Slashdot Mirror
Truck-Mounted Laser Guns
bl8n8r writes "Boeing has announced a contract with the US Army to develop laser cannons that are to be mounted atop 20-ton trucks for the purpose of shooting down incoming artillery, rockets, mortars, or bombs. The High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator project actually shoots stuff instead of just painting a mark on a target for other armament to hit."
I wonder how much power it takes to run and if it can target multiple incoming threats at once. It would be awesome if it could take on say 5 or 8 incoming mortars at the same time. Even better would be knocking out a barrage of RPG's. I guess the final implementation would be zapping bullets out of thin air which at that point you'd have a "shield" like in sci-fi. Military tech amazes me.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Pro: Well-paid engineers and scientists are kept in the U.S. at work on neat toy, keeping valuable talent working on a difficult problem.
Con: Obscenely-paid CEOs who came up with idea to push this useless weapon get a huge payoff, keeping destructive leeches working on the simple problem of continuing corrupt government.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Seriously, WTF?
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
The adult in me says ... Guns of destruction are bad.
No, that's the adolescent in you that says that. It wants to stop killing, hurting, and threatening, and goes after a tool that is capable of such things.
But once you've had enough time and thought to understand the unintended consequences of the simple "solution" - disarming the law-abiding - you'll reach the adult understanding that self-defense requires force, and that a credible threat of retaliatory force produces a net reduction in killing, hurting, and threatening.
"Mutual Assured Destruction" works at both the wholesale level (having prevented an all-out nuclear war for over half a century now) and the retail level (convincing crooks they want to leave you alone and either go after an easier victim or find a new line of work.)
Second-order effects often swamp first-order effects, producing (initially) counter-intuitive results. Part of growing up is learning which situations are like that, and what the useful counter-intuitive solutions are. (To people with less experience this is often mistaken for wisdom, cynicism, or evil.)
Unfortunately there is a significant fraction of the population that either never DOES grow up or never learns some important lessons about rare, but deadly, situations.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just like witches at black masses ...
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
(Black Sabbath)
False dichotomy. You can rejoice at some aspect of a war (such as fewer deaths), while still looking for "a better way".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Guns that stop bullets good.
Hey I have no problem with defensive systems like this.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
By being a country that has signed the Geneva convention, like the US, Afghanistand and Iraq.
Pack a load of 10 shells, 9 chaff, 1 HE.
First one is intercepted halfway to the laser truck, explodes, deploys chaff on detonation.
Second one is intercepted halfway between previous interception, and laser truck, because truck's radar was impaired by chaff, second one explodes, deploys chaff on detonation, closer to truck.
So you've reduced your rate of fire by 90%, giving me plenty of time to locate, target and destroy your artillery before you can significantly damage my troops. Makes sense.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Technically, wouldn't that be counter-countermeasures? Sorry to pick nits.
Seriously though, chaff is usually just a bunch tin foil and other highly reflective materials. None of which would likely stay in the air long enough to make that much difference. Unless you have a lot of mortars or whatever, you might not have a fast enough rate of fire.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
> If your ashamed to be an American, then America is ashamed to have shed blood for your freedom...nuff said.
Well, I personally don't think Americans fought and died so that we could torture people, or that you speak for the whole country. But that's just me.
And don't give me any flag waving to say that these kinds of gross national failures happen elsewhere or are somehow acceptable. I flew what was probably the biggest damn flag in the state for a good long time.
I don't feel like flying it any more because of all the "patriots" who think that saying "This is the best damn country in the world!" is something you use to excuse problems instead of a reason to acknowledge, fix and rise above them! Dammit, you don't fix things by stuffing your head up your ass! The only way you can NOT feel shame is if you have no damn pride in your country to begin with!
Also, behaving in a manner contrary to the Geneva Convention releases signatory countries from the requirement that *they* abide by it in conflicts with you. So its basically in everyone's best interest to treat it as law.
Also also, not torturing people is awesome. It should be done for its own sake.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
You're wrong. From Article 2, Chapter 1, of the 1st Geneva Convention of 1949:
Note that you're bound to respect the Convention if your opponent is a signatory, OR if your opponent is not a signatory, but chooses to follow the Convention anyway.
Note further that most, if not all, of the instances of the USA violating the Geneva Convention in the current troubles are violations of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Additional Protocols of the Convention, none of which the USA are signatory to (which means they're not bound by them).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"