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.'"
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.
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.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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!
I don't respond to AC's.
... just what we need to win the War on Terror. A truly worthwhile project. Really makes you feel good about paying taxes.
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.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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.
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.
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.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate