Boeing 12,000lb Chemical Laser Set to Fry Targets

coondoggie writes "Boeing this week completed work on and installed a 12,000-pound chemical laser in a C-130H aircraft. Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) which is being developed for the Department of Defense, will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations."

Comments

Cool but...

[Virtual_Raider]

I wonder what the peaceful applications of this could be? It bothers me that so much money is spent on military technology having so many other issues that could be addressed. I'm guessing that soldering might be one good use, with a scaled down model but can't think of much else at the moment. On the other hand if they are going to research more ways to destroy stuff I'd like to see a true laser hand pistol...

Oh, I almost forgot the meme: Sharks!

Re:Cool but...

[Hal_Porter]

Well, that's just dandy if you're an American. But if you lived in Taiwan, South Korea or Israel, or Japan then America having the ability to shoot down ICBMs might come in handy.

Because at the moment all those countries are menaced by a neighbour who is kept in check largely by the US. And all those neighbours either have or are very close to having ICBMs. And some of them are maybe crazy enough to threaten the US with those ICBMS or their neighbours. Now if the US can shoot them down there's much less incentive for them to do that. So missile defense is actually a geopolitical stabiliser.

Come to think of it, even if you're in America it's far better that America is far ahead of any conceivable rival, because that deters them from a sprint to parity and then a Pearl Harbour style attack on the US or even engaging in brinksmanship and messing it up so that they end up swapping ICBMs with the US. Which would be far more expensive than current US defense policy, even ignoring the fact that millions of innocent people would die, many of them Americans.

Most of these regimes seem to engage in brinksmanship with the US all the time. It seems likely that they view ICBMs as a tool to strengthen their hand, rather than just a defense to hunker down behind. And most of them have little or no understanding of US politics, so it's quite likely that they would miscalculate and get into a war with the US even if it were to make concessions to them. Arguably starting to make concessions to appease them would simply embolden then and make them start to demand things which the US cannot concede.

So if I were you I'd vote to keep spending on defense. Come to think of it, the good old US military industrial complex will probably managed to get the dollars somehow regardless of how you vote.

Re:Cool but...

[moosesocks]

Well, that's just dandy if you're an American. But if you lived in Taiwan, South Korea or Israel, or Japan then America having the ability to shoot down ICBMs might come in handy.

No. It wouldn't. All of those countries live right next door to their enemies. An ICBM would hardly be necessary to inflict devastating damage upon any of them.

North Korea has enough conventional artillery pointed at South Korea to level Seoul in a manner of minutes (and vice versa). China has a big enough army to march over Taiwan and Japan simultaneously, and would very likely win by sheer numbers alone without much of a fight.

And attacking Israel is simply a bad idea. The response provoked by a nuclear attack upon Israel would be a hundred times more severe than the initial attack.

Re:Cool but...

[KDR_11k]

Anti-nukes are not a stabilizer, they destroy the doctrine of MAD by allowing one side to use a nuclear strike without fear of retaliation. The only logical response for a country with nukes but no antinukes is to launch the nukes NOW and eliminate the antinuke country before it turns into a onesided nuclear war. Once both sides have antinukes the nuclear threat is neutralized and a conventional war becomes much more likely since neither country will face the risk of being annihilated by a nuclear strike. Without nukes the cold war wouldn't have stayed cold, nukes just make sure there is no possible gain in a war.

Also wasn't the biggest problem with antinukes to actually target the warheads? A modern ICBM doesn't come down in one piece, there's a crapton of warheads, decoys and other debries up there and missing one warhead means the attack is successful.

Re:Cool but...

[jac89]

The problem with China invading Taiwan and Japan is that the Chinese navy has far from the capabilities to move its huge army across to those island nations.

Little damage

[Anonymous Coward]

And by 'little collateral damage', they mean only the little 'eyeball bits' of people within a couple of hundred yards who happen to be looking at the target when it is hit (unless DoD have promised to only target unshiny bad guys).

Re:Little damage

[physicsphairy]

How many people are liable to be staring at, say, a SAM site, in the middle of the night? For that matter, how many times will this have to be used before everyone knows not too? Not to mention that it would be fairly simple and cheap to airdrop safety glasses designed to filter on the laser's wavelength.

At least laser-rebound is nice enough to be benign when you are out of sight. Shrapnel will take a parabolic arc which hops over any intermediary buildings to pop you on the head.

Not to mention that rules for angle of incidence/reflection mean that a laser shot straight down on a tall structure is unlikely to cause problems for anyone else.

Anyway, say this takes fifteen years to become standard technology; by then, repairing retinas may be easy as pie, but money says that being blast-incinerary radius of a bomb will still be fairly lethal.

Re:So, How do you attach it to the shark?

[Jugalator]

People really do get the reference of sharks with laser beams without all the quotage AND the link.

Re:Targetting

[weighn]

Little or no collateral damage? Depends on the accuracy really. I reckon that GE, Boeing, or whoever happens to be marketing these less-than lethal weapons goes light on accuracy and draws attention more to the style associated with having such items. You know, like in marketing, but concerning less-than lethal weapons.

Remember, it ain't the laser that kills you, its the sudden stop as you hit the dirt beneath what was once the building you were standing on.

Lasered to death

[Frogbert]

Isn't being lasered to death pretty much being burnt alive?

How is this weapon even legal?

Where did all the star wars nerds go?

[Evets]

73 comments and NO mention of the death star?!?

No collateral damage? Umm ..

[cheros]

The statement that there will be little or no collateral damage seems to originate from an unproven premise that they can aim the thing properly in the first place.

It flies. It flies slowly (it's not a fighter plane). It flies nearby (range is up to 20km, and let's hope the adversaries don't have any smoke grenades handy). Yet aim is 100% accurate?

"No collateral damage" - from the club with the two dog film (Barney and Blair)..

Re:Hmm.

[jcr]

More like, it becomes possible to destroy a missile launcher even when the Hamassholes have hidden them among their own civilians.

-jcr

I'm guessing you're American

[Namarrgon]

OK, thanks for your opinion and all. But I'd rather hear from people who actually live in Taiwan, South Korea or Israel, or Japan. I'd be very interested to hear how many share your opinion.

I don't doubt some do, but I can certainly imagine that people who don't have quite the same level of trust in America (given their rhetoric and actions over the last few years) might feel somewhat more comfortable if America could actually be held accountable for their actions, rather than just having to hope their current president (and advisers) have more than just their own best interests at heart this year.

Military Budget *isn't* the problem.

[Shivetya]

We spend approximately 21% of our budget on National Defense. Nearly half the budget is lost to entitlements.

Now where would *I* get all the money to spend on good projects? Earmarks buried in the various bills that pass Congress. There were over 2000 (two thousand) earmarks in the Defense budget alone. This is money being spent by Congress, not the DOD, but charged as part of the defense budget. How many monunments (read research centers, bridges, etc) do we need named for LIVING members of Congress?

We spend an amazing amount on education but efforts to improve it are thwarted by Teacher Union's, Special Interest Groups, and Politicians. If you want to improve education don't look to Washington, get involved at the local level. You will see the wall first hand.

Improved Infrastucture? Look, we already budget more than enough to fix and maintain what we have. The problem is that Congress takes the money allocated and redirects it to new projects. You then have government incompetence at the state level as well. Ever wonder why a certain bridge disaster disappeared from the news so quickly? Because it was exposing the system that is failing. You cannot just throw more money at a failing system and expect good results. If that were the case we would have best schools and roads in the world!

Lets hit your next category. Medical research. The private sector is doing amazing things in this area - why? Because by not taking Federal money for all lines of research they are left with options they would lose otherwise. Getting the Feds involved handcuffs researchers in more ways than you can count. Medical research is big money, the risks are great but the rewards are great. Keeping people living longer means more money for the companies that can provide it. The government has no interest in you living longer as you cost them more money when you do. (remember that entitlement section of the budget? Nearly half directly spent there)

New power alternatives. We already have seen where Congress is going. Ethanol. Why? The FARM industry. Earmarks out the wahzoo for a fix that may cause more problems than it solves. Less food for the world and more pollutants of a different sort. Wind farms you say? Sure, just don't put them in some Congressman's backyard! Nuclear? No member of Congress has the willpower to stand behind this industry. Simply put it does not get them votes. The money is high and tied too much to a small area. Whereas ethanol allows for tax money to be spread around garnishing lots of votes!

Yes the military spends a lot of money. Yes a lot is wasted. However that same military is the reason why we can bitch about the state of our country and the world with near impunity. We don't have to worry about tanks rolling over our demonstrations, we don't have to worry about family members being disappeared overnight because a relative spoke out in university, and we don't go to the market worried about some whacko with a bomb on his chest.

My sole criteria for the next election is, who will cut the BUDGET the most. The taking from Americans is extreme. Bush was anything but a conservative, having grown the government to sizes beyond reason. There is no reason to have so many people dependant on the government to survive. By creating such a situation we doom the future generations. Where will be the innovations and great strides in society when its people don't have to do so as someone else will foot the bill and tuck them in?

Getting the government off our backs is the first step to having a great country. Our government should be here to serve us, not indenture us.

Re:Military Budget *isn't* the problem.

[billcopc]

However that same military is the reason why we can bitch about the state of our country and the world with near impunity

I don't think many Americans are worried about being invaded by foreign armies. They're mostly worried about being invaded by their own government.

Bush may have killed a bunch of arabs, but he killed a ton of Americans too. The ones that lived, he made their lives just a little more miserable every few months. Keep going with this government, and soon it's the Americans that will seek political refuge abroad.

Re:Hmm.

[MrNougat]

Real Genius > Austin Powers

such a democracy--we should be so lucky

[misanthrope101]

Iraq was a "socialist state" with a very good education and public health system. Minority rights, women's rights, and freedom of religion was tolerated, at least in comparison to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Middle Eastern dictatorships with which we are still allied. Saddam was brutal and no doubt corrupt, but he was a bulwark against religious extremism, a counterweight against Saudi Wahaabi fanatics.

Iraq only became a shithole after the UN sanctions, and then a hellhole after our invasion. The USA has historically had no problem with nations that were politically repressive, even brutal (Indonesia, anyone? Saudi Arabia? UAE?) as long as they did business with US companies, allowing us to profit from their brutality. I agree that Saddam was a dictator, but saying they have us to "thank" for "democracy" is a bit cheeky. Can they thank us for arming him, or for cutting off medical supplies? How about selling him components for chemical weapons in the 80s?

As for Iraq being a democracy, stop acting as if they have self-determination. Over 150K troops and mercenaries on your soil, enjoying complete immunity from Iraqi law, with the ability to shoot you at will, isn't what I'd call a democracy. Would you favor letting the Iraqis vote next week on whether US military members and mercenaries should be subject to Iraqi law? Would you consider the referendum binding? If not, they aren't much of a soverign nation, are they?

No need for 12000lb lasers to stop looting scum

[mi]

Notice how it all became the craze after the Paris riots?

No, it did not. US had its own share of rioting scum — Los Angeles in 1992, Seattle in 1999...

Wherever the scum riots, they are easily suppressed by real determination (which the mayors of the cities listed evidently lacked). When the Los Angeles scum moved to trash another neighborhood, for example, they were stopped by armed citizens (thank you, Second Amendment!), and, eventually, by police and National Guard...

You don't need a flying super-laser to suppress a riot.

Face it, your politicians are scared shitless of you.

If true, that's a very good thing. But it has nothing to do with maintaining our military's edge against adversaries.

Re:Hmm.

[Shakrai]

Real Genius > Austin Powers

Pretty much anything > Austin Powers. Seriously. I can't be the only person around here that hated those movies. Can I?

Re:typical military-industrial scenario once again

[geekoid]

Good luck hitting an object moving a supersonic speeds.

"And call me an idealist, but isn't it more likely we'd get the natives cooperation a whole lot easier and cheaper if we dropped like food and medicine and maybe a well-drilling kit?"

we've tried that in several countries. Very often people are killed by local warlords, who then confiscate the material.