This way, you could fire a massive laser the likes of which could burn holes through armor.

Re:Laser rifle

[Jesus_666]

True. The exact kind of noise generated depends on whether the rifle is set to kill or vaporize.

Re:Laser rifle

[Jesus_666]

1.) True, but the light can still be detected (think CCD sensors). Not as easily, though, granted.

2.) Okay, that depends on the laser. The ones used will probably not glow (brightly), unless someone decides that green lasers are best suited for weapon use. OTOH, once you go into Really Big Gun area I think that athmospheric ionization is going to be severe. There have been theoretical weapon designs that let a laser ionize the path to the target and then send huge amounts of electricity through that path... Once you pump enough energy through a gas you end up with plasma.

3.) Well, my point was that lasers are audible. It doesn't matter how it sounds, you're still going to hear it.

4.) AFAIK multiple pulses are the preferred way of destroying things. A single lethal pulse needs to have some serious power behind it, as it does its damage mostly at the surface level (unlike a bullet, which travels through the body). Multiple smaller pulses might be more feasible in a portable weapon, as they allow the gun to "dig into" the victim.

Finally) That's insanely expensive. If you already have someone who can paint the target you can use a guided missile instead of a huge direct-energy gun that requires a cargo plane full of batteries (which, in turn, requires copious amounts of kerosene just to stay ready). Or you use a large caliber rifle; those go through body armor, too. If you're talking about tank armor: I doubt that lasers are there yet, especially single-pulse lasers. Traditional RPGs will most probably not be replaced by laser cannons in the next years.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't shoot over miles. Laser beams are gaussian beams that spread out as they travel. They farther away the sniper is, the bigger the area at the target so there is less power per area to do damage and more non target people get burnt.

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if it is in the visible range.

Re:Laser rifle

[salec]

There have been theoretical weapon designs that let a laser ionize the path to the target and then send huge amounts of electricity through that path...

Crossed my mind too, as several posters mentioned ionization of air along the beam: instead of relying on conversion of stored charge into current, then into light, to deliver destructive energy on target, just create an ionized channel and pour all the stored charge down on target. The show stopper is, of course, a possible "short circuit" discharge between channel and ground anywhere along the beam path, which, due to limited minimal angle between the beam and surface limits applicability to air-to-ground use.

Vice versa, anti-sniper measure would be to keep possible target of assassination inside an isolated Faraday cage connected to powerful high voltage source - if high-power laser was deployed, assassin sniper would have been zapped through the channel his weapon created.

However, there seems to be another, to me much more interesting possibility, completely out of military and destructive applications: the whole idea could be used to construct a laser induced conductive ionized air channel "infinite hight lightning rod", a system to harvest huge atmospheric electric energy in controlled manner, for our power needs!

Or, perhaps those ionized channels could be used for very low current, very high voltage electrical power transmission without using metallic conductors at all. Perhaps we could even connect surface-to-orbit spacecrafts with ion engines to electric power grid using that technique, one "conducting channel" on each side of spacecraft, so that very little fuel mass is lifted.

Re:Laser rifle

[Cadallin]

Your point 1 is very true, but I think very easy to counteract. A smoke screen would work just as well if not better in space.

As per your last statement, I don't think space combat is feasible with current technology ;) Of course, realistically the only currently viable "space combat" is the use of ICBMs to take out communications/GPS/Spy satellites, which has already been demonstrated to be possible by the Chinese.

Re:Laser rifle

[silverdirk]

Just to spell out the full idea:

Assuming you have a lazer powerful enough to create instant several-mile-long ionized paths, you could go "lightning-farming" during storms. Instead of having tons of stations and lightning rods, you would have one station with an insane capacitor bank which would "shoot" promising-looking clouds in an attempt to get a lightning discharge. You could then use the insane capacitor bank to drive the laser multiple more times, discharging all the nearby clouds, until you ran out of clouds or until the capacitors were full. You would then power the electric grid for a while until more clouds moved in, or until you thought they had recharged enough to make it worth the next round of shots.

Re:Laser rifle

[salec]

Yes, generally that was the idea.

Actually, instead of storage capacitor to catch the charge, I thought something more along lines of capturing induced current in giant, cryogenic, superconducting, toroid - shaped, shorted coil around "ground wire" of the lightning rod (see: "current transformer"), for it seemed to me like construction of capacitor meeting the requirements may be even more impractical, but I may be wrong there.

Oh, one more thing: clouds don't always have same polarity with respect to ground. That should be accounted for.

Re:Laser rifle

[The_Ayin]

Would it be possible to put the laser on the ground or on the soldier's back and then have the soldier guide the beam via some type of reflector?

Re:Laser rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT DOWN.

"Likely to provide a flash of light and sound" is a crock. Yes, I have worked with laser weapon research, and no, I'm not trolling. A pulsed IR laser will not generate any flash of light, and the only sound possibly generated would come from the weapon itself, likely from its power system. You're fucking insane if you think the path is going to be "very visible to anyone looking in the right direction at the right moment" and need to stop watching Star Trek and start learning plasmadynamics and laser physics.

I'm pretty sure you have your weight wrong too. Out of curiosity, what was the last antipersonnel weapon you used? Do you know how much an M-16 weighs? How about a Browning .50 rifle? Modded "interesting." Jesus H Tapdancing Christ.

Re:Laser rifle

[srussell]

A laser of this size is likely to provide a flash of light and sound

You base this prediction on what, exactly?

33kg is not a light weapon

Absolutely right, 33kg is not a light weapon. Luckily, TFA says that the laser weapon would weigh 15kg, which is much more manageable. An M107 sniper rifle (.50 cal) weighs about 17kg, loaded, and has a maximum effective range of about 1,800m. This is probably the weapon you would want to compare the laser to, and DARPA's laser would probably be pitched for the same uses. You're not going to be climbing up trees with this, but you could certainly set it up in an upper story in an urban environment.

--- SER

Ancient Chinese Secret, Huh?

[AbsoluteXyro]

"It uses a programmed pattern of rapid plasma events to create a sort of wall of bright lights and reports (bangs) over the coverage area," says Keith Braun of the US Army's Advanced Energy Armaments Systems Division at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, US, where the system is being tested.

So.... they've invented fireworks, then. Finally. I mean, the Chinese military has had access to fireworks technology since the freakin' Han Dynasty! Glad to see our boys in blue are getting with the times!

Re:Ancient Chinese Secret, Huh?

[Velocir]

Green. Or khaki, possibly.

Re:Ancient Chinese Secret, Huh?

[AbsoluteXyro]

Whoops. Boys in Blue is police, isn't it? My bad.

Re:Ancient Chinese Secret, Huh?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

No, no, no. It's the conventional guns and missiles that use gunpowder--the critical ingredient of fireworks. (Or did you think that those rockets with red glares in "The Star-Spangled Banner" were for a party?)
What the military is attempting is a laser lightshow like they use in concerts, only bigger and deadlier.

Re:Ancient Chinese Secret, Huh?

[Jesus_666]

Chinese developing fireworks:
Propellerhead: "Hey, if we put this powder in a tube and let it burn slowly the tube flies! And when we add some powder with metal dust at the front we get lights visible from afar!"
General: "Wow, that's pretty cool. I want a hundred of those by next week."

US Army developing fireworks:
Propellerhead: "It took us a team of dozens of specialists, but we developed a really heavy and maintenance-prone device that requires copious amounts of energy from a ridiculously expensive battery pack, that uses a laser pulse to create a ball of plasma which we then fire with a second laser pulse in order to create light and sound!"
General: "...Son, you've been playing way too much Unreal."
Propellerhead: "Well, we know that a grenade launcher and a flashbang would probably do the trick, but--"
General: "I don't care, I want a hundred of those by next week."

Woah

[smilingman]

According to an article at New Scientist, DARPA is developing a plasma shield that would allow troops to stun and disorientate enemies

Not as much as I was disorientated by that spelling...

Perfect!

[four runner]

HR has been complaining about the barbed-wire outside my door...this may be the perfect alternative.

flash and bang?

[briancnorton]

Sounds like something you would want to put in a grenade rather than use as a shield. Plasma Grenades...Schweet...

Re:flash and bang?

[Snarkhunter]

Oh! And they should stick to things too! Especially bad guys! Now THAT would pwn!

The shields;

[Lost Penguin]

The question is; can the engines take the strain, I'm giving it all they got....

Re:The shields;

[Asmandeus]

Thus did man first see the signs that the End Times were upon him; their once chortled jokes of Stars and Treks were seen as trollish notions to the great public.

So it was written.

Re:The shields;

[wilec]

"So it was written."

And "so it goes..." KV Jr

Wabi-Sabi
matthew

Frickin' Laser Beams

[Saint_Waldo]

Any comment on effectiveness against mirrors or reflective clothing?

They mention "airborne particulate" as an issue, but nothing about what they intend to do about it. Perhaps a device to vaporize the area's water supply?

Re:Frickin' Laser Beams

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Water vapor counts as airborne particles, I'm afraid. Put enough in one place, and you get a cloud.

Knowing is half the battle

[Agrippa]

Extensive documentaries of GI Joe vs Cobra battles during the early 80's show laser weapons have a complete inability to hit anything of value.

.agrippa.

Re:Knowing is half the battle

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Did both sides have laser weapons, or just Cobra?

Re:Knowing is half the battle

[earthforce_1]

Extensive documentary footage of old A-Team episodes show that automatic rifles ( especially M-16s ) are useless at ANY range, except for maybe giving the enemy's jeep a flat tire. It is much more effective to simply drop the rifles and bludgeon the enemy into unconsciousness with your fists.

Re:Knowing is half the battle

[Dachannien]

Actually, that documentation proves that laser weaponry is incredibly good at destroying aircraft, but only when the pilot is wearing a parachute and has his hand on the ejection handle.

Re:Knowing is half the battle

[Rich0]

Those and incoming missiles - best line by a principal character sitting in the tailgun of some kind of aircraft:

"There are too many missiles! I can't shoot them all!"

Also, FTA...

[SixFactor]

... is a way to change the laser rifle's intensity, and thus, its lethality. Yeah, I envision settings for STUN and KILL. Shark mount optional.

Re:Also, FTA...

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I think the more likely settings for a laser rifle are KILL, TOAST, ROAST, and SUNBURN.

Re:Also, FTA...

[Jesus_666]

Maybe they can get some additional funding from Sony, then they get KILL, TOAST, ROAST, SUNBURN and BLU-RAY. LightScribe optional.

Why the toys???

[EmbeddedJanitor]

This seems like pretty typical Pentagon. Hey troops, don't worry about the fact you have insufficient low-tech tools. Don't worry that you have to go scrounging through dumpsters for scrap metal to make armour http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12 /10/us_stance_on_armor_disputed/ . Don't worry that the rifles are inadequate and the US soldiers would prefer AK47s http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index =451.

Please ignore all that folks. Don't worry, in the future we'll have a bunch of new toys for you...

Suggestion to the brass: before you play with the high tech stuff, get the low tech stuff right first.

Re:Why the toys???

[geekoid]

You know the Pentagon has different people who do different things, right?

Now, if the adminstration would handle the war properly, those issues could be resolved. Until that is done, those troops are fucked. I know a lot of high ranking people have quit because they can't get what they want for the troops.

You want to help? keep writing your reps, the paper, orginize a protest to get the troops what they need.
The best way to do that is with oversight committees.
I didn't want to invade Iraq, and I think we were wrong in doing so, but I sure as hell don't want our troops unprepared.

Re:Why the toys???

[FredThompson]

Modded 5, Insightful?!?!

Insightful would have done some real research and found the "scrounged" armor was a very short term issue and there have been 8+ major uparmoring mods and more than 70,000 fully armored vehicles in Iraq/Afghanistan now.

Insightful would have known the "underarmored" vehicles were HUMMVs which were replacements for Jeeps. You know, Jeeps, those open-sided and open-topped vehicles.

Insightful would know the true status of the M-16. Same story, bud. The first ones, 40 years ago, were rushed into use and there have been a huge number of modifications. The AK-47 isn't that great. It's not good at a distance, there's less control of the bullet's destination and the vast majority of them were made very, very sloppily which means they spray bullets almost randomly. Read your own link, it says some American troops are using captured AK-47s because the ammunition is so available. Why might that be? Do a little research on calibre and interoperability of ammunition. Just because ammunition is available doesn't mean it's more useful than an M-16 nor does it mean it's preferred over the M-16. Gad, your comment shows you don't really know much about the weapons or tactics.

Re:Why the toys???

[smittyoneeach]

Fred, you sound firmly in charge on these military matters.
At what point will you announce the presidential run, and start squashing the juice out of the various bugs in your path?

Re:Why the toys???

[lymond01]

Now, if the adminstration would handle the war properly, those issues could be resolved. Until that is done, those troops are fucked.

If the administration could handle itself properly, our troops wouldn't be fucked either. It's not even necessary to say anymore...

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, chill.

DARPA is the pie-in-the-sky research arm of the government. They think seriously long term, because if you want to stay in the lead, you have to.

But of course, if we didn't spend money on DARPA research, we wouldn't have cool stuff like the Intarweb, because the initial concepts came out of DARPA's think tanks.

Suggestion to you: before you knock the brass for spending money on shit you think is unimportant, consider how the money they've spent in the past enriches your daily life, and consider that maybe, just maybe, some of their current spending will enrich your future too.

Re:Why the toys???

[Cyberax]

AK-47 is obsoleted by AK-74 (which can use NATO ammo, BTW).

Besides, accuracy at a great distance usually means nothing in city warfare. You almost never have ranges larger than 15-20 meters and AK-47 works great at these distances.

Re:Why the toys???

[LifesABeach]

I personally believe that the United States arsenal has more than enough lethal weapons to use on bad guys. But what I think is really intriguing would be accepting the challenge of locating the enemy, with their weapon, in their spider hole. Or better yet, being able to identify those that have handled weapons or explosives by analysis of the fumes still present on the clothes of possible bad guys. Possibly with UV, or IR light; Or with Spectral Analysis.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is correct. AK-47's do not behave like counter-strike weapons. They are inaccurate, heavy, and have a relatively high recoil.
The reason many AK-47s are inaccurate is because their receivers were stamped instead of milled. This results in a weaker, although significantly cheaper, receiver. I don't remember the exact numbers, but a milled receiver started out with 6lbs of aluminum and was milled down to under 2.

A quick google search yields the following

There are two major differences between a milled receiver and a stamped. A milled receiver is machined out of one solid piece of metal, making it heavier than the stamped yet more accurate. The stamped receiver is made out of several sheets of metal that have been riveted together. While a stamped is lighter it is also less accurate than the milled receiver.

- http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/faq.html

Re:Why the toys???

[Waffle Iron]

Yeah, well unfortunately, it doesn't matter. All the armored HUMMVs, M16s, and plasma shields in the world aren't going give us a snowball's chance in hell of "winning" this particular conflict. The 1944-style scorched earth tactics that would be required to beat the populace into submission are completely off the table, prolonging the current bloody stalemate is pointless, so ultimately we're just going end up pulling a Vietnam and hand the country over to the Iranians. This whole episode will mainly serve as yet another hard-earned lesson to future presidents that military force isn't very often the right tool for the job at hand.

Re:Why the toys???

[organicparts]

I don't think you understand how the military industrial complex works. Expensive new gadgets are bought by the government to generate wealth for companies that politicians consult for when they get out of office. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the troops.

Re:Why the toys???

[mangu]

...in city warfare. You almost never have ranges larger than 15-20 meters and AK-47 works great at these distances.

In those circumstances both combatants will try to find a wall or column to hide behind. Then the winner is the one who has bullets left when the other has shot all of his. No matter how strong the soldier is, he will be able to carry more bullets if the ammo is lighter.

Conclusion: .223 trumps .30

Re:Why the toys???

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

like vietnam did?

Re:Why the toys???

[DreadSpoon]

"Just because ammunition is available doesn't mean it's more useful than an M-16"

I admit to not being that up on modern warfare, but I'm pretty sure that having ammo for an AK-47 makes that gun infinitely more useful than an M-16 for which you have run out of ammo.

Re:Why the toys???

[swb]

The AK-74 and its variants fire 5.45x39. "NATO ammo" would be 5.56x45, so, no, an AK-74 wouldn't be able to chamber let alone safely fire NATO ammo. I've heard some 74s were converted by former east bloc countries to shoot 5.56 once they joined NATO.

You can also get 7.62x39 AK uppers for AR-type rifles and I guess Alexander Arms made 5.45x39 uppers as well, but still, box stock AK-74s and M16s and variants are not capable of shooting each other's ammo.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen. The HumVees replaces Jeeps, sure. The problem is, they are STILL used for troop transport. And while, once upon a time, there was such a thing as a "front line" where you needed armored vehicles, and "behind the line" where you didn't really need so much armor. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no such distinction. There probably was, when we were dealing with the Iraqi ARMY. But now? Nothing is behind your lines. No-where is safe. All transport has to be armored, cause anywhere you would go is not safe.

Onto your comments about the Kalatchnikov. There are lots of reasons to like the Kalatch over the M-16. There are a few to like the M-16 over the Kalatch.

The Kalatch is a higher calibre weapon than the M-16. So the bullets reach the target with significantly more Kinetic energy. So they will pierce stronger armor (the army had problems with the ceramic plates, because they were too short, didnt cover a soldiers sides, and were largely designed to stand up to M-16 fire. So shooting someone with a Kalatch had a reasnoble chance of piercing the armor) . The Russian Kalatch's are quite well made, and some of the Hungarian ones are also. Both the Kalatch and the M-16 have an effective battle range of 25-300 yards. The Kalatch doesn't jam anywhere near as much as the M-16, partially because it uses so much more gunpowder/bullet.

That said, that kalatch is a LOT heavier than the M-16 (the rifle is almost twice as heavy, and the ammunition is more than twice as heavy). So carrying it, along with all the ammo, along with all your gear, is annoying.

I don't know why you say it isn't that good at a distance. It has the same rifle-ing as the M-16 (the are both 1-11.. 1 revolution every 11 inches). The heavier bullet is more stable in flight. Have you actually fired a kalatch, or an M-16, or are you just talking out of your ass? Because for someone criticizing someone else for not knowing much, you sure are getting a lot of your info wrong.

Re:Why the toys???

[Waffle Iron]

It should have, but the people in charge convinced themselves that all the new toys invented in the intervening three decades would be silver bullets that would guarantee success. Their plan could have been written by the Underpants Gnomes:

1. Cleanly knock out a few key sites with precision missiles.
2. ???
3. Stable Democracy!

Re:Why the toys???

[flyingsquid]

Insightful would have done some real research and found the "scrounged" armor was a very short term issue

Oh, bullshit. The invasion began in March, 2003. The infamous interrogation of Rumsfeld over the armor issue took place in December, 2004- more than a year and a half later. That is not a "very short term issue". According to Wikipedia, the Army began up-armoring its vehicles in 2003, but the process was intended to be completed in 2005; the Marine Corps began issuing an armor kit in early 2005.

Like pretty much everything else with the Iraq War, the military command took a very long time to realize what was going on and to respond to the problems on the ground. Do some research yourself, asshole.

Re:Why the toys???

[iminplaya]

Now, if the adminstration would handle the war properly...

I would hardly call it improper if my bank account was filling up this fast. I'm sure that all the "important" people are quite pleased with the results so far. And they'd just as soon that congress and the rest of us would mind our own business and quit meddling in theirs.

Re:Why the toys???

[iminplaya]

Gad, your comment shows you don't really know much about the weapons or tactics.

You're right! All WE know is the suffering and madness brought on by your weapons and tactics. Those same weapons and tactics being sold to used by both sides because, as you know, business is business and we can't let anybody get in the way of THAT!

Re:Why the toys???

[funwithBSD]

Well, what you are really suggesting is that limited warfare does not work.

Now the question is, when can we afford to use troops in the following situtations:

1. Limited, humane "war". Oxymoron if their ever was one. Usually a failure, re: Vietnam.
2. Geneva Convention "war". Works pretty well. Won in WWII and Korea.
3. Total war. Pre-Convention war, no quarter given, civilization at risk. This is the long history of warfare and is true war.

We are fighting an enemy using level 3 warfare while we remain at level 1.

Level one is total stupidity. If that is all that was needed, you should have used other means like special forces hit and run. Don't send in long term troops unless you are ready to fight level 2.

So go to level 2, or get out and wait for them to sack Washington.

The scary thing for me is that as they get nukes, and they will one way or another, there is no way to do MAD style containment. They are not going to launch anything at us because they don't have the technology. So they sneak it in and detonate. Meanwhile, because we are so hung up on national boundries they don't really recognize, we don't know who to nuke.

And we lost our ablity to fight as a civilization, like Rome, and just nuke the barbarians, period.

I really don't see a way out until we shake out of our lethergy and understand that they want us all dead or converted to Islam. Anything else is al-Taqiyya.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, but not if you're fighting at your enemy's house.

Re:Why the toys???

[FredThompson]

Bullshit to your bullshit.

The "interrogation" you mention was a Chattanooga Times Free Press-planted question asked by a soldier during a "town hall" meeting in Kuwait to which the press was freely admitted. That's "interrogation"? You're biased, ignorant and lazy.

This soldier...ahem!...hadn't been in one of the HMMVs in question and wasn't in the combat areas. This was manufactured dissent and led to the Times Free Press having to admit, "In hindsight, information on how the question was framed should have been included in Thursday's story in the Times Free Press. It was not."

Do some real research and you'll find the uparmoring had already started but, wonder of wonders, those vehicles in the combat areas were getting it first. You could have gone to Stratfor (but you probably don't subscribe), GlobalSecurity, ArmyTimes, DoD, Lexis-Nexis, etc. for accurate information. It should have been immediately obvious that Wikipedia is a woefully inaccurate source for military information. You could have Googled the words "Rumsfeld armor hmmv" and been led to plenty of good resources including this one: which has quick stats, debunking and some good links: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1299014/p osts

As I've already mentioned, there have been and are multiple phases of uparmoring from bolt-on kits to heavier construction at the factory. The HMMV was a replacement for the open sided, open-topped Jeep. It was not originally intended as an armored fighting vehicle. It was designed to give better environmental protection (wind, rain, sun) for the troops with a large wheel base and more cargo capacity.

Re:Why the toys???

[FredThompson]

I've already done a combat tour and a second tour at a three-letter agency.

I might come out of retirement to run for President. Then again, maybe I'll do some more acting. Besides, it's too early to announce anything. I wouldn't want to peak too soon.

We'll see...

Re:Why the toys???

[MadUndergrad]

Well there's their problem, right there. The bullets aren't made of silver! Oh, were that the silver lobby were more powerful, then we would be winning the war.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the military some more fucking Daisycutters. I heard there're still some un-raped, mostly-alive civilians (incl women and children!) still left in Iraq.
Gotta get some more Daisycutters. Only thing that will stop those Iraqis.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have no response to your comments on armor, but I'd like to address some of your assertions on the M16 vs. the AK-47. Yes, it's a bit off topic, but misinformation shouldn't be left to spread, and apparently nobody else is going to step up.

Onto your comments about the Kalatchnikov. There are lots of reasons to like the Kalatch over the M-16. There are a few to like the M-16 over the Kalatch.

It's "Kalashnikov". Nobody refers to this weapon as a "Kalatch". The only reference I could find for this spelling with a quick Google search (other than a place name) is the "Remember Jenin" e-mail which made the rounds some time ago. One reason not mentioned below to prefer the M16 is the loud report of the Kalashnikovs. The Kalashnikovs are easier to field strip, but they have a small pin (I forget its correct name) which is too easy to lose; and, no, the tiny pin on the extractor assembly of the M16 is not analogous - you shouldn't disassemble that in the field. Note that the later AK-74 design corrected that problem with field stripping. From the perspective of procurement, the AKs are more common and perhaps more suitable for poorly trained groups, but they're also more likely to be badly manufactured, including the ammunition. More corrections follow.

The Kalatch is a higher calibre weapon than the M-16. So the bullets reach the target with significantly more Kinetic energy.

At least you're correct about the caliber: The M16 fires 5.56mm rounds (NATO 5.56x45mm, much like a civilian .223 Remington), and the AK-47 fires 7.62mm rounds (7.62x39mm, commonly called "7.62 Russian"). For comparison, the NATO 7.62x51mm standard is similar to the civilian .308 Winchester.

However, you only get partial credit on kinetic energy: At 100m the 7.62 Russian has roughly 15% more kinetic energy than the 5.56 NATO. Beyond that, the energy of the 7.62 Russian declines much faster than the 5.56 NATO. At 300m, the 5.56 NATO has about 25% more energy, and at 600m it has about 3 times the energy of the 7.62 Russian (yes, this is well beyond the AK's effective range). Ballistics information for this should be available online. I haven't found a good study of the relative effectiveness of these arms on modern infantry armor, although anecdotal reports are fairly common.

Both the Kalatch and the M-16 have an effective battle range of 25-300 yards.

Half right again, it seems. Most sources do credit the AK-47 with an effective range of 300m. But the effective range of the M16A1 was 450m, and it's supposedly 550m or 600m for the A2 and A4 designs (depends on the source). I cannot attest to the validity of the 600m figure, as I've mostly fired the M16A1; I was discharged before the M16A2 was issued to my unit.

The Russian Kalatch's are quite well made, and some of the Hungarian ones are also.

The Russian AK-47 rifles (except for early models) have milled receivers, which are much better than the stamped receivers found in most others, such as the cheaply made Chinese knock-offs. The subsequent and more common AKM design has a stamped receiver, but it has welds and other structural improvements which make it superior to the original stamped receivers, and as good as the milled receivers while being lighter. Some of the AKs manufactured in the former Soviet Block nations are also reputed to be of good quality, but I don't know anything of those made in Hungary; based on the accuracy of the rest of your claims, I doubt you do either.

The Kalatch doesn't jam anywhere near as much as the M-16, partially because it uses so much more gunpowder/bullet.

The reliability of the AK rifles in dirty conditions is mostly due to the simpler design, the intentionally looser fit (lax tolerances) of its parts, and the chromium plating on key parts to avoid corrosion and pitting. AK rifle designs in 5.56 NATO and other calibers have similar reliability characteristics. The c

Re:Why the toys???

[twohorse]

And we lost our ablity to fight as a civilization, like Rome, and just nuke the barbarians, period. I really don't see a way out until we shake out of our lethergy and understand that they want us all dead or converted to Islam. Anything else is al-Taqiyya.
Sure. Hordes of murderous fanatics can only be dealt one way, obviously. There's no way that we could be blinded by our own version of al-Taqiyya, is there?

Re:Why the toys???

[Serious Callers Only]

I really don't see a way out until we shake out of our lethergy and understand that they want us all dead or converted to Islam. Anything else is al-Taqiyya.

You do realise that invading Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or nuclear weapons programs don't you?

Re:Why the toys???

[flyingsquid]

It's more than a bit disingenuous to say that the humvee wasn't designed as an armored fighting vehicle, so we shouldn't complain that it wasn't up to the challenges faced by the insurgency. The fact of the matter is that the military was forced to deal with urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and the vehicles sent over were not up to the task. The White House decided to plan on a best-case scenario of being greeted by flowers and instant Western democracy, and the military leadership failed the nation by going along with the White House and not planning for the realities of the occupation. And you're still an asshole.

Re:Why the toys???

[Cyberax]

That's why I said 'can'.

I don't remember its designation from the top of my head, but I can find it in my notes from my military classes.

Re:Why the toys???

[Weedlekin]

"Geneva Convention "war". Works pretty well. Won in WWII and Korea."

The Korean war was a limited war because it was restricted to Korea itself despite the fact that China directly intervened by sending huge numbers of men who directly fought against UN forces, and defeated them on a number of occasions, inflicting heavy casualties in the process. In a WWII-style conflict, this would have resulted in massive retaliation against China itself, probably by dropping atomic bombs on Chinese cities, which MacArthur was seriously considering before being replaced (the fact that China had no airforce would have made this a low-risk affair in a military sense, but the possibility of direct USSR intervention meant that it was very politically risky).

Note also that we (i.e. the UN forces which were predominantly but far from exclusively US forces) did not win the Korean war, because it ended in a stalemate which culminated in a ceasefire agreement that essentially established the same North / South border that had been in place before the war. This ceasefire is still in place, so the war hasn't officially ended, hence a half century long armed stand-off between the two opposing sides. This wasn't the goal of the US / UN side, or the one the North Koreans had, although it does seem to have been what China wanted (the Chinese didn't intervene until UN forces were near to their borders with North Korea; they'd warned the UN that this would happen on several occasions, but the CIA told Truman they were bluffing, so the warnings were ignored). It would therefore be fair to say that the only true winner was China, while both the UN / US and North Korea can be regarded as net losers because neither managed to realise their military or political goals.

Re:Why the toys???

[bogjobber]

Who are "they"?

Re:Why the toys???

[bhiestand]

I've already done a combat tour and a second tour at a three-letter agency. Whew, you scared me. At first I thought you meant "four-letter agency", and I was scared shitless of the RIAA. Anyways, the M16A2 isn't terrible, but I do think we could do better, and I'd definitely be pissed if it was my only option. Did you see the weight of this "portable" laser rifle they're talking about, though? 15 kilos! Ever hump a 249 anywhere? They weigh about 7 bare, and you'd be hard-pressed to get one up to 10 kg with a rail, scope, heat shield, and talking power ranger doll.

Re:Why the toys???

[bhiestand]

In those circumstances both combatants will try to find a wall or column to hide behind. Then the winner is the one who has bullets left when the other has shot all of his. No matter how strong the soldier is, he will be able to carry more bullets if the ammo is lighter.

I wouldn't recommend regularly standing next to walls during urban combat. Bullets have this odd tendency of ricocheting and following the walls... The winner is the one who keeps his cool, knows what he's doing, and actually hits his target. Unless you're a marine; then you can just shoot everything that moves and hope you survive the encounter. Or Navy, then you can just kinda sit on a boat and know that they can't reach you very easily. Or if you just want a free purple heart license plate to reduce the odds of getting a speeding ticket. Outside of those reasons, I really don't see a huge value in cowering next to walls.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the usability of it would depend on how many rounds you could fire off on one battery pack. A M16A2 or AK74 is definitively lighter but the ammo still weighs quite a bit.

Re:Why the toys???

[cheesybagel]

Yes, a regular AK-74 does not fire NATO ammo. There are however AK like rifles firing NATO ammo. Such as the AK-101, IMI Galil or the Valmek Sako.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Around here (North America) they tend to prefer a 12-Gage for close-quarters. In that case I would say the task is to
1) know your enemy
2) get in close, and
3) stop them

All of which makes the rifle discussion sort of pointless, IMHO. Both the AK and the M16 have their strong and weak points in various situations, it is well-known. If I had the choice for an SMG it would actually be a thompson in 45ACP with a pistol chambered likewise. If you want something for truly long ranges I would look at something else, (22-250, 220 Swift, 300 Weatherby) but that would probably be illegal in a military context. As a civillian, anything goes.

Re:Why the toys???

[swb]

It's a nonsense statement, then, since with modification most guns can fire pretty much any ammo.

Saying an AK-74 fires NATO standard rounds with modification is really like saying AK-74 doesn't fire NATO rounds without modification, and with modification it can fire pretty much any round.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think this is limited, humane war, you are insane. The only limits they are imposing themselves are for PR and morality reasons, and that fits in Clausewitz model for total war. There is nothing they could achieve by using nukes. Killing everyone in the country will just give the US more war with others.

Re:Why the toys???

[KDR_11k]

Daisycutter refers to the tube attached to the tip of a bomb that allows the bomb to detonate before the main body has touched the ground and have less of the blast absorbed by the ground. These days we have so many electronics in bombs I'd expect there's some kind of sensor that detonates the bomb at an optimal height without adding any long tubes to the thing.

Re:Why the toys???

[coolGuyZak]

Who says that soldiers prefer the AK-47? The article you linked certainly didn't. It said that they used the kalishnakov (sp?) because the ammo is everywhere. Most of the soldiers I know prefer the M16 to the AK, because it's more accurate. Those that dislike our military rifles normally do because you have to clean them every 30 minutes to an hour b/c of the sand in the Middle East. (Yeh, yeh, I know. a priori assertion sprinkled w/ a dash of heresay).

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because ammunition is available doesn't mean it's more useful than an M-16 I'll quickly lie and say that I don't like splitting hairs but, any service rifle without ammunition is just a really crappy club. If there is ammunition for an AK but none for an M-16 than the AK is obviously more useful.

Re:Why the toys???

[Taevin]

That attitude shows itself all the time in MMORPG development. The developers say something to the effect of "well we're still working on fixing a few bugs but our art/content department has pushed out some new stuff to keep you busy in the meantime." Cue hundreds of raving idiots screaming about how they should be fixing bugs instead of wasting man power on content. The concept that the programmers and artists/writers are separate entities and do not share skill sets is entirely beyond these people. The artists could not be fixing bugs, just as the research funds for DARPA would not have gone to troop issues.

Re:Why the toys???

[JimBobJoe]

1. Limited, humane "war". Oxymoron if their ever was one. Usually a failure, re: Vietnam.

A very interesting article called this type of war a "spoiling attack." ("The spoiling attack is an offensive operation; however, its goal is not to defeat the enemy but to disrupt enemy offensives -- to, in effect, prevent a defeat by the enemy.") The article is available here. I'm interested to see your thoughts on it.

The article considers Korea and Vietnam spoiling attacks. It also think that spoiling attacks are not planned that way in advance, but are side-benefits of, essentially as you said, keeping the war at a low-level.

Re:Why the toys???

[Xyrus]

How did this ignorant paranoid tripe get modded insightful? Level 1 war? What kind of war do you consider level 1. No wars in we have ever fought could possibly be considered a level 1 war. In Vietnam we carpet bombed, napalmed, and generaly destroyed large swaths of territory indiscrimnantly with significant casualties. Vietnam wasn't humane, nor was it necessary. Geneva convention war my ass. WW2 was a total war. Entire cities were completely leveled. Millions died and we even nuked two cities in Japan, consisting mostly of civilians. Korea wasn't a victory either. It was fought to an agreed standstill. Even the Iraq conflict has involved massive civilian casualties. "The scary thing for me is that as they get nukes, and they will one way or another, there is no way to do MAD style containment." You have absolutely no idea what MAD is. MAD is not a containment strategy. It's a "if we go down we're taking you with us" strategy. If a nuke goes off on American soil and the government goes into panic mode, 20,000 nuclear missles launch (each with multiple warheads), all at targets predetermined for maximum destruction. MAD is MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. It's a civlization destroying strategy, not a containment strategy. If you honestly think the military would sit around worrying about national boundries if a nuke goes off here? You know nothing of the military. Our ICBMs would be in th air in less than 30 minutes. Sack Washington? And how would you propose they would do that. There's a country of 300 million people with the most advanced militay in the world and the largest economy in world with which to fund said military. How could they even get enough "soldiers" here to attempt such a thing? Do not confuse extremism and Islam. You only make yourself like a braying ass. Stop drinking the neocon koolaid. ~X~

Re:Why the toys???

[Runefox]

As another poster in the same grouping as yours pointed out, AK-47's are still great for close quarters/urban warfare, where ranges are typically anywhere between 15 - 20 meters or less (effective range on the AK-47 is 300 meters), and where stopping power is an absolute must. The larger rounds hit harder than the NATO rounds, and since not many of the insurgents carry protective armour, the piercing action of the NATO round is more or less rendered a non-issue. Though recoil definitely IS an issue, its lower rate of fire compensates for that to an extent, and full auto fire is usually not sustained for long. For longer range combat, an M-16/M-4 would likely be quite a step up in accuracy and versatility, but then one must account for the lack of ammunition while in the field, away from camp.

All of this is without mention of the AK's reliability, which is demonstrated quite vividly, I think, by Vietnam veteran David Hackworth:

One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. 'Watch this, guys,' I said, 'and I will show you how a real infantry weapon works.' I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds -- the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M-16.

I could see an urban-based NATO soldier taking up an AK-47 for those reasons; Stopping power, reliability, ammunition availability, and good-enough accuracy for the setting, with the added effect of the larger bullet being able to penetrate certain types of walls, not to mention full-auto capability (M-16A2's don't have such a setting ; M-4's do). Plus, it leaves their more expensive NATO counterparts in conditions of less wear and tear for future battles while they're making use of the Kalashnikov's in urban combat.

Re:Why the toys???

[FlyingGuy]

Your an idiot.

I tell you what I will give you an M16A2 and I will stand behind a sinderblock wall and let you shoot first. The I will take the AK-47, let you stand behind the exact same wall, an undamaged portion of it even, and I will then kill you.

I might point you to the The Box of Truth for a little perspective.

Re:Why the toys???

[funwithBSD]

You are exactly right on MAD, it is an insane idea that somehow worked. Sting got it right in the song "Russians", it was only the realization that not fighting an atomic war is the only way to win it. Now, if they Jihadist's think that they can detonate in a US city and we will not respond by destroying all or part of the Middle East, they might just do it, MAD no longer works.

BTW, I am pretty sure they will sack Washington after we elect them into office.

Oh, and the massive Iraq causalities? Sorry, you have no idea if you think Iraq was a devisating war on civialians, we did not kill very many compared to any previous war even if you take the debunked Lancet numbers.

As for our own troops, I think you will find that the average death rate in the US is 800 or so per year per 100000 people. With 150000 troops that means 1200 deaths per year would be expected even if they stayed home. Far more were lost in the first day of Normandy!

(Caveat: There is a slight fallacy there, see if you can correctly identify it. I am just to lazy to go find the right statistic so I used the one for the entire US population)

They will sack Washington the same way they sacked Kabuul. They got elected.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a neocon, but there *is* a way that you could deal with fundamentalist Muslims who don't have a problem with killing themselves or "infidel" civilians.

You simply state publicly that any weapon of mass destruction (particularly nuclear/radiological, but it could include chemical and biological) in the U.S. by any fundamentalist Muslim group will result in the U.S. specifically targetting the holy sites of Islam for destruction. You make it very clear: a nuke being detonated in the U.S. would result in the U.S. blowing the Kaaba at Mecca off the face of the earth.

Is this insane? It sure as shit is. It's as insane as a couple of countries wiping out civilization with thousands of nukes, and turning the Earth into a radioactive wasteland.

But, here is the insane logic: by PUBLICLY stating this in ADVANCE, as a matter of policy, rather than simply doing it as retaliation, you get 1+ billion Muslims policing their own nutcases and making goddamn sure that every single Muslim on this planet knows that they'd better quit poking a nuclear-armed bear. You can claim that "God is on your side, and won't allow Mecca to be destroyed." Well... does every single Muslim think it's prudent to ever TEST this theory?

And no, I'm NOT advocating we do this. I'm simply making the observation that it would probably work. If an insane person attacks you, sometimes the only way to defend yourself is to fight back with a greater level of insanity, as sick as that sounds.

Re:Why the toys???

[Anonymous Coward]

What an ignorant comment. I suppose 'they' refer to either all Afghans or the enemy as such in there.

I'm an Afghan and I too like to post comments like 'oh this is stupid' with my own version of reasons, which the average American would be ignorant of. ( yeah yeah bring on the flames).

The war with USSR was won with the help of USA, but American soldiers did not fight. It was all Afghans and the red army definitely fought a level 2 war no matter what they told the media. That was a smart war by the Americans because they used local people as weapons rather than spend billions sending their own sons and daughters to give candy to kids and detonate road-side bombs.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda killed, what 3000 civilian americans plus about 3000 soldiers by now right? They killed 8000 Hazaras in the city of Mazar alone. In total they killed over 50,000 Hazara civilians.

Are you with me?

Spend 1/10th of what USA is spending now on the Afghan war, giving it as time-limited weapons to Hazaras and block the world's media from entering Afghanistan. For each Talib suicide bomber the Hazaras would produce 3. USA would not be directly blamed for 'mistakes' as such and lets put it mildly, the Taliban elements would be neutralized by local elements, elements who intimately know the terrain and are Muslims themselves. Thus reducing the global Muslim hatred against the USA which the Bush family seems to generate all the time. The best thing is that the Hazaras will take the casualties happily instead of flag-draped coffins arriving in C-10s.

Think about it, what's the downside of such an idea? The Taliban were themselves armed by Americans against the USSR, when USA wanted to arm only the extremists in a diverse country. Another good thing is Hazaras would not need sophisticated weapons which could become future threats to allied forces.

It's hardly limited to Hazaras. Uzbek, Turkmen and Qizilbash and Tajik ethnic groups were also targetted by the Taliban albeit on a much smaller scale. The British would have done it this way.

Good priorities

[DogDude]

It's good that our US government has their priorities straight: Building levies: no. Health care: no. Education: no. Really, really, really deadly weapons: hell yeah!

Re:Good priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention spinning propaganda that this blatantly offensive weapon is somehow a "defensive shield". WTF?

Re:Good priorities

[Sperbels]

Well, if not for those really deadly weapons you might be typing that post in German, or Japanese. Not that I'm an overly militant person or anything. But weapons have their place. I just wish we weren't putting them in the hands of total idiot.

Re:Good priorities

[vought]

Well, if not for those really deadly weapons you might be typing that post in German, or Japanese.

Thanks, Otto. Now I think Wanda is calling you.

Re:Good priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish we weren't putting them in the hands of total idiot."

Granted. The Commander in Chief is well above average intelligence, only called an idiot by people who are mostly less intelligent than he.

And that goes double for lefty trollers.

Re:Good priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe that IQ is intelligence, I have 137 (from the Mensa standardized test) and I believe George W Bush is an idiot.

Bah! I heard about this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't recall where, but I know that at least ten years ago, I heard of the technique of routing all the antimatter inductors through the main deflector array to creat a plasma shield just like TFA.
Probably involves phase reversal of the warp coils or some other commonly used engineering technique.

I wish I could remember where I heard about this...

TDz.

Wow. Just Wow.

[KnowledgeKeeper]

Are United States expecting some kind of alien foothold situation? :) Airborne lasers, laser rifles, Star Wars satellites, exoskeletons, wearable computers, hand-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles, atomic and neutron bombs, personal shields made of liquids, harmless skin burners...

I don't know about others, but this sounds pretty much like stuff we could read about in comics and watch in cartoons. Wouldn't it be funny if somewhere in a small well-guarded room there's a top-notch team of physicists that does research on new weapons by reading comics?

Re:Wow. Just Wow.

[corsec67]

Isn't it obvious?
The comics are the idea generators. It is the scientists job to make the comics come to life.

Re:Wow. Just Wow.

[KnowledgeKeeper]

We're right more than we thought. I just opened my browser, and lo and behold, there's an article whose title says: Engineers write defence against aliens manual. They even get to call Carl Sagan (God rest his soul) a jerk.

It seems conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this one :)

Re:Wow. Just Wow.

[aliquis]

Bush figured it was easier to develop various high-tech gear than just behave nice to others and not upset them.

Lethal to the US Army?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, we did tell the troops not to aim at mirrors, but they didn't listen...

Good they inserted the comma... or not.

[guruevi]

remove the comma between which would be lethal and to the US Army for fun reading!

Rifle or field oven?

[FredThompson]

How long after laser "rifles" are deployed before troops figure out how to use them to heat food?

"Comrade, I see fireflies in the woods and smell burnt popcorn."
"Prepare for battle, the running dog Americans are here!"

Misread...

[masterzora]

My first time through, I thought it mentioned as one of the advantages that one can hit a target *moving at the speed of light*. And here I was wondering what target we could want to hit that would be moving at the speed of light when I realized the actual phrasing.

Correction

[einhverfr]

33lbs ( = 15kg)

Sorry. Typing wrong units. At least I don't work for NASA

Re:Correction

[pete-classic]

At least I don't work for NASA

Awesome.

For reference, 33kg is about what the M2 "50 cal" weighs. Awesome gun, but not an infantry weapon by any means.

-Peter

Re:Correction

[Rogerborg]

Don't worry; by the time it gets accepted, it'll be well over 33kg.

Forget Sharks: Directed energy Sea Mammals

[mpn14tech]

From the Danger Zone this briefing claims that flipper would do a much better job

"Money well spent"

[The Media Mechanic]

<sarcasm>

This is great news. Now our Homeland is safer than ever from diaper headed terrorists and other warmongering evil-doers who want to topple our peaceful and humble nation.

Just think of the possible new and exciting ways to kill people with these devices!

</sarcasm>

If we spent even one tenth of what we spend on building new weapons, instead on diplomacy and peace initiatives, and curing world diseases and poverty, maybe so many people wouldn't want to attack and kill us in the first place.

Re:"Money well spent"

[drpimp]

I don't like the war, or any war for that matter, just as much as the next guy. And while I did think your sarcasm was quite amusing, your point about spending 1/10 on the other stuff alone won't work. Hindsight is 20/20, we already wrote the checks, now our butts need to cash them, we have been writing them for thousands of years (no not the US in general humanity). Or else they are going to bounce those checks and we are going to be up shit creek without a paddle. Even if this war-on-terror never began, do you honestly think diplomacy alone will WIN in the sense of not having threats to us. NO! Why you ask I will tell you. Terrorists and your so called evil-doers have agendas. lets say for example we were friendly with all nations. That does not mean all nations will be in that same boat. So Al-Queda doesn't like Jews! Well there you go, now you have a conflict outside our make believe agenda, do we sit idle as they are our ally? Or do we take sides? Which side will you be on? While your solution is a Perfect scenario for an Imperfect world! It will never happen.

Re:"Money well spent"

[ChrisMaple]

"curing world diseases and poverty, maybe so many people wouldn't want to attack and kill us in the first place."

There's a more common phrasing of this argument: "Your money or your life."

The idea that we have to fix all the problems of people who are busy killing each other when they aren't trying to kill us, so that they won't try to kill us, is stupid, immoral, and ineffective.

Re:"Money well spent"

[pinkocommie]

No it's not. As a society we have decided that its worth it to fund public education. Why? because we believe that it helps our society at large. The same principle applies to the globe, by raising the level of intellectual discourse possible (education), by limiting the horrors other go through (disease, malnutrition) not only do we gain valuable allies (and by allies I mean people that actually care vs are in it for the $$$$) we gain respect and friends. If the US had spent the 400+ billion dollars on Iraq on helping the world, it could have turned around a bunch of 3rd world countries.

Heck if we had used the money on the so called war on terror, we may have been winning it instead of making it worse every step of the way. It's a battle of ideologies, if instead of presenting why you believe what you believe (freedom, democracy, education, science, rationality etc etc) you blow up those that oppose you the chance of your having any credibility are pretty close to zero (witness the 90% of the globe that dislike America and Bush being ranked higher then Bin Laden as a threat to global security).

Re:"Money well spent"

[vandan]

Sure. But peace is not a goal that is seriously discussed by our world leaders. Profits, on the other hand, are at the top of the agenda. And war has proven to be far more profitable than peace, particularly for the current US administration and their associates.

Re:"Money well spent"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice idea, but unfortunately, you're dead wrong. Look what's happening in Europe. The "poor" have everythign they need ... free education, more "services" then a school teacher can buy on their salary, free healthcare, no chance of starvation, and what's happening? People are the problem, not poverty.s

Re:"Money well spent"

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If we spent even one tenth of what we spend on building new weapons, instead on diplomacy and peace initiatives, and curing world diseases and poverty, maybe so many people wouldn't want to attack and kill us in the first place.

No...the rest of the world would look at us and say "What? You could only give a tenth? We want more!" The U.N. would pass a resolution mandating we give 50% of our GNP to help the "poor and underdeveloped" nations of the world that have been busily squandering the billions in aid we already pipe overseas.

Face it, bub. The rest of the world hates us because we have more of everything they want. More money, more guns, more liberties, more land, more resources...

We are hated because of envy, pure and simple. All this other crap about us "not playing well with others" is just a BS smokescreen for envy.

Re:"Money well spent"

[sohare]

Do you have any facts to base up your assertions? Where are the surveys done by, say, neutral countries that suggest what you are saying is true? I'm assuming you are not being sarcastic.

The US is notorious for supporting dictatorships and coup d'etas against democratically elected governments. Consider Honduras for instance, when the CIA supported a coup at the behest of the United Fruit and Standard Fruit companies. The US basically blockaded Fiji because they wouldn't allow for the testing of nuclear bombs near their shores. We've had heavy involvement in Iran for many years. Oh, and the support for Pol Pot?

Anyone who says that envy drives the hatred of America is woefully ignorant of American foreign policy.

Re:"Money well spent"

[patrikor_007]

spending billions to kill people is more moral than spending billions to help people? hmm. is it more effective? for killing to be effective, you have to accomplish one of a few things: A) instill fear in your enemy while NOT encouraging others to join their ranks, such as by blowing up their houses and relatives, even by accident, or destroying their economy and infrastructure so that they can't find a job and feed their children. and since our enemy is willing to kill himself to kill us, we're really only creating fear in civilians anyway. B) kill enough of your enemy for them to not be effective anymore, without encouraging others to join up (as above). since al qaeda franchises have *increased* and since it probably took only a couple of people to blow up the parliament cafeteria anyway, this objective isn't happening any time soon either. again, we're just recruiting for the enemy. is it smarter? i guess you already know what i think.

Re:"Money well spent"

[boa]

Another way to look at things, is the Google way: Don't Be Evil. The problem right now is not that rogue states and terrorists try to blackmail the west, so your argument is void.

If the US did as they spoke and started to cooperate with other nations and obeyed international agreements(geneva, hague, kyoto,...) and didn't wage war for no apparent reason, other nations perception of the US would change a lot. You guys used to be the good guys, remember?

Re:"Money well spent"

[Anonymous Coward]

GP is of course wrong, I aint even gonna bother with a rebuttal for his unsubstantiated crap.

However if you want to take a look at the numbers then OECD is an excellent source. http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,2340,en_2649_344 47_36661793_1_1_1_1,00.html

For a digest, http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp

Re:"Money well spent"

[Anonymous Coward]

fixing people's problems is not immoral. even if they're muslim.

Non-lethal application

[einhverfr]

I noted that they could ionize the air with a non-lethal laser, and that they were suggesting that there might be non-lethal uses for the laser rifle. This might allow for a usage essentially essentially similar to a long-range version of a Taser.

Basically, if you can ionize the air, you should have a conductive path. You could then send a high-voltage current down that path to incapacitate the person struck.

Excellent...

[FridayBob]

... just what we need to win the War on Terror. A truly worthwhile project. Really makes you feel good about paying taxes.

"Future War"

[Anonymous Coward]

Disorientation is key to domestic control. Consider plasma balls in the context of Federalist 46.

See my discussion at:
http://www.seanet.com/~hgg9140/statecraft/war.html
Analysis of J. B. Alexander. "Future War". St. Martin's Press, 1999. ISBN 0312194161.

Armies can't politically afford to use their full firepower on obviously undergunned or even pacific enemies. LEO's can't politically afford to shoot, club, or firehose political dissidents. Nevertheless, the people running the show want results. The enforcers turn to weapons which get results without leaving dead bodies and/or scars.

These include irritant gases, blinding lights, deafening sounds, electrical shocks, and similar tools. The idea is for the LEO to be able display in court a video tape showing the he himself has experienced the weapon and thus understands its implications.

Thus freed from the onus of mass civic revulsion, the LEO can use the weapon to assure results. Since of course neither the LEO nor anyone else can actually withstand the weapons over extended periods, the power brokers win and the Gandhi-wanna-bees lose.

The critical issue missing from this book is any sense that sometimes the dissidents and civil disobedients should win control of the streets, at least temporarily. Failing that opportunity to express greviences, the body politic is on its way to truly bloody civil war.

i can't wait

[Verunks]

another few years and we can have ion cannon and tiberium bombs to destroy the enemies

Laser weapons

[richard.cs]

It's all discussed in the context of various real life and sci-fi gubs but if you go to about halfway down this page there's a pretty good analysis of the use of lasers as weapons.

The basic conclusion seems to be that the laser must be pulsed at a fairly specific frequency in order to do damage, and that some rather nice adaptive optics are needed to focus the beam on the target before it would work at all. The reason for the pulses is that each one would cause a small steam explosion tearing a relativly large hole, with sufficient time between each for the steam and debris to disperse

A large part of the problem with making effective man-portable laser weapons seems to be powering them, then again the laser rifle mentioned in the summery is not exactly lightweight

Better buy stock in Highly polished mirrors

[Danathar]

I can see it now, terrorists running around cities with multi-faceted segmented mirrors all over their bodies...

Re:Better buy stock in Highly polished mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an expert, but I think a mirror would at best mitigate a really powerful laser hit.

Let's say the mirror reflects 99% of the laser's energy. That means 1% goes to heating the mirror. Unless the mirror can dissipate energy faster than the laser beam can apply it, the mirror will heat up really quickly, and once it gets hot enough to melt, shatter, or whatever it won't do much good.

Re:Better buy stock in Highly polished mirrors

[pushing-robot]

What you describe is the futuristic equivalent of a Hollywood shotgun (...which sends victims flying back 30 feet yet has no apparent recoil).

Lasers have reflectors too; a laser which can burn through anything would burn right through itself. In other words, just make the armor out of the same reflector that the laser uses.

And as fun as mirrored plate armor sounds, even regular body armor could probably protect you from a handheld laser weapon, at least if you don't sit still while it bores through the armor. If anything, tiny reflective granules in the armor would do the job of disrupting the beam.

But the real advantage of a laser weapon is that it's much easier to aim at unprotected parts of the body. You don't need to spend much time aiming and there's no uncertainty about where it will hit. Boom, headshot.

Re:Better buy stock in Highly polished mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe is the futuristic equivalent of a Hollywood shotgun (...which sends victims flying back 30 feet yet has no apparent recoil).

I haven't insulted your intelligence, and I don't think I deserve having you insult mine.

Lasers have reflectors too; a laser which can burn through anything would burn right through itself. In other words, just make the armor out of the same reflector that the laser uses.

As I said before, I'm not an expert... but what kind of mirror are they going to use in a laser so powerful it can kill at a distance? Will firing the thing melt its own mirror, requring them to change it out after firing it? Or, will they perhaps have active cooling on the mirror to keep it from melting? If not, if it's a plain mirror that just sits there and doesn't melt, then sure, have the guy wear a mirror like that.

My point is that really powerful lasers won't act just like the little lasers people have on their keychains. (You can shoot a little keychain laser at a mirror all day and the mirror isn't going to melt.)

But the real advantage of a laser weapon is that it's much easier to aim at unprotected parts of the body. You don't need to spend much time aiming and there's no uncertainty about where it will hit. Boom, headshot.

No argument from me.

Larry Niven once described a weapon like that as a "mile-long invisible sword". In his fiction, laser hunting rifles had circuits limiting the firing time to one pulse of laser light, because otherwise you could just wave the beam around and hack the deer up.

Re:Better buy stock in Highly polished mirrors

[Xyrus]

Indeed. The power from these laser might get to the point of lethality if one were not wearing any reflective/dispersive clothing. But even wearing poorly reflective "armor" would probably change a lethal weapon into a mere annoyance.

Hand held laser weapons need a good powersource to generate a laser of any reasonable power, and we're still a ways away from that.

~X~

ex army, 15 kg's is fucking heavy

[timmarhy]

15kg's ? wtf that's a LOT. modern weapons are about 1/2 that (excluding ammo) i'm assuming they aren't including the weight of the power source in that. the last thing the modern solider needs, is MORE weight to carry.

On the plus side...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we could get both sides to commit to laser weaponry, we could reduce casualties dramatically.

I believe the GI Joe vs. Cobra battles produced absolutely no casualties whatsoever, in spite of their lengthy engagements.

In the IPSEC world...

[slashjunkie]

...DPD stands for Dead Peer Detection.

Coincidence? I think not...

Disorientating

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

And using lethal force on crowds that inadvertantly gets innocent people will anger the international community.
Sometimes, it's obvious why a crowd needs controlling or a hostage-taker is taking hostages. What would you have the military do in cases where we know what the hostage-taker wants but do not want to give it to him? Hostages make great shields.
In those cases where it's not made obvious, by the time you figure out why it's being done, it's often too late to do anything. The crowd has dismantled the city; the hostage-taker is already killing hostages, and will finish with himself or the entire building he's in.

Re:Disorientating

[russ1337]

>>>"Sometimes, it's obvious why a crowd needs controlling or a hostage-taker is taking hostages"

Really? It is not that obvious. Can you elaborate? Perhaps explain why US journalists are targeted? or perhaps why ordinary people protest?

>>> What would you have the military do in cases where we know what the hostage-taker wants but do not want to give it to him? Hostages make great shields.

You watch too many movies.

Re:Disorientating

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

When ordinary people protest, they chant slogans and carry signs. Listen to their slogans, read their signs, and you'll get a general idea of what they're trying to protest.
If it's not clear what a group is protesting, it probably isn't a protest--it's just a riot.
US journalists get targeted because that's sometimes the only way to catch the attention of other US journalists. US journalists rarely go deep into international affairs even when it involves very important or very helpless foreigners, and rarely print it where everyone can see; but when it involves one of their own, they consider it big news and treat it accordingly. We are talking about a school of journalism that routinely writes articles about how the media is handling things--when they are the media.

Head shot?

[Bonewalker]

Haha, a cauterized brain. That'll bring the thinkin' to a sudden stop!

Lasers & Star Trek

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

So it didn't happen when the original Star Trek came out. I'll bet they were glad of their decision when they did the later series vs. I mean, every DVD player we can replay the episodes on has a little tiny laser, harmless unless you look at it...

Team Death Match anyone?

[Coolhand2120]

I for one like the Rail Gun over the plasma gun. Although the recycle rate is lower I find the ability to frag insurgents behind walls far more important than rapid fire.

As long as there are jerks who can mod parent trol

[unity100]

l, there is going to be need for guns and weapons getting more powerful because bickering and infighting will never end, due to jerks who actually support such policies by shunning visionary and futuristic thoughts.

Bad English?

[Magic Fingers]

The result is a gigantic flash and a loud bang in a the air.
Is my English so bad or editors need tutoring.

Re:Bad English?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Is my English so bad or editors need tutoring.

Both!

Re:Bad English?

[Magic Fingers]

Prove it?

Re:Bad English?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

For one thing, you ended your question without a question mark and ended this command with a question mark. Also, in your initial post, only the first clause is actually formatted like a question.

support the troops!

[Anonymous Coward]

All they need is a ticket home on an airline, and have congress fire all the officers from captain level on up, then tell the remainder to get with the program and READ the constitution, until they "get it" that just following orders from some dictator in chief is job TWO, not job one, job one is defending the US and our laws, not a pack of criminal order givers. So that ticket home is the best way to get them out of harms way in the middle east. Do it yesterday, we have NO business over there and if we took a fraction of that wasted money and put it towards more renewable energy research we wouldn't even NEED any of that oil over there. And if we stop killing middle easterners for blood profits and to defend some weird little nation over there that ISN'T our friend if you look at the situation clearly, we wouldn't be developing 1.5 billion and counting people who don't like us at all, and another few billion who are getting increasingly antsy and distrustful about the whole "US" deal in general, from our failed and bully-boy redneck cowboy policies..

    Next, put the troops (Active still with time to serve, not the guard or reserves, let them GO HOME RIGHT NOW) on the southern border where they can TRULY defend the nation and stop the REAL invasion and outright REAL terrorism that has hit the US, part of the war against the productive and legal and lawabiding US middle class by the rich transnational loyal to nothing but money jerks and their failed and *outright treasonous* economic policies. Use the troops to get them to stop this invasion, using full military might if that is what it takes to get the point across,to stop the globalist's importation of thousands and thousands of heinous criminal gang members who really are a serious physical threat and prove it daily, and to get them to stop the invasion of millions of wage lowering community busting non-assimilating job-jackers on behalf of the aforementioned treasonous globalist fiends.

That's how to support the troops. You don't keep pumping air into a flat tire, dammit! You have to fix the thing first!

  Throwing good money after bad and spilling more blood,both US troops and tons of completely innocent foreigners, after failed policies based on outright lies, is quite insane. Learn from history, or fail it, those are your choices.

Re:support the troops!

[bhiestand]

The terrorists are good guys. Women should be slaves, and your head should be cut off ofr not praying to Allah 5 times a day. You're fucking brilliant. We see how well that worked for the Spanish; they were slaves for centuries. To be fair, that's exactly what the Spanish did to many other nations both before and after the Muslims did it to them... Sorry, replace the "Allah" with "Jesus" for the Spanish.

Re:support the troops!

[attributor]

The Spanish did it 500 years ago. The Islamists are doing it now!

Re:support the troops!

[bhiestand]

Sure, some extremist Muslims are doing it now, but they're not the only ones trying to do it now. Anyone who interprets the bible literally should be doing the same thing, particularly the old testament. I'm just saying that perhaps we could all learn the lesson eventually. Any group is capable of doing it, especially any group that believes it has the only correct answers/truth/beliefs/ways of doing things. We need to stop trying to fight certain groups and instead focus on being intolerant of any group that attempts to use beliefs to trump individual rights.

Re:Fucking 'editors' need an English class.

[Goaway]

Slashdot "editors" do not "edit" submissions. This makes Slashdot "more real", according to CmdrTaco.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174297&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14502339#145024 84

Errr...

[LuNa7ic]

And how exactly does this class as a shield?

You forgot one thing

[unity100]

Any laser beam shot will directly advertise exactly where the sniper is.

Oh this is really cool.....

[3seas]

.... We now have more scifi scripting ideas....

Wouldn't be the first time

[DaveAtFraud]

I used to work with a bunch of Raytheon radar engineers. They claimed the microwave oven was invented when someone noticed that coffee stayed warm when it was in front of the radar transmitter. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story but will point out that Amana (their microwave ovens were originally advertised as "the Amana radar range") was originally a division of Raytheon until they spun it off.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Wouldn't be the first time

[FredThompson]

There's also a story that involves microwaves and a chocolate bar but I don't remember the particulars. The History Channel's Modern Marvels show mentioned it.

When I was in comm school they made a point that folks should always verify microwave transmitters are off before working on them because people working on the receiver dishes have been somewhat cooked inside. Imagine what that would be like, your organs are partly cooked!

Re:Wouldn't be the first time

[DaveAtFraud]

Probably the only business where when a boss says, "Working here gives you a nice warm feeling inside!" they are telling the truth.

Cheers,
Dave

Looking for test subjects

[Bearhouse]

From the article: "The company has also pitched a portable laser rifle, which would be lethal, to the US Army....it could also be used in non-lethal mode, "offering the individual soldier a first response non-lethal alternative, with the capability to go lethal should the situation call for that level of response", says Braun. But extensive testing of its effects on humans would need to be carried out before it could be legitimately used as a non-lethal weapon." How long before these things are being 'tested' in Iraq?

Re:Looking for test subjects

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before these things are being 'tested' in Iraq?

Done already ? From http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm :
"A nightmarish US super weapon reportedly was employed by American ground forces during chaotic street fighting in Baghdad. The secret tank-mounted weapon was witnessed in all its frightening power [...] Searching for a description, al-Ghazali said it appeared to be shooting concentrated lightning bolts rather than just ordinary flames."

See also http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8361811662 480560988

Russians, on the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

The system will use a technology known as dynamic pulse detonation (DPD), which involves producing a ball of plasma with an intense laser pulse, and then a supersonic shockwave within the plasma using another pulse. The result is a gigantic flash and a loud bang in a the air.

Russians, on the other hand, used $10 explosives to achieve pretty much the same result.

Battlestar Galactica anyone?

[mlawrence]

"a machine that generates a protective screen of dazzling mid-air explosions"

Does this remind anyone of the enemy suppression fire at the end of the pilot?

I just gotta know why....

[kenblakely]

....people insist on saying 'orientate' when the proper (shorter, more efficient) word is 'orient'? I mean, the original article sez "...to stun and disorient an enemy.", whereas the OP saw fit to alter it to "...to stun and disorientate an enemy." There has to be a good research paper in this somewhere....

Re:I just gotta know why....

[robably]

....people insist on saying 'orientate' when the proper (shorter, more efficient) word is 'orient'?

I feel the same way when someone says "Legos" instead of "Lego". :-P

Slash-fu not so great aparantly:

[zippthorne]

Meant to say,

Reflectivity < 70%

But the snappiness is all gone now.

Disorientate

[pipingguy]

Is that an accepted word now? What was wrong with, "disorient", is the original not trendy enough?

Re:Disorientate

[ultracool]

New Zealanders are really bad for using "orientate". I don't know how it started, but even reasonably educated people use it. It's terrible.

Re:Disorientate

[pipingguy]

The reason it's "terrible" is that perfectly good existing words with well-known definitions get displaced by pop-culture-derived terms that are more fuzzily-defined. I understand the need for new words to describe new things (computers and software have given us lots of them and those are justified although sometimes bizarre) but quite often new "words" are invented simply for marketing reasons or some percieved need to "coin a phrase" or to "be unique" in this rapidly-shrinking world of the English language.

One thing that has consistently grated on my nerves is Canadian (I'm a Canuck) use of "coast-to-coast-to-coast". My interpretation of this is that the usual, "coast-to-coast" wasn't good enough, so some twit decided that we had to go one better. Nevermind that the US has three coasts also.

What probably annoys me most is people that start adopting and using words/terminology (that they don't really understand) in order to sound authoritative, cool or trendy.

Please raise and shake your walking cane along with me and yell, "You kids! Get off my lawn!"

Re:Disorientate

[DogDaySunrise]

I found this entry from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary helpful in addressing that particular question...

The truth hurts

[Anonymous Coward]

We are hated because of envy, pure and simple. All this other crap about us "not playing well with others" is just a BS smokescreen for envy.

Do you really believe this crap? Envy?

America is viewed as a demon because it consistently invades, pillages and seeks to economically control much of the planet. Just as imperial powers have done before - Britain and the europeans were just as hated previously. Stay the fuck out of other countries (militarily and with economic aid), stop being so hypocritical and talking about 'bringing freedom' to vassal states and you wouldn't be hated. Quite simple really.

Who do you think built up Saddam? It was the west, including the US.

Shield?

[Marksolo]

It may be a argument for the linguists but last time I checked a shield intercepted incoming weapons not disrupted enemy soldiers. Who ever wrote the article is hyping the new tech and forgetting practicality. Bursts of light and sound has already been done, just load the dispensers on the tanks with flash bangs. And a 15 kg weapon! a Barrett 50cal is 14 kg at most and does not require recharging. I dare anyone to try to operate with full fighting order and add a 15 kg weapon plus whatever battery the laser uses, a m16 with 150 rounds is enough for most things.

Re:Shield?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Just send in some Euro Soccer hooligans with airhorns, flares, beercans and toilet rolls and crackers. Lordy knows what would happen if the light crossed on a high voltage powerline, or someone asked - does it work in the rain?

Microwave legend

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Okay. This is how it goes, more or less.
There was this scientist working at, and on, a microwave installation back when the only manmade microwaves came from giant radar-shaped dishes. He had a chocolate bar in his jacket pocket.
The chocolate melted even though he hadn't felt any heat. (We will note that this happened long ago, back when chocolate bars were wrapped in paper.)
This gave him an idea for a practical use for microwaves.
About twenty years later, the first microwave ovens were sold.

Disco Ball suits?

[garlicbready]

Does this mean we're going to start seeing the enemy in disco balls suits, with dark goggles?
well at least the terrorists should be easy to spot now

Plasma

[Kuvter]

I accept our new found plasma overloads.

Now that LCDs are taking over TVs we've got to use plasma for something else. What's next LCDs as weapons?

Dune

[Anonymous Coward]

Just be careful when using it in the desert or it might call a few sand worms

or

a nuclear explosion might be caused when firing at them with microwave guns

This is gonna sound silly

[rantingkitten]

But I'm reminded of John Titor here. You know, the guy who was posting on Usenet saying he was from the future? Bollocks, I'm sure, but he did have some interesting things to say, and one of them was something to the effect (I don't have the quote in front of me): "Pay attention when the government starts talking about non-lethal weapons to use against the enemy. When they start talking about that, the enemy they're talking about YOU. You don't really think they're going into hostile territory under RPG fire and jumping out of a helicopter with these 'non lethal' toys, do you?"

And, well, I had to admit there was a point there. Maybe we should find it disturbing that so much research is being put into this kind of thing.

al-Taqiyya

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't see a way out until we shake out of our lethergy and understand that they want us all dead or converted to Islam. Anything else is al-Taqiyya. So, then you seem to be blanketing all Muslims as Shia? It seems to me that the great majority Sunni have a different interpretation of al-Taqiyaa. Of course, I don't pretend you have the intellectual integrity to see the difference is as clear as day when your goal is lie and misrepresent your own desire to rid the world of Islam.

Re:al-Taqiyya

[BgJonson79]

He didn't say all Muslims, he said "they" referring to the small, vocal, violent minority who seem to be the main perpetrators of the stereotype.

There are what, 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world? And what, a few thousand seem to be a PITA? That's a fairly good ratio.

Of only that many people who THINK they're Christian were a PITA.

Re:al-Taqiyya

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Reread that Wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
The idea behind al-Taqiyya is, many radical Muslims pretend to be moderates or non-Muslims to protect themselves from persecution. Some suspect Koran support for this idea.
The difficulty with this idea is, it makes it difficult to impossible to be sure that any given person is a moderate Muslim. If there's no smoke, maybe the fire is carefully hidden. If you start thinking that way, the War on Islam seems natural.
I suspect that the War on Islam, should we attempt to fight it, is unconstitutional: separation of church and state does include mosques. It might also start a bad precedent.

Re:al-Taqiyya

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea behind al-Taqiyya is, many radical Muslims pretend to be moderates or non-Muslims to protect themselves from persecution. Some suspect Koran support for this idea. The difficulty with this idea is, it makes it difficult to impossible to be sure that any given person is a moderate Muslim. If there's no smoke, maybe the fire is carefully hidden. If you start thinking that way, the War on Islam seems natural.

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

Is it environmentally friendly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, that's important right now for marketing, like not using lead in your bullets because it's bad for people and so on

I don't think this will sell, though, because you end up with pesky survivors that can later tell just what you've been up to and rip the carpet from underneath your global psyops propaganda. Unless, of course, you go for established trends, ignore any international agreement and pretense and expand Gitmo.

Defensive?

[robably]

a ball of plasma with an intense laser pulse, and then a supersonic shockwave within the plasma using another pulse.

This must be the military definition of "defensive", the definition that includes "killing and maiming your enemy".

Re:Defensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be the military definition of "defensive", the definition that includes "killing and maiming your enemy".

Well, sure! After all, your enemy can't hurt you after being maimed and killed. ;)

One little problem...

[The Fun Guy]

The problem is the same problem you always have with electrical energy based (as opposed to kinetic energy based) weaponry:

PASS will use a solid-state laser, which only needs a supply of electricity, but the engineering challenges are still significant, says Braun.

"The biggest problems with mobile laser systems in the field are the power supply concerns, overall size of the laser and optics, and the tolerance for those optics to endure rapid changes in temperature, airborne particulate and the kinds of vibrations a military platform imparts on its load." Says Braun.

Once they can invent the same kind of batteries that power a light saber, these will be practical.

Re:One little problem...

[wilec]

Fuel Cells. Of course a Mr Fusion would be nice but in the mean time fuel cells, then next nano process fuel cells are the most likely critters. Possibly even more promising near future source for a better power-to-weight ratio would be mini turbine powered generators. Of course for less portable applications conventional CAT gensets and capacitor banks might work pretty well.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

UFO Defense

[Jesus_666]

We've got the laser rifles, now all we need is a base, two Interceptors, a Skyranger and funding on par with that of a second-rate pop band.

The aliens will never stand a chance.

Re:UFO Defense

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Which second-rate pop band? The Dave Clark Five? 98 Degrees? Hanson? Grand Funk Railroad? Strawberry Alarm Clock? Cliff Richard and the Shadows?

Re:UFO Defense

[Jesus_666]

Actually, they probably all received more money from their respective labels than X-Com ever got from the nations of the world. At least X-Com didn't have to pay it back...


Come to think of it, Sony making a secret partnership with the aliens would explain a lot of things.

Re:UFO Defense

[mink]

If Sony is dealing with the aliens, that means we are in X-COM: Apocalypse territory. We need to abandon all ground based transport. Too many brave soldiers have been lost, not because the armored transport they were in took a hit, but because the aliens missed and took out the road beneath them.

The sniper guns

[Anonymous Coward]

in C&C renegade didnt make a sound, and could bring down helicopters and tanks =D

If i shoot someone with these, will it make the same *boink* sound like in the game?

UT2004

[Anonymous Coward]

These sound a lot like a low-powered version of Unreal Tournament's Plasma Rifle...

Commas...

[zx2c4]

A simple comma change from: 'The company has also pitched a portable laser rifle, which would be lethal, to the US Army.' to 'The company has also pitched a portable laser rifle, which would be lethal to the US Army.'

Mod parent up

[hedwards]

I have no idea why you got modded down.

But yeah, I got the units incorrect. It should have been more like 1.8 s * 10 m/s or ~18m as an estimate. But as for specifics, it would be more than that because nobody in their right mind would try to hit a target a mile away with a m16. More likely they would use something with a larger bullet such as an M40.

Lower muzzle velocity, but better range. Even if it does fall even more quickly.

don't you mean disorientatify?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is getting to you people. the word is "disorient".

Re:Defensive? see Gatling guns

[wilec]

It is defensive in the same way Gatling and Mini-guns are. That is the damn thing and its ammo or in this case its power source will be too heavy to be portable enough for effective use as a non mechanized ie: infantry assault weapon. Of course mount the critter on a rolling, floating or flying platform and it makes a pretty good offensive weapon as well. However it is well founded classical military logic that the infantry is the root of any offensive action. All other weapons systems are seen as defensive support for the infantry, even those like tanks or air power that are used to "soften" up the enemy first.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

^^ Lightning rod idea. Mod Parent Up

[silverdirk]

see title

Re:Defensive? see Gatling guns

[robably]

"Defensive weapon" is an oxymoron. All weapons are offensive by definition. You may defend yourself by using a weapon, but you would be defending yourself by attacking back - it doesn't make the weapon defensive, and it doesn't change the fact that you are actively using it to hurt or kill, as opposed to something passively protecting you like a wall or a moat. Arguing that a weapon is defensive because it is heavy is disingenuous - plenty of things are difficult to do but it doesn't stop them being what they are.

A Beeg Lazr Wepon

[Grindalf]

Meester Presiden, Unless you pay me 8 Bergillion USD by sundown....

Re:Defensive? see Gatling guns

[wilec]

""Defensive weapon" is an oxymoron. All weapons are offensive by definition. You may defend yourself by using a weapon, but you would be defending yourself by attacking back - it doesn't make the weapon defensive, and it doesn't change the fact that you are actively using it to hurt or kill, as opposed to something passively protecting you like a wall or a moat. Arguing that a weapon is defensive because it is heavy is disingenuous - plenty of things are difficult to do but it doesn't stop them being what they are."

Look I did not make the post as a philosophical argument defending the definition. I was simply stating the most probable reason for the military to declare it as they did using classic military logic, that is by tactical/strategic definition. Military tactical strategy and the logic supporting it do not always make sense to a layman. That you can feel correct in defining it as a oxymoron or as a disingenuous statement is simply a matter of definition by perspective and/or lack of knowledge of such tactical strategy. I am not a big fan of the military industrial behemoth that in many ways threatens our republic. I am also not a fan of warfare as it is a terrible, no make that a hideous way to settle disagreements. However the logical underpinnings of the methods of military tactical strategy that have evolved over thousands of years are more than worthy of my attention.

However since you insist, my observation of whether any weapon is defensive or offensive can be dependent on attributes of the weapon and/or relative to the incident of its use. There are static defenses like moats, walls, armor plating or anti ballistic missiles then there are active defenses like archers and tubs of hot oil atop the walls, crocodiles and snakes in the moats, large caliber stationary automatic firearms or retaliatory banks of second strike ballistic missiles. Even such can be muddied up by the intent of use. For instance anti ballistic missiles deployed to destroy only offensive ballistic missiles are viewed by many as part of an offensive strategy themselves as they could be used in strategic ways to support survivability of first and second strike offensive missiles and other strategic holdings, thus they are seen to destabilize parity in ballistic missile holdings. I personally wish there were no such thing as a ballistic missiles, but I could click my heels together for eternity and they would still exist. I can wish for the end to warfare, I can even be active in opposing unnecessary acts of violence, which BTW I am, more so than most. However I am at my root a objective realist, thus I realize that such will be with us for far past my lifetime. I also realize that sometimes though rarely, fighting will be the only acceptable choice.

In the end run if someone kicks my door in and attacks me with whatever, the fact that I shoot them dead with 12 ga shotgun is a defensive act regardless of how you personally wish to define the shotgun. I personally own mine just for such a purpose and no other, as believe it or not I am too soft hearted to hunt for sport and would rather buy my meat packaged these days.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew