DARPA Working On Arthur C. Clarke Weapon Idea

holy_calamity writes "DARPA is working on a weapon which is similar to one first described by Arthur C. Clarke in his 1955 novel Earthlight — firing jets of molten metal using strong electromagnetic fields. The Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition (MAHEM) will function on a smaller scale than Clarke's fictional blaster. DARPA's write-up says it could be 'packaged into a missile, projectile or other platform and delivered close to target for final engagement and kill.' Clarke is also widely credited with suggesting geostationary communications satellites — what other ideas of his will come to pass?"

Comments

sci-fi comes from science

[sayfawa]

I'm not trying to take any credit from Clarke or anything, but many sci-fi writers who seem to "predict" what technology will come to pass are really just up on current blue-sky research. So it's not as if they came up with the idea, they often just found out about some cool research while it was in it's very early stages, decades before anything comes to fruition, and wrote about it.

space elevator

[j1m 5n0w]

what other ideas of his will come to pass?

The space elevator, we hope. (Not that he was the first one to think of it, but he popularized the idea in his book "The Foundations of Paradise.")

What's the definition of a 'humane' weapon?

[acheron12]

One that murders efficiently and painlessly?

Re:Childhood's End's Telekinesis

[Digi-John]

Well, assuming telekinesis obeys the inverse square law, it would be much easier to control the remote beside you than the TV across the room.

Re:Automated memes

[dpilot]

The guys who are using it are following orders, and may not even be aware of the implications of their weapons.
The people who suffer more are the ones who have to live in the place, after it's been peppered with DU.

The ones who DON'T have to live with the consequences are the ones who gave the orders to use the stuff, in the first place.

Re:Bring the marshmallows

[spun]

The fact that the penetrator needs to be harder than the armor illustrates why the penetrators formed by EFP are ineffective. You can't line the cavity with a hard material and expect it to form into a penetrator.

You bring up another type of round, which is not so common any more, HESH or High Explosive Squash Head. Basically, the round consists of a plastic explosive and detonator. The plastic explosive squashes into a pancake when it hits the armor and then explodes. It does not penetrate the armor at all, but rather transmits a tremendous shock wave into the vehicle, creating spalling at the armor-air interface inside. But modern chobham armor has many different layers which disrupt the shockwave, as well as Kevlar spall-liners which protect against any metal fragments that do spall off the inside.

Re:Blows holes in reactive armor.

[spun]

Yes, this 'hit them twice in the same place' technique seems to be common to a number of new weapons systems. And the counter seems to be a renewed interest in Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS) or other Active Protection Systems that can destroy, disrupt, jam, or deflect an incoming projectile before it gets to the armor.

Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I think there are a lot of very smart and either atheist or agnostic people out there who behave very well because they can rationalize why behaving well results in a better world than the alternative.

I think there a lot of very smart and either atheist or agnostic people out there who can rationalize why behaving well results in a better world than the alternative. Alas, for some reason, their rationalizations all seem to look curiously like the standard Judeo-Christian Ethos. Which leaves me to wonder what they'd have come up with in complete isolation from Religion. Or, for that matter, if they'd grown up Aztec....

When a smart Atheist or Agnostic manages to come up with an ethos that doesn't sounds like the Ten Commandments, I'll start taking them a bit more seriously.

Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The rational mind arrives at this only because marriage is a contract, and it would be wrong to break that contract, and this is because a society that enforces contracts is a stronger society.

Please prove this. Historical evidence doesn't support it, really. Unless the only parts of history you're using are the Judeo-Christian parts.

Note, by the way, that marriage is only a sacrament by tradition - Martin Luther recognized that marriages were a product of the State, not of God, but since we'd been doing it with religious ceremonies for 1500 years (at the time), it wasn't worth changing it, since the people wouldn't accept the change.

For instance, the commandment is "thou shalt not kill", but most rational people believe it's ok to kill if necessary in self defense. (I do realize that earlier translations probably used the word murder rather than kill.)

You shall not commit murder is the correct phrasing. Note that "murder" is "unlawful killing". And so the definition changes from society to society, from time to time. A Shogunate Samurai would NOT consider it murder to kill a rice farmer, though we would. A Shaker would consider it murder to kill ANYONE, for ANY REASON. Which of the many options is correct, from a "rational" point of view.

So, once again, demonstrate a rational basis for society that doesn't follow the Judeo-Christian Ethos, and I might believe the lads who claim to be able to come up with a rational basis for society had something.

As is, looks to me like they're not rational, but rationalizing - they are justifying their childhood training as laws of nature, without using the G-word.

one or more smart people (who, after all, would have to be smart if they could read and write at the time). So your argument is just begging the question (circular logic). The reason rational morality looks so much like the judeo-christian commandments is because it was created by rational people.

It doesn't follow that literate people in that time were smart. Just well-educated. There is a difference, even today.

Again, you are stating that the Judeo-Christian beliefs are "rational". Prove this. I know I won't go so far as to say that they're the only rational system on which a society could be based, yet the so-called rational people keep coming up with rationalizations for this form of society, and no other. Are you suggesting that ALL other religious beliefs were irrational?

Note, by the way, that placing a special value on human life is intrinsically irrational, absent the so-called "soul" - we're just another animal, after all.