Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing 12,000lb Chemical Laser Set to Fry Targets

Posted by samzenpus on from the houseful-of-popcorn dept.

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."

99 of 625 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But, can you use it to make popcorn?

    1. Re:Hmm. by Yoozer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean, "will it fit on a frickin' shark?"

    2. Re:Hmm. by evanbd · · Score: 4, Funny

      You misunderstand. C-130H is the designation for the new, genetically engineered, giant sharks.

    3. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hate to disappoint you but an Aegis cruiser doesn't use a 'sweeping' radar. It uses the far more advanced AN/SPY-1 system. Rather than looking like a mesh antenna, it looks hexagonal pads. There's no way even a complete idiot could confuse them so the story is entirely made up.

    4. Re:Hmm. by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Darn, someone beat me to a Real Genius reference. One of the best geek movies, up there with Sneakers.

    5. Re:Hmm. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think of it as a recoilless cannon. At 12000 lbs you could probably mount a lot of firepower on the plane instead.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Hmm. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Hmm. by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Funny
      Are they planning to use a 12000lb chemical laser for crowd control?



      "Crowd ? What crowd, sir ?"

    8. Re:Hmm. by bocaJWho · · Score: 2

      It's a space station!

    9. Re:Hmm. by MrNougat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Real Genius > Austin Powers

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    10. Re:Hmm. by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, asshole. Way to ruin a perfectly good and entertaining story with facts. Seriously, who raised you? I wanna know, so I know who to blame for all the crying children who no longer believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and good war stories. You make me sick. Way to not support the troops, commie!

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    11. Re:Hmm. by pryoplasm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't that great. Assuming widespread deployment of course, our military won't really have any excuse for killing large numbers of civilians in a war zone.
      This is not a large number of civillians. For instance, there are still Iraqi civillians, meaning we fell short of genocide
      Our military never should have gotten a free pass on this to begin with, but with this technology they should get even more scrutiny.
      No military has a free pass on civillian casualties. The laws of war, or the law of armed conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war/
      As a society that feels we need the occasional war, we need to take a hard line on "collateral damage." We need to have target metrics for acceptable levels of collateral damage and we need to hold our military leaders accountable for exceeding them.
      Americans and the Brittish have done worse in the past, along with several other countries throughout history. Might I remind you of the firebombing of Dresden in World War II
      Do you think [insert number of civilians your favorite study thinks got killed by us in Iraq] is acceptable? Why? How about ten times that amount? Certainly there is some number that would make you feel nauseous and fearful that this was all being done in your name?
      No. No amount of civillian deaths is acceptable. It is the responsibility of the people and the leaders to protect their people. Were there actions the Iraqis in charge could have taken in order to prevent this? Yes, there were ultimatums and sanctions in place before the country was invaded. There was more process to it than just, well, its Tuesday so lets invade....*throws a dart on a map* ....Uzbekistan
      We must hold our military accountable, and if this laser makes it so much easier for us to only hit the enemy, then the number of civilians killed in future wars sure as hell better be a lot lower than we're seeing now.
      Military members are held responsible. If you personally know of a Law of War violation, I highly suggest you report it.

      --
      Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
    12. Re:Hmm. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)

      NICE quote.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    13. Re:Hmm. by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Next time, use smilies to help mods who are sarcasm-impared. ;)

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    14. Re:Hmm. by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess so. Or, perhaps I'm just not funny...that could be it, too. ;)

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    15. Re:Hmm. by encoderer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I think you'd have more of a point if so many of this civies weren't killed by their countrymen.

      And yes, I know that we "started it." But that's a little irrelevent.

      I mean, MANY innocent civies have been killed by Saddam and his regime and there's no reason to think that was going to stop. And, no matter what, they day was approaching when Saddam relinquished power. Whether he died, was overthrown in a coup, was just too frail, whatever, eventually (and probably measured in years and not decades) he would've been out of the picture and a quick look at the political climate there should convince anyone that it wouldn't exactly be a peaceful transfer of power.

      There's also something to be said about being complicit and complacent. Just because many of these civilians weren't taking up arms against us, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't at a future time. And even more important, how many of them kept their mouths shut about neighbors and family members who WERE actively fighting us? How many of them were aiding and abetting the insurgents? And for those that weren't actively aiding insurgents, why weren't they actively opposing them?

      So, really, it's very hard to say how many "innocent civies" were killed. It's hard to get a reliable number of deaths to begin with. But even once you do, you must subtract those that would've died anyway, and then subtract those that were killed by insurgents and not by the Coalition, and then subtract those that were complicit and complacent in the insurgency.

    16. Re:Hmm. by encoderer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do want to just go "on the record" and say that I'm 100% against the Iraq war and I was from day one. I'm probably the most enthuiastic democrat you've ever met. Four years ago I quit my comfy job sitting in my aeron writing software to drive to New Hampshire and work for the Dean for America web team. It was hellish hours and a pittance of a salary but also, hands-down, the very best thing I've ever done.

      I'm not defending Bush or the military. I'm just defending truth. The anti-war movement shouldn't try to use propaganda about how many innocents were killed. We sneer at Bush for HIS propaganda. We should be above that.

    17. Re:Hmm. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Hmm. by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I mean, MANY innocent civies have been killed by Saddam and his regime and there's no reason to think that was going to stop. ... a quick look at the political climate there should convince anyone that it wouldn't exactly be a peaceful transfer of power."

      And which leads us to the question: so what? What you've said could apply to any of a dozen or more nation-states throughout Africa and the rest of the world. But for some reason we're not engaged in a war defending the citizenry in any of those other countries...

      You've apparently drank the Bush Kool-Aid. First, we needed to invade Iraq because of presumed links to Al-Qaeda (false), then it was their nuclear ambitions and biologcal weapons programs (none), and then finally it came down to the fact that Saddam was a "bad" man and we needed to "protect" his people and bring the burning touch of democracy to them. With capitalism coming along for the ride.

      Obtaining the rights to new oil blocks and clearing the way to restructing Iraq's Production Sharing Contracts to benefit US-based corporations had nothing to do with it, of course. Nor did the fact that we were in a slump and a nice little war always has a way of fueling the economy, while incidentally providing nice profits for those involved. Or the fact that Bush felt he needed to prove his manhood and the power of the US to others in the region, in the process accomplishing what his father failed to do in a previous little war.

      Shock and awe, indeed.

      A previous little war, one might also mention, that was also done in a noble effort to protect the nation of Kuwait from outside aggression. While also safeguarding a few oil fields, refineries, ports, and so on. Hardly worth mentioning, really.

      Or to translate: It's the oil, stupid.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    19. Re:Hmm. by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Nope your not. I hate them with a passion."

      quoth Lord Apathy. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  2. Cool but... by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    --
    +Raider of the lost BBS
    1. Re:Cool but... by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It bothers me that so much money is spent on military technology having so many other issues that could be addressed.

      This is why my sole criterion for voting in the next election is: who will cut the military budget the most?

      You can buy a *lot* with $500 billion a year, or even 20% of $500 billion a year. Tax cuts, medical research, a massive shift away from fossil fuels ($100 billion buys a *lot* of nuclear plants), education, improved infrastructure, Third World aid, whatever. We can have the debate about *which* useful thing to do with the money, but, for fuck's sake, do *something* useful with it other than piss it down the hole of the Pentagon.

    2. Re:Cool but... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Cool but... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you're conflating is and ought. He is just being pragmatic. You are just burying your head in the sand and hoping for a magical land of pixies where the US can dismantle it's weapons and send the world flowers and everyone will suddenly get along just fine. Who wouldn't want that? I know i would. Trouble is, it ain't gonna happen like that. So in the mean time the least bloody solution is for the americans to keep (albeit hamfistedly) casting a shadow over all the upstart dictatorships. That's the difference between is and ought.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    4. Re:Cool but... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Cool but... by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Cool but... by jac89 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Cool but... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      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. Yeah but if you're China, North Korea or Iran then your best idea is to get the US to abandon your chosen victim. And the best way to do that is to threaten the US directly. My argument is that if the US wants to have a moral foreign policy of protecting small democracies from large dictatorships they need to neutralise China's nukes.

      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. Well if the US wasn't protecting Taiwan they would likely have tried. In fact Clinton had to send aircraft carriers to show that they US was still protecting Taiwan. But numbers aren't everything - big dictatorships frequently lose wars against small democracies due to overconfidence and bad planning.

      Japan is a tougher target than most people realise. They have 40-100 tonnes of plutonium and a vast industial base. If the US abandoned them, they could build enough nukes to level China quite quickly.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Cool but... by Peaquod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ballistic missile interceptors don't quite undermine MAD, for the key reason you state - you only need one warhead to get through to accomplish a potentially devastating attack. There are literally tens of thousands of nuclear armed ICBMs in the world, and on the order of 100 ballistic missile interceptors. You do the math. They are intended to defend against small salvos from rogue states - by no means do they mitigate the threat of nuclear strike from a country like Russia or China.

    9. Re:Cool but... by Alioth · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Systems like this target the weapon in its boost phase. Hopefully, the wreckage of the missile + warheads simply falls back onto the territory of whoever tried to launch them too.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    10. Re:Cool but... by mikeee · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a minor technical problem with marching that army from China to Taiwan or Japan...

      China's navy is probably a match for Taiwan's; Japan's is clearly superior, and the US Navy is on a whole other scale.

    11. Re:Cool but... by geobeck · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      That's why the Chinese Olympic swimming team was disqualified in 2004 for trying to compete with cheap AK-47 knockoffs slung on their backs.




      Made 'ya Google!

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    12. Re:Cool but... by Xentor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the little sandpit kid wouldn't give us his lunch money, so we had to beat him up and take it.

      After all, we wouldn't want all of the other tough guys to think we were all talk and no action.

      I know that sounds like something a bully would do, but this is -completely- different... No, really it is... Want to argue about it? Let's take this outside...

      --
      "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
  3. Little damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Little damage by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
  4. Targetting by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 4, Funny

    Little or no collateral damage? Depends on the accuracy really.

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:Targetting by weighn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  5. An easier option. by supersnail · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they relly want to destroy thing on hte ground why dont they enclose some high explosives in a steel container with a fuse set to go off when it hits an object. They could then drop this from the plane.

    just an idea.

    --
    Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
    1. Re:An easier option. by Chainsaw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alright, what do you prefer: a sniper taking out some bastard holding a gun to your presidents head, or throwing in a ton of explosives in a container (more known as a "bomb") and wiping out the entire administration?

      Hey, if it's Bush we're talking about, I'm all for the second solution.

      --
      War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
    2. Re:An easier option. by Entropius · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think Congress should grow a spine and, if Bush continues to insist on staying in Iraq and vetoing stem-cell research funding and such, Congress should just cut funding for the Secret Service and let nature take its course.

      Cheney could be dealt with very easily -- just sneak up behind him and say "Boo!"

  6. I 3 Real genius by Hellbuny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Laslo: I figure you've increased the power output to six megawatts?
    Chris: Yeah, about that.
    Laslo: Well what would you use that for?
    Ick: Making Swiss cheese?
    Mitch: The applications are unlimited.
    Laslo: No. With the fuel you've come up with the beam would last for what...15 seconds. Well what good is that?
    Chris: Oh Laslo. That doesn't matter. I respect you but I graduated.
    Mitch: Yeah, let the engineers figure out a use for it. That's not our concern.
    Laslo: Maybe somebody already has a use for it. One for which it is specifically designed.
    Jordan: You mean Dr. Hathaway had something in mind all along?
    Laslo: Look at the facts! Very high powered, portable, limited firing power, unlimited range. (Chris stops smiling.) All's you'd need is a tracking system, and a large spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.
    (Mitch glances at Chris.)
    Chris: This is not good.

    --

    meep!
  7. Re:So, How do you attach it to the shark? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  8. This will be useless... by kylehase · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...unless we can bring down their shields. All forces target the shield generators!

    --
    You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
  9. Alright by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are one step closer to having an X wing
    A C-130H might not have the sleek looks but it's a step in the right direction.

    My next question is ....what does it sound like...movies always told us that laser will make cool sounds when fired. I vote it makes that 'Ptsui!' sound.

  10. Re:You'd think... by deft · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You'd think... they'd go after Wal*Marts first. Or Target Frys."

    I think you have that backwards... they'd fry targets first.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  11. Questions by mach1980 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) How do they solve the problem with Bremsstrahlung?

    2) Anyone got the rated power of that laser-beast? I guess they put 2-4kWh into that 5 second burst which leaves it at 1.4 - 2.8 MW. Which is a helluva lot more than the previous 20kW reported http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1221397

    --
    Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
    1. Re:Questions by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
      1) How do they solve the problem with Bremsstrahlung?

      What problem ?

      Bremsstrahlung occurrs when electrons are decelerated. Does this laser use some kind of electron accelerator ?

    2. Re:Questions by trip11 · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) How do they solve the problem with Bremsstrahlung?

      What problem ?

      Bremsstrahlung occurrs when electrons are decelerated. Does this laser use some kind of electron accelerator ?

      But if a photon has more than a few MeV of energy it can split to an electron-positron pair which can brem, throwing off more photons which will split etc etc. Until the individual bits run out of the energy needed to form more particles. In other words, EM showering. However this requires VERY high energy photons (gamma rays). My understanding was that a laser like this achieves it's power by using lots of photons (in the IR range), so it won't have a problem with Bremsstrahlung at all. Thermal blooming on the other hand is probably a bigger issue. As the laser heats the air, it causes the water vapor to convect which acts as a lens and defocuses the beam.

  12. Passive Defence by gringer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I presume a splash of of highly reflective metal (or metallic heat-resistant plastic) will work wonders for defence against these things.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Passive Defence by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why you should never go out without your tin-foil hat.

    2. Re:Passive Defence by jettoblack · · Score: 5, Informative

      No mirror reflects 100% of what hits it. Even if it only absorbs 0.1% of the beam, with this much energy the mirror will quickly deform or burn and its reflectivity will drop.

    3. Re:Passive Defence by Arabani · · Score: 5, Informative

      Furthermore, the output beam is infrared, which your average mirror or shiny metal isn't going to reflect. The other problem with shiny surfaces: how do you keep them shiny for long periods of time?

    4. Re:Passive Defence by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, mirrors *can* reflect 100%... of a particular wavelength. And it just so happens that lasers are monochromatic in nature.

      However, between two lasers of discrepant frequencies, you could pretty much guarantee that one of them would be effective. So defense is possible in the theoretical sense, but not the practical sense.

      --
      When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
    5. Re:Passive Defence by Sapphon · · Score: 2, Funny

      how do you keep them shiny for long periods of time? Windex?
      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
  13. Delivery vehicles by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In other news, the Chinese Government is working on ground based lasers that can shoot down C130s.

    One of the most interesting things for future military historians will be how the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, have believed in the effecitveness of action at a distance warfare. "Bomber" Harris in WW2 tried to destroy Nazi Germany by air bombing of cities. Didn't work, half bankrupted the British economy, while the Army and Navy were screaming for convoy escorts and air support. Germany still had to be fought over to end the war. (Meanwhile Hitler spent a fortune on V-weapons whose total effect for the entire war was less than two large RAF night raids.) The lessons had been learnt so well that in Vietnam the US spent a fortune bombing the jungle - then in Cambodia. There was a brief success in the first Gulf War where the fleeing Iraqis obligingly went down the same road and got bombed and shelled to pieces in a local action, so in GW2 Iraq was bombed back to the stone age, which brought the Iraqi war to an abrupt halt (not).

    So the US Government continues its development of bigger and better spears, still fantasising that one day they will develop the big one that will stop anyone, anywhere, from upsetting them. And forgetting that, no matter what firepower you put on a mobile weapons platform, it is still vulnerable to fixed weapons, and usually to small mobile weapons that cost relatively little to make and deploy.

    It's worth remembering that one of the most asymmetric military actions of WW2 was a French resistance girl who visited a German tank base on her bicycle, wandered around putting grease loaded with carborundum into track bearings, and disabled a battalion, riding off home again for lunch.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Delivery vehicles by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Bomber" Harris in WW2 tried to destroy Nazi Germany by air bombing of cities. Actually, in his autobiography, Albert Speer said of a raid on Hamburg that destroyed most of Germany's ball bearing factories "if they had kept bombing for another two days, the war would have been over". The problem with Harris is that he was trying to destroy german civillian morale which is both morally wrong and non workable. If the Allies had been targetting choke points in the German war economy it could have caused a very quick collapse. Ball bearings are a special case. The factories take a long time but are very easy to destroy because they apparently used flammable oil baths. And armoured vehicles need regular spare parts that need ball bearings. All of this information was available to the Allies, it's almost common sense.

      Personally I would have threatened to bomb Swedish ball bearing factories too, if they continued to sell to the Nazis.

      And it's very noticable that bombing gradually crippled the german war economy despite the targetting being wrong. When you read about the development of V2s for example, it's quite clear that the German economy at the end of the war was chronically short of everything, mainly because of bombed out factories and railways. Same with all of the Nazi weapons work near the end of the war.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Delivery vehicles by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      said of a raid on Hamburg that destroyed most of Germany's ball bearing factories



      And here I thought Germany's ball bearing industry was concentrated in Schweinfurt (which was bombed quite heavily for precisely this reason).



      Ball bearings are a special case. The factories take a long time but are very easy to destroy because they apparently used flammable oil baths.



      As far as I've read, the raids on the ball bearing factories were considered very successful by the Allies, because they've hit the factories and saw that the buildings had collapsed. However, making ball bearings requires heavy machinery which will survive the building collapse, so all the Germans had to do was remove the rubble and resume production.


      Then again, maybe it's a question of what type of bomb to use. An incendiary might work better on a ball bearing plant than a HE.



      And armoured vehicles need regular spare parts that need ball bearings.



      Unless you switch to roller bearings, which are more easily made and only slightly degrade the performance of the vehicle. This is what the Germans did later on.

    3. Re:Delivery vehicles by tyroneking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Excellent post my friend.

      A few weeks ago I remember hearing/reading a comment from a US policeman who bemoaned the militarisation of the US police force, a few days later I was enjoying a night out in London and saw two unarmed policemen literally brow-beating two thugs into submission - letting a potentially violent incident descend into a petty argument. In the US I guess the two thugs would have been tasered, there would have been a small riot, couple of deaths, etc.

      Good example of what's wrong with the enforcement powers our governments wield - too many weapons, too few conversations. I've never been one for total demilitarisation, but maybe it's about time we asked our governments to start keeping their dicks in their pants a bit more often.

  14. Lasered to death by Frogbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    How is this weapon even legal?

  15. Huge guns and now a laser by KillzoneNET · · Score: 2

    Oh man, now if they put this on an AC-130, it'd seriously make anyone regret having made the decision to be anywhere on the battlefield. It'd make Dr. Evil tear a bit.

  16. Re:You'd think... by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

    As they say, mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets...

  17. Re:So, How do you attach it to the shark? by Phydaux · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't remember Mandatory saying that.

  18. I'm thinking not by patio11 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Leave a white shirt out in the sun all day, and you know what you get? A hot white shirt. It's the same story on arrow versus armor that it has been for more than a thousand years: given equal technology, the arrow wins. (And the US Air Force is categorically not planning to "fight fair" when it comes to comparing technology bases. Hello, Mr. Third World Tinpot Dictator. Do your Revolutionary Guards have access to MIT's materials engineering department? No? Oh, what a pity... because their physics department works for us.)

    When in doubt, the arrow scales more-or-less linearly (bump up the juice on the laser, problem solved), the armor ceases to scale very rapidly (try adding another 9 to the string of 99.999% reflectivity index).

    I'd be much more worried, for the first few iterations of the system, of it being compromised by less-than-ideal environmental conditions (smoke, dust, smog, haze, clouds, intervening terrain in an urban situation, etc) than by enemy preparations. Besides, if the enemy has decided to put on his Armor of Laser Resistance +1, you can always just go back to Plan A and drop a really big bomb on his head.

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
  19. The Pig Farmer by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This reminds me of a story I heard when I was a student at Caltech. A Tech Physics grad got a job with a defense firm where he was assigned to design a kill verification system. The way it was supposed to work was by using a spectrometer to detect the carbon emission lines from vaporized human flesh.

    When he realized what he was doing, he quit his job to become a pig farmer.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:The Pig Farmer by HungSoLow · · Score: 2

      And he became.. Robert Pickton! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton

  20. Snake head eating the snake from the opposite side by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Electronics Frys Fry's Electronics.

    --
    God spoke to me.
  21. Re:So, How do you attach it to the shark? by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You must be new here. :)

  22. Where did all the star wars nerds go? by Evets · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  23. No collateral damage? Umm .. by cheros · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  24. Re:Sorry,I can't find it again by gnalre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right method, wrong story.

    The sabotage was in fact organised by the SOE(Special Operation Executive) and an an agent called Anthony Brookes(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Brooks). He organized the replacement of a carborundum mixture in the axles of railways flat cars which were to be used to transport a panzer division to Normandy, so bringing the entire railway network to a halt.

    Not as romantic as a french girl on a bike, but just as effective

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
  25. I'm guessing you're American by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:I'm guessing you're American by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why don't you go there and find out then? I have been there and I say most people in Taiwan and Israel. Japanese people tend to see US protection as a necessary evil, since it allows them to have a pacifist foreign policy.

      All of them have tried to get nukes in case they US ceases to support them. Taiwan was prevented by the US (so I was told when I was there), Japan has renounced nukes but built up a huge stockpile of plutonium and Israel is an undeclared nuclear power.

      Taiwanese people talked fondly of the days when US troops were stationed there 'to protect Taiwan'.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:I'm guessing you're American by Antity-H · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of them at least believe in peace and are trying to make it happen. Try this :
      http://www.israelipalestinianproject.com/

      Optimism is good for morale, cheer up!

    3. Re:I'm guessing you're American by waztub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you think of all the times helicopters sent to deal with terrorists in Gaza accidentally killed/injured civilians from collateral damage, it really makes an invention like this important. Also, remember that a large number of consumer technology started its way as military-only stuff.

    4. Re:I'm guessing you're American by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm secured by the fact that we have a tough allay in America. Although, I do believe that much of the hostility towards Israel today (not 50 years ago) is because of our close ties to the US. Were those ties to be severed, we would be more vulnerable, but we would be less threatened. Real, God-fearing Muslims (not extremists) are opposed, more than anything else, to the invasion of American culture. Israel is a vehicle for that invasion. Real, God-fearing Muslims (not extremists) want to protect their children from exposure to drugs, prostitutes, and all else that is hallmark of American media. And believe it or not, most of Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt is of the real, God-fearing Muslims that I describe. Syria and the Muslim Lebanese are a different story, however.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:I'm guessing you're American by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, so the internet started as a flexible communications channel for the military. Kevlar is being used for things like canoes. Consumers don't need 6 ton chemical lasers for their barbecue, and scientific institutions could probably have gotten these before if they needed them. Really, I'm all for military R&D because so much of it does trickle down, but I'm pretty sure this isn't going to.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    6. Re:I'm guessing you're American by geobeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you think of all the times helicopters sent to deal with terrorists in Gaza accidentally killed/injured civilians from collateral damage...

      Ironically, many saw the invention of aircraft as a way to prevent massive casualties in war. Pairs of airborne 'knights' would duel without the need to send in huge infantries. Of course, infantry battles only increased, and World War II saw the introduction of carpet bombing.

      Much later, laser-guided bombs and other forms of 'surgical strike' were supposed to eliminate civilian casualties. Of course, 'military intelligence' brought us the bombing of non-military targets, with massive civilian casualties for no military gain.

      Now the giant frickin' laser beam is supposed to bring 'surgical strikes' to a new level. Unfortunately, it's still the same people directing the scalpel.

      If there is one constant in human history: War kills people. Always has, always will.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  26. Yes, but... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the really tricky thing is incorporating that into a meme.

    Sharks with frickin' steel containers, filled with frickin' high explosives and a frickin fuse, all tied to their heads, while being dropped out of a frickin' plane.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  27. Military Budget *isn't* the problem. by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Military Budget *isn't* the problem. by billcopc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    2. Re:Military Budget *isn't* the problem. by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We spend an amazing amount on education but efforts to improve it are thwarted by Teacher Union's


      Yeah, damn those people for complaining about wages after going to school for 5 years, working unpaid for one year, and then starting at $25,000 per year with $60,000 or so in loan debt. It's such a good deal, one has to wonder why anybody would want to be a web designer, nurse, or construction worker.

      Why should we pay someone what they're worth?
      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  28. Re:You'd think... by PinkyDead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the arguments as to why Civil (biased) is better than Mechanical: The mech gets paid for once for designing the weapon, but the civil gets paid twice, firstly to design the structure, then to tell you how to blow it up.

    I remember Sky News did an interview with a guy who worked for the Iraqi's to build their bunkers, and then during Gulf War I worked with the US as a consultant.

    Study Civil Engineering
    ???
    Profit
    ???
    Profit

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  29. there's the VP by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Arm VP Cheney, and let him protect his President. Anyone who isn't a moron can use a modern shotgun safely and effectively.

  30. they aren't stupid, only selective by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    in what they perceive. The book A Bright Shining Lie said a lot about this stuff. The AF would bomb the hell out of the jungle and chalk up x VC kills, and wouldn't believe Vann, who went out there to see the bombing site, when he said there were no weapons in the place they bombed, only dead peasants.

    Why are people like this? Dunno. But an AF officer isn't going to make much rank if he isn't convinced 24/7 that airpower is the best answer to whatever problem they have that day. And "collateral damage" (i.e. brown or yellow people who I don't have to care about) just isn't important.

    From day one of the Iraq war/occupation/whatever I've said we should let cameram crews walk around the areas we've bombed. You support war? Fine--here are the pictures of the children you killed today. How's that moral clarity working out for you?

    Even today, supporters of the war are crowing about how "improved" Iraq is. Fine. My problem is that I mentally transfer the car bombs and dozens of sectarian killings every day, along with the imprisonment without trial, govt-backed death squads, lack of clean water, lack of medicine, etc, to, say, Houston, and wonder how wonderful we'd consider it. We'd be horrified, and there's no way we'd be happy if another country imposed that on us, especially with ~150K troops and mercenaries on our part of the earth but with complete immunity from our laws and even their own damned laws (at least in the case of the mercs). People's insouciance is due simply to the fact that it isn't them.

    If the AF blew up the school across from their house and they were picking up body parts from their front lawn, a pro forma apology and a speech by the foreign president that "things are looking up" wouldn't fly. 80% of us would be working for the insurgency. Once you just ask the seemingly obvious question "how would we feel in their place?" the BS you see on Fox and Fox Lite (i.e. the other TV channels) rings a bit hollow.

  31. socialist! by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But weapons are cool! We have to be kept safe, or something. And that $500B (more like $750B now) creates jobs, or something. Big government is o-tay if all big government means is giving tax money to corporations on a no-bid basis, or suspending habeus corpus, or building more prisons or something. Big government is bad, i.e. socialism, if you give one red cent to a poor person, or pay any health-care related expense for anyone who isn't old enough to be an O'Reilley fan.

    I'm still a little fuzzy on how building infrastructure in Iraq is okay, but building infrastructure in the USA is socialism. Are we foisting socialism on the Iraqis?

  32. Whoa! A supersonic laser! by Eudial · · Score: 3, Funny
    TFA:

    Both systems employ a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) that is made by combining a bunch of nasty chemicals - potassium, peroxide, chlorine, iodine and other stuff and then fired at supersonic speeds.

    Would be a pretty crappy laser if it was slower than the speed of sound.
    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  33. Re:So, How do you attach it to the shark? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    It's nice to have it in context every once in a while, as a reminder. I'd forgotten about the ill tempered sea bass part.

    It could be the start of a new extended meme:

    Scientist develops car mounted laser guidance system.
    Can it be mounted on a friggin' shark?
    Well, we've got sea bass
    MUTATED sea bass
    Are they ill tempered? Well, no. They're friendly, happy, mutated sea bass with frickin' lasers on their heads.
    They may not be vicious, but they sure taste good.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  34. In other news... by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Hamas (the democratically elected terriorists/government/aid agency/prisoners/scapegoats) today ordered the streets and roof tops of the west bank paved with with shards of broken mirrors.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  35. such a democracy--we should be so lucky by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    1. Re:such a democracy--we should be so lucky by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Yugoslavia 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 Russia East Germany, the Ukraine, and other Soviet Bloc dictatorships with which we are still opposed. Tito was brutal and no doubt corrupt, but he was a bulwark against religious extremism, a counterweight against ethnic fanatics."

      Tito died and the whole thing went to shit, giving us "ethnic cleansing", Screbrinicza [sp], and Democrats thumping the table for military action to stop the violence.

      History will likely judge the US invasion of Iraq as a mistake - hell, even most republicans, when asked privately, will say that. But pretending that Iraq would have remained stable in the future is to ignore history - RECENT history. You can't make people of other tribes/religions/cultures love one another by pointing a gun at them. The best you get is resentful tolerance - hell, we're STILL living with the aftermath of Reconstruction in the South.

      Unfortunately, the world hasn't quite figured out how to make culturally and religiously diverse people live together peacefully. I'd argue that the closest we've come is in the US, where immigrant waves have been incorporated more or less successfully. Europe is getting a taste of the problems associated with having large populations of "different" people trying to function within a monolithic society - Muslims in England, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany. Hell, there's a non-zero possibility that Belgium will decide they don't want to exist anymore, based on ethnic and religious divisions.

      I am morally certain that, within 20 years, Iraq will be split into 3 ethnically identified political entities, and that it would have happened REGARDLESS of US military adventurism. Now the US simply won't have the moral high ground when it happens. Not that the US ever really does have the moral high ground in the eyes of the rest of the world - anyone remember when the US was getting blamed for allowing Kossovo to happen in Europe's back yard? And now Darfur, to which the US has never had any ties, colonial or otherwise? Somalia? These were all the US's "fault", and we swallowed that hook whole.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  36. Re:"Supporting missions ... in urban environments" by Sanat · · Score: 2, Funny

    The goggles, they do nothing.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  37. No need for 12000lb lasers to stop looting scum by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  38. you want a real korean input? by ByKai · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know about the japanese or the taiwanese, but from a south korean point of view, the ability to shoot down ICBMs is not worth a single penny to spend on. Currently, there are about 11 thousand cannons (yes cannons, not missiles) pointed at Seoul, the Capital city of Korea. In case of a war breakout, these cannons will completely wipe out Seoul within 15 minutes. Unlike missiles, the cannons can't be stopped. It takes 5 minutes to wipe out the korean army guarding the border, and it will take us 15 minutes to send out bombers to target the cannon sites. So, shooting down ICBMs come into play after my capital's covered in fire, and my people are killed. Only the americans would be excited to have an excuse to attack north korea and use my country as their battle ground. Shooting down ICBMs is really the least of concern. But, I sure do hope you americans have something to shoot down ICBMs with nuclear warheads. Because if those things get launched, they are not landing on us. They are landing on you.

  39. Mmmmmm by kaiwai · · Score: 2, Funny

    hummus

  40. Well there must be a crowd by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because I smell barbecue.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  41. Wrong by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

    My mom works for one of the divisions of Boeing that makes lasers like this. I don't know if they make this one, because she can't really talk about it. But I do know a little about the capabilities and accuracy of some of the systems, you know, "hypothetically, if they had something like that, what could it do?" Let's just say that one of the test systems was a servo that could keep a laser spot painted on a ping pong ball while people were playing.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  42. Re:No collateral damage? Umm .. by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Informative

    The AC-130U Spectre (code-named "Spooky") has been a very accurate weapon of war. It flies really slowly, which increases its accuracy when firing on ground targets. It can loiter over its target for hours. The latest versions of the aircraft have gyro-stabilized mounts for its weapons, and advanced night optics that can see through smoke grenades. Its radar can track the 40mm and 105mm shells it shoots and feedback the information to the aircraft to adjust the aim of later rounds. The aircraft can accurately attack two targets up to a kilometer away at the same time. Accurately aiming a weapon fired from a AC-130U at a ground target has been a problem that has been adequately addressed for some time already.

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  43. Crossbow: The Best Defense is a Good Offense by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Darn, someone beat me to a Real Genius reference. Still, there are other prime quotes you can pull from Real Genius. I think this one is quite appropriate:

    "Our studies indicate that this type of weapon is totally useless in warfare."

    "Well, it's not intended for use in your kind of warfare, Roy. It's the perfect peacetime weapon. That's why its secret."

    "So it's both immoral and unethical."

    "Yes."

    [Laughter all around]
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  44. Re:typical military-industrial scenario once again by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect