Slashdot Mirror
US Congress Funds Laser Weapons
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports that the US Congress is funding laser weapons for use in the near future. Low-power lasers called 'dazzlers' are already being used in Iraq to temporarily reduce a person's vision. High-power laser weapons would allow precision attacks that minimize civilian casualties. From the Post: 'The science board said tactical laser systems could be developed for broader use because they "enable precision ground attack to minimize collateral damage in urban conflicts." The report suggested, for example, that "future gunships could provide extended precision lethality and sensing." The board also proposed using lasers to protect against rockets, artillery, mortars and unmanned airborne vehicles by blasting them out of the sky. Last month, the Army awarded Boeing $36 million to continue development of a high-energy laser mounted on a truck that could hit overhead targets. But deployment is not expected until 2016, even if all goes well.'"
All shark jokes go here!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Come on, you know the battlefields of the future are going to look like a 1980's G.I. Joe cartoon. Hilarious. Wait... Not really hilarious...
My humor is probably your flamebait
i wonder what colour the phaser rays would be? troopers! set your phaser to stun!
You'll get idiots like these running around with laser weapons.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Since when is "truck" military jargon for "shark?"
Great, now mirrors will be renamed to "Improvised Reflective Devices"
It's going to take a Real Genius to get this right. I do hope they make sure their optics are clean.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Laser use remains controversial because a protocol of the Geneva Conventions bans their use in combat when they are designed to cause permanent blindness.
Conventional weapons (bombs, mines, bullets, missiles, etc.) can cause death, permanent paralysis, limb loss, and even blindness. What is the difference, really?
Also, what does it mean when fighting a group that does not abide by the Geneva Convention?
$36 million, eh? Not much when you say it quick. I suppose it's a drop in the ocean of US defence spending.
Other countries manage to generate growth without being such warmongers. What is it with the US and this obsession with devising new and more efficient ways to wage war? Dwight Eisenhower's warning seems to have been more prophetic than many would have realised. This war machine has every congressman in its pocket, it's sucking the taxpayer dry, and it's out of control.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
This should hardly be a surprise to anyone; the United States government already has functioning platforms. Just this month, the Boeing Company test fired a fully working prototype of its Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), a C-130 with a high-energy chemical laser on a rotating turret mounted on the belly of the plane. I don't know if it was a full powered shot, but the press releases indicate that it successfully hit a ground target. Then there's the larger Airborne Laser (ABL), an even bigger laser mounted on a 747 used to shoot down ballistic missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
Oh, behave!
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
"High-power laser weapons would allow precision attacks that minimize civilian casualties."
Heard that one before. Of course, it's always reassuring.
I wonder if you could make a missle defense system that basically is many wide lasers shooting in cross-hatch, dual-rows. Of course, the power needed for something like this would require a huge store of anti-matter and dilithium crystals...
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Hooray, now we all get to live out stupid Halo fantasies.
civilian casualties are important for Americans?
This is probably in response to the Russian navy presence soon to be in the Caribbean. The White House probably thinks they can use the old (fictional) Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program to prevent any misses aimed at the white house from hitting.
If by "wars" you mean "engineers and high-technology manufacturing infrastructure".
Military R&D is sharply distinct from the actual act of deploying military assets and blowing things up.
(I'll admit, I'm hardly objective in this regard, but I believe I've chosen my path in life because it worked with my principles, not the other way around)
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Japanese Begin Working On Space Elevator AND US Congress Funds Laser Weapons...
Well, there's an easy joke in there but I could also ask if it isn't time for the USA to think about their investments.
You could ask what's in it for me but then I would tell you that any country that gets too advanced militarily will tend to bully the rest of the world. On the other hand, being advanced in other fields will make the country financially superior through commerce.
Think about it.
They printed it yesterday.
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
Yeah yeah yeah... but when will they mount the laser on the heads of sharks?
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
A printing press and/or an entry into a spreadsheet.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
generating growth without spending on defense exist in peace due to the efforts of the us military. a world without us military spending would be a world of russian imperialism and utter havoc in the middle east, and those "peaceful" countries would radically ramp up their own defense spending, or cease to exist, or become war zones
the usa is the de facto peacekeeper in the world today, for better or worse. some day, it won't be, nothing is forever, and that world will not be a more peaceful one, but a more warlike one, until it transitions to a new peacekeeper
some people don't understand this, and its due to a common misperception: peace is not a state of absence of war potential. peace is a state of balance in war potentials between two or more sides. the world exists in this constant tension, always has, and always will. you would understand this ugly but undeniable truth if you truly understood essential human nature
peace is nothing more than a state of balance between two deadly potentials. remove one of those balances, and in the transition to a new state of balance, much bloodletting occurs. that's all peace is. a balance between war potentials. it is absolutely impossible in this world for peace to exist without any armed forces. such a world would be full of more bloodshed, random warlord. a world of two massive armies with loaded guns pointed at each other is meanwhile perfectly peaceful. i didn't say this is a good thing, i just recognize an unfortunate ugly truth when i see one
but there ar epletny out there, raised in a coccoon of relative peace ot the rest of human history and other parts of this world, who are blind to this reality. they live in a hermietically sealed bubble, and they begin to develop attitudes about peace and war which frankly, is absurd
if you don't agree with this assessment, or don't understand it, you don't really understand the nature of the human beings living around you, and you aren't in very good touch with your own human nature
a lot of people don't understand exactly what creates peace in this world. real peace is a balance between two deadly potentials, not the absense of any deadly potential
understand that about the nature of peace, or live in denial
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Whatever the hell it is, just blast it out of the frikkin sky!!!
Invest in ill-tempered sea bass NOW!
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
You got fighter aircraft that can cruise at Mach 2 and still are stealthy, a new kind of submarine, a new kind of aircraft carrier, rail gun battleships are suddenly on the table and lasers blasting all over the place. If the USA can recover from some of its fiscal problems and keep up the pace of military research, it should be well in charge of its destiny for the next 50-100 years.
This is my sig.
You'll get idiots like these running around with laser weapons.
And what about this kind of idiots ? Do you really want them to be able to buy lasers over the counter ?!?
Gun crazy private militia has always frightened me. As if these idiots didn't have a big enough aresenal you want to add lasers to their tool belt ?
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I thought Boeing made planes.. shouldn't they concentrate on building stuff that stays UP in the air instead of shooting things down? :)
Seriously, let's face it, It's all good in theory, you know, being able to pinpoint your target, improve accuracy, scalable and controllable damage control, etc...
But hey, it's the future coming to us, let's face it, so much sci-fi, is becoming reality, it is scary what we can dream up only to make it happen uh?
What I'm surprised is that this information is available in the first place? shouldn't there be a hush on this? I mean, I would expect the US government to keep a lid on the topic, until, 1) it's done or 2) it has to be used.
Now, if they can make this puppy practical, say, mounting it in space and shooting at potentially dangerous asteroids and debris, right?
For off, calling the USA "warmongers" should be modded flamebait.
And your history and math are wrong. Ike warned of the military industrial complex, not on the use of the military, which he obviously supported, you know, having led the largest invasion in world history. But anti-military types just love to misquote Ike.
The US spends *much less* of its GDP than it did in Ike's time, much less.
The left should be pleased that defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget has steadily declined during the past decades. In the early 1960s the Department of Defense constituted 45 percent of federal spending, whereas this year it will constitute an estimated 17 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Source
As the article points out, the real scandal is the ever-increasing entitlement pending that is going to bankrupt America.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The emergence of the laser is certainly going to make the long standing Democratic argument against missile defense suddenly seem pretty silly. Missile defense any more has gone from intercepting everything from ballistic missiles to shells in flight. Question to either candidate is, whose going to fund and field laser research at the current breakneck Bush pace? Will McCain have the patience for this technology or will he call it a taxpayer boondoggle and cut it? Will Obama remain starry eyed about diplomacy or will he retain a pragmatic strategic edge? Which candidate, too, will have the honesty to admit that the USA's own strategic nuclear delivery systems will need to be upgraded when its own defenses make it obsolete?
This is my sig.
Bailing out rich fat cats?
Wars?
Laser beams?
That's us.
Where's our jobs going? Overseas.
So, to make a living, we have to work for Government now - or Walmart.
So, in the meantime, weapons makers get richer, the Walton family gets richer, and I get poorer.
No, I'm not that talented or even close where someone is going to give me a million dollars to sing or tapdance or to design their computers (chips and all) - I'm just an average American.
What's someone like me to do? Just living is becoming too expensive. Die? It's a thought. But to be convicted of attempted suicide will destroy any job opportunities I have left.
It's great to slam stupid people - makes you feel more powerful and important - but those stupid people have to live too. And if we can't live - I'm not talking about Big screen tvs or anything - I'm talking about decent food, medical, clothing, dental, and some free time. Whatever. A gun is a whole months expenses and then some, but if I need to.....
Yours truly,
The stupid people who are struggling to make ends meet.
The precision claim comes from the fact that lasers are coherent beams of light. We've all seen laser pointers. You point them at something, and they mark it with a very compact spot of light. That is where "precise" comes from. Therefore, the thinking goes, if you make a laser weapon, it too will be "precise," right? Yes and no. Yes, it will hit whatever you point it at, but it will do so with the precision of the pointing mechanism, not the laser. Put it on a helicopter, and the laser will weave around as much as the helicopter. Well, you say, put it on some kind of gyro-stabilized device. Fine, that does give you additional stability, until the chopper moves outside the range of the pointing device, as when the pilot detects an incoming RPG, or has to do an emergency maneuver for whatever reason. Again, the laser will rake an unintended target. My point? The "precision" argument is Pentagon bullshit. The object of the exercise is 1) for the Pentagon to retain its vast funding and influence, 2) for the defense industry to retain its vast funding and influence, and 3) for current politicians to retain their vast campaign funding, lobbying perks, and influence.
Just as the "dazzler" weapons "temporarily reduce a person's vision," the more destructive weapons will produce much more powerful light scattering that will blind people even ata a distance and produce potentially significant collateral damage in the area of the target. The astute reader will note that damage outside of the point of light on the target due to reflection and other light scatter reduces much of the precision of the weapon. Again, it is Pentagon bullshit, not science or engineering.
Wake up, people. How long will we have to give away hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to liars, cheaters, thieves, swindlers, murderers, and war criminals of every stripe?
...are we scared yet?
When we have people who are starving to death and cant afford a place to live anymore, losing their jobs, dont have healthcare, and so on, what does congress do? Throws more money on expensive weapons to kill people. Just what we need. Society always is shocked and dismayed when someone commits suicide, "oh, how could they do such a thing". But then implement policies which place people in such desperation that it seems to be the only way out, and cut back safety net programs which are the only thing that keeps some people lives, refusing to help those who are in need. There is always enough money to kill people, but never enough money to save them. We have a society that sees state sanctioned killing of people as totally acceptable but helping people and keeping people out of desperation that drives them to suicide is unacceptable. How dare we try to help people make sure they have enough to eat when we have trillion dollar corporate welfare and trillion dollar wars and giveaways to defence industry and tax breaks to the wealthy to pay for? When we have wealthy billionaires who cant be bothered with taxes, so they can afford their dozens of mansions, yacht and private islands to escape the havoc they have wreaked on society?
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on
military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death" --Martin Luther King
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Let's give the Treasury Sec. (who used to work for Goldman Sachs) the ability to give $700 billion to his criminal friends without any oversight, ever. Great idea.
America 2.0 Inc. The NEW New Deal www.realdemocracyinamerica.com/blog/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where exactly is all this money coming from?
The future!
$11 Trillion in debt, but the spigots are open wide for more military funding.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Conventional weapons (bombs, mines, bullets, missiles, etc.) can cause death, permanent paralysis, limb loss, and even blindness.
Don't you think that have enough tools to maim our next of kin ?
More seriously, pouring money into weapon-grade Lasers :
1. Brings even more deadly toys on the market which could subsequently be abused. Currently there are no easily transported high power lasers, because most civilian use for which they are developed (see Tera-/Peta-watt Lasers) are perfectly happy with fixed solutions. There are no such thing as a laser-weapon of death. But once the technology is developed that's yet another weapon that all "wannabe an ermeging military powers" country will try to copycat. As if current scares about WMD being developed by this or that member of some "Axis of evil", you want an additional toy which has a good range, precise aiming and almost point'n'click style of control ?
2. Diverts that much money from civilian use where high-power lasers are needed and is that much money that laser-based plasma fusion will miss. Next time someone bitches that "Fusion power is perpetually 10 year away from now", remember that instead of developing lasers for that kind of application, money has steered research in the fields of lasers toward building DeathStar lookalikes.
Also, what does it mean when fighting a group that does not abide by the Geneva Convention?
Once you, too, stop to follow the Geneva Convention, what still distinguish you morally and ethically from the "evil scum" you're fighting with ?
Weren't you supposed to be the "good guys", who liberate oppressed people from some evil tyrant ? I've what you're doing is exactly the same as the tyrant you try to remove, what are you bringing new to the situation ?
"But they started doing it first" is such a kindergarten-level of excuse.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Why is this modded funny? What do you think inflation IS, anyway?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This has Dr.Evil written all over it! I had heard that this has something to do with the "star wars" plan. An orbiting laser defense system. Now, seeing as these lasers can be used for more then just defense... for example China gets pissed and launches a nuke. Regardless of the destination the theory behind this laser system is to "stop" air based attacks. So by stopping a nuclear warhead from where it is being launched, destroying the surrounding area and then some, would it be considered an act of "defense"? The only thing using geosynchronized orbit should be communication based. Besides opening up the box to orbital defense mechanisms, and thus creating reason for another cold war, what is the true objective behind all this? I don't deny a possibility of this becoming a global control mechanism. At the same time, I can't stop how many things an orbiting death ray would solve in the right hands.
This is old news not new. The military (Air Force) was testing pulse lasers back in the 1980's. They mounted them inside the back of a C-130 aircraft. They could only get about 5 - 6 shots before the battery packs would be drained. As soon as they had their first sucessful tests, suddenly the Air Force said they were shutting down their development because they said the pulse lasers tended to blind the enemy. Hmmm contradictory to this story on the vision thing.... But this is fact not fiction, they had these things in the 1980's.. This is first hand knowledge....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Where exactly is all this money coming from?
Elerium-115
No, wait that's too valuable to sell; I guess they're just going to sell the laser weapons. They'll make laser pistols with spare engineer cycles and sell them off to keep the engineers busy until they need to make something substantial.
will either ramp up defense spending after what happened to georgia, or become a vassal state to moscow if the usa lowers its defense spending. if more in europe think like you than me, it will be a vassal state then
the eu has done all it has done in the realm of peace over the last 50 years due to existing in a world larger than europe: sitting between the poles of moscow and washington, guns pointed at each other. not in the middle of a volatile balancing act of many european powers that existed for hundreds of years before world war ii. that power struggle is dead, subsumed to a larger struggle. so of course integration makes sense, simply because the power struggle lies elsewhere, for the first time in centuries
as for archduke franz ferdinand, yes, of course, armies with a lot of war potential can break down into havoc. yet no armies at all is even worse, since more death and destruction occurs at the civilian level. i mean, its not like the eu doesn't have a police force, right? a police force is nothing but a standing army against the rise of street warfare that a society would succumb too without guns pointed at them, a sad fate we see in corrupt and weak places all over the world today
and finally, the eu has taken a wonderful step towards integration rather than infighting, i celebrate it. and this is a model for the future of the entire world
but it was all made possible by being under the protective umbrella of its huge neighbor across the atlantic, in which all the states had to align, in order to oppose being gobbled up by the ussr
and the russian bear awakes again
so listen to me now, or wait until death and destruction visits europe again before you pick up a gun
but why you think, after i hope at least some tiny bit of exposure to world history, that mankind is a peaceful creature, is beyond me. every generation someone is born who wishes through will of pwoer and force of arms to dominate as much as he can. he is either kept down, or he rises amid bloodshed, and becomes the new keeper of the peace
that's all there is in this world of men
is that sad? yes. is that ugly? yes. its also 100% true and undeniable
make peace with that fact, irony intended, and give up this ridiculous way you think about your world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Even if its just for show, I hope they have a "stun" setting.
Why is this modded funny? What do you think inflation IS, anyway?
I don't like your tone.
And I think inflation IS when you fill something with air.
Example: "Check your tire inflation often to ensure good gas mileage."
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
When fired, the laser produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical American household for more than an hour
I'm wondering what will be left of America when every household switches on the lights tonight.
The only things they can hit are robot troopers. A good guy may occasionally get hit, but only in the arm.
Only bad guys have robot troopers; therefore the bad guys always lose.
All guns - from M16s to pistols to artillery - fire lasers.
Good guys get blue lasers, bad guys get red lasers.
See previous post for approved battle locations.
As a kid, I always wondered - light moves so fast that it's (for all intents and purposes) not really affected by gravity at all. It would seem like this means that things 50-100 miles away from a battlefield could be hit by all of the missed laser shots before the earth curved away enough that they passed into space. And as they left orbit, what sorts of guarantees do we have that they wouldn't hit planes or low-orbit satellites? Since light moves very quickly, nobody would be able to see or dodge the laser before it hit them.
I can see the application of air-to-ground laser strikes, but it seems like the potential for collateral damage with any other form of laser weapons is huge.
---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
You mean like blackwater, the first goons they will be deploying in US cities once the food and bank run riots start? That gun crazed private militia that has thousands of bonafide killers, guys who will kill anyone for a stinking check? Or the regular Army, the guys who are all in Iraq even though it has been proven every single excuse used to go in there was a total lie, those order followers? Or how about all the darth vader combat oriented paramilitary cops they have now, where the main criteria for employment is previous urban combat experience?
I'd put small time yokels way down the list of potential threats as to dudes who will be lazing you -or worse- in the future.
Here's a hint: you've been successfully brainwashed by the fascists who have hijacked government and taken it over. Really, read some news headlines lately, if you can't see it is just more bigtime coup action, you need to step away from the keyboard for awhile and do some historical reading and note the parallels with other despotic regimes. They just successful stole all your money, and your children's money and put you into economic bondage for the next..well, forever.
I hope you were implying both _both_ sides of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not sure how many people here realise it but Bush & Co have set a very unfortunate precedent.
It is true that the Taliban & Al Quida don't obey the conventions, but by having US forces throw the convention out the window the current administration has opened pandora's box for US troops (and civilians) in any future conflicts.
ps. Taco you aught to take the captch code and submit it to some AI journal, damn thing is sentient. (captch: unarmed)
Laser use remains controversial because a protocol of the Geneva Conventions bans their use in combat when they are designed to cause permanent blindness.
Conventional weapons (bombs, mines, bullets, missiles, etc.) can cause death, permanent paralysis, limb loss, and even blindness. What is the difference, really?
Also, what does it mean when fighting a group that does not abide by the Geneva Convention?
... and raise you $10 mortar rounds coated with retroreflectors.
its a shame some people confuse republican stupidity with a sound defense strategy
i'd rather have a smart weak defense than big dumb one. obviously, a smart big defense is best, but that's in no way what the republicans offer us. and so i choose barack, the lesser of two evils. let him talk to ahmafruitcake, as if our current course is winning anything over there
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Err.. I meant that you should have been modded insightful. jeez, can't a guy lend support from time to time?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Are there any range limitations? For example, could someone use one of these lasers to write his name on the moon?
Regards,
Chairface Chippendale
"All you need is some cheap sunglasses"
da-da, da, da-da, da
zztop
why do you think i care what the capitalization police say?
i write what i write. if you don't like my poor formatting, don't read what i write
fuck off
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I guess you are a governmental employee because your stupidity and ignorance is showing. It is *Russia* who has all the natural resources that western Europe wants. Russia has no need whatsoever to go "rolling across Europe" to go seize..nothing. What would they want, the vast oilfields of France or something? Can you not read just a little? Go do some googling around who has what today for resources, russia is freaking rich, Western Europe not so much, they have to import energy and other raw materials. They went into Georgia because the first day of the Olympics that zionist and neocon stooge in Georgia decided to attack some Russians and folks who would rather be allied with Russia. They got their ass kicked, and then the Russians made sure they would be in no position to retaliate. And they don't want those airfields to be used by Israel to go attack Iran. They are way tired of Israel and those Israeli mafia types they kicked out of Russia when they were hijacking everything in sight with the collapse of the USSR. And they also don't appreciate the US going back on it's promise to not expand NATO all around them. The US government outright lied to them, and had their advisers and Israeli advisers in there for that hit on South Ossetia. And they lost, tough shit.
1. peace is a state of balance between two violent forces
2. peace is a state of absence of violent forces
which is true of humanity?
please embellish with examples from these weird places called russia and the mdidle east i have never considered before in my propagandized blindness
i await enlightenment
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Now, we can PRECISELY kill the wrong people.
"yeah, we shot our own guy in the back.. but look how tight that grouping is!"
and, with hope and time, it will become another turkey, rather than another iran (that is, not very religious)
but this a longterm fight
part of what is necessary to get us to that goal is a change in strategy. the bush attitude works great when stupid but steel resolve is what is needed, but at other times you need a deep thinker and a willingness to be flexible to win the day. its a chess game, not just a punching match, and now we are entering a time after iraq has been won when the cowboy must yeild to the chessmaster
that's one of the hidden strengths of democracy. we are not stuck with one unyeilding strategy. every 4 years, we try out a new one, and in this way, adapt and find the best, and have a time for... change we can believe in ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
anyone else reminded of that Val Kilmer Movie from the 1980's "Real Genius" Filled up a house full with popcorn using a laser mounted to a plane. I wonder if this is the new wave of anti-terrorism. Popcorn and Val Kilmer Movies? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/
"i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
so that means gravity is wrong?
furthermore, i've voted democrat every election in my life, except for one
so you tell me where the "republicunts" (which i suppose is not a slur on republicans, but an esoteric term for someone who understands reality) got it wrong. pick one that is the truth of our world:
1. peace is a state of balance between two violent forces
2. peace is a state of absence of violent forces
i await my enlightenment from your fountain of wisdom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I thought for nanosecond that I might get the first shark joke in. I was so sadly mistaken. Should have known better. I could jump on the FoxNews or CNN forum with a shark joke and sound witty.
The Deficit Spending slush fund, err, I mean the Social Security Trust.
I'm going into the business of supplying brown shirts.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I see the X-Com project's research is finally making into the public sector. Maybe now civilians will be able to defend themselves in terror missions.
I admit that I'm a little surprised that the Democratic controlled congress would pass something like this.
The question is, how much can we lower collateral damage while still using an effective weapon that achieves our tactical objectives? Laser weapons may not be the answer, but there's no reason we can't keep looking for and testing new ideas.
Yes, of course.
Mil-Lasers will be perfectly clean weapons. You'll have a nice point'n'click aerial picture of some crowd, and only the terrorists on which you click will be instantly vaporised~
Well, that's the PR KoolAid. You know that, just like any other recent military innovation, which was supposed to diminish collateral damage, the Laser won't be a revolution. "Won't be the answer" as you say.
As a new form of weapon, they will bring new form of abuses, new level of over-confident engagement ("but, they have lower collateral rates, that means we can use them more !" à la Taser style), new problems, and won't solve the basic premise which causes most current problems :
conflict has changed. Modern conflict is asymmetrical. With distinction between general population and armed resistant blurred. You can't just easily point who is an enemy combatant and who's an armed civilian trying to protect its neck. There's no real "army" on the other side. "Al Queada" is nothing more than a franchised brand name used by whatever group of "wannabe USA-haters".
Using armed forces in this kind of conflict is going to be messy anyway, whatever the toys you put into the hands of the soldiers. And newer toy won't change this situation anyhow. You'll have a more precise way to someone, but still not know whom to shoot, inside a conflict which won't be solved simply by shooting people.
And, in addition of that, the tough of having a nation having airborne laser able to vaporise single individual at will (as some military fund raisers hope to achieve), isn't going to attract any sympathy, just as currently the possession of nuclear fire by a few advanced military powers attracts a lot of jealousy. (If you think about it, the proponents of nuclear weapons in the middle east have an almost valid point as they feel completely at disadvantage because they lack some military technology that we have in Occident)
That will be just another argument which will help to present western countries as "evil overpowered warmonger" and recruit even more terrorists from the poor population.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
bah, laser weapons are useless against Alien Retaliation ships. We need to research Plasma weapons. Plasma Weapons -> Ultimate Craft -> Mars
Cost of the last major hurricane, $22 billion.
Cost of the existing "martial involvements", $12.3 billion per month.
Cost of the "largest bailout in history", $700 billion.
Silly congress critters who think they still have tax payer funds to fritter away... priceless.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Yeah, but can it pop a house full of popcorn?
"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?" --Yoda {whips out green light saber}
how about we replace them with Popcorn Jokes ?
on al qaeda
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are putting forward a valid point of view; I'm not saying I agree with all of it, but I'd certainly like to see debate on the issues you raise.
However, getting away from real world issues, punctuation and capitalisation are an absolute good. No grey areas.
Yours,
The Capitalisation Police
They are going to be breeding big freakin sharks.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Congress also is funding a study on sharks.
Hmm... Coincidence?
I think not.
.
I hope we don't get drawn into a conflict with the Confederacy of Independent Systems.
Yeesh! Who says they'll end up using a wavelength in the visible spectrum? Can you say "maser"?
Why didn't you say that before Serbia started war with the other parts of what once was Yugoslavia? Denmark had no armed forces in the 1930s, did that protect them from the German invasion?
The problem with pacifism is that if your enemies are armed, you're toast.
Military spending is mostly an example of the broken windows economic system. You can look it up how that works. Also note I said mostly. Also look up "war is a racket" by General Smedley Butler for an insider's view of the US military and the relationship with wall street. The full text is online. Incidentally, this is the same general that was approached by a group of leading corporate industrialists who wanted to stage a coup against FDR (He blew the whistle on them after he identified the ring leaders). They were all third reich supporters (this was in the 30s before our part of the war started) and they wanted a similar establishment in the US. Their leader was none other than the current asshole in chief's treasonous grandfather, who was convicted and fined (but not hung unfortunately) for collaborating with the Germans then. Fascism was alive and well in the business establishment then, as it is today. They dig on being "elite" and powerful.
It's OK to be all rah rah rah for the home team when you are still playing with GI joe dolls, but after you are an adult you are supposed to read some history and learn from it. Military research being good for civvie use is mostly not true, lately we have..the hummer as an example. Whoo hoo... tres stupid. A fraction of the money goes ten times further in pure civilian research, because they aren't destroying what they are making. Broken windows, see?
I wish I was working on this project. I'd find a way for the lasers to make that cool sound, even in the vacuum of outer space.
Because you do, as you have just proven beyond all possible doubt. You deliberately write like an idiot so that you can pretend to be an iconoclast when you get called out on it. But you are not an iconoclast, and you never will be.
I know that tags are in BETA (BTW, is that Goggle's Beta or Plain Old Beta?) but I wish I could mod tags up.
I mean, pewpewpew and sharkswithfrickinlasers would certainly deserve that :)
:: There is no light at the end of a tunnel. There is a tunnel after a tunnel : Thom Y.
> Ike warned of the military industrial complex, not on the use of the military,
So... you're saying that we don't have a military-industrial complex?
> The US spends *much less* of its GDP than it did in Ike's time, much less.
Right. But we're not currently involved in the "largest invasion in world history" though I reserve the right to revise that statement if they bungle things in Iran & Georgia. One might like to think that war isn't the ONLY option we consider these days...
> As the article points out, the real scandal is the ever-increasing entitlement pending that is going to bankrupt America.
Because the much larger bills for Defense (now Offense, if you go by the Bush Doctrine) don't have to be paid? Or is it simply better to blow people up than to help them?
Were I planning a budget, I'd try to reduce the huge, avoidable bills before I cut spending on food & medicine. But that's just me and I gave up on being a Republican a while ago.
They already have their
High Output Stimulated Emmision of Radiation
machine perfected.
Have gnu, will travel.
WWII may have the current world record for civilian killing, but there's a good chance that record will be broken. Historically, those records last rarely last more than a hundred years. And it's not as if we're in danger of perpetual world peace.
From wikipedia's article on "carpet bombing":
There is no question that cities were razed because the bombaimer missed. My father was a bombaimer in WWII, and he tells me on those runs he didn't even look out of the 'plane.
Perhaps WWII had the largest civilian headcount ever, but I suspect the ratio civilians / soldier is higher now as the number of legally qualifying enemy 'soldiers' drops to zero.
So what if there are guns near the dead bodies? You could carpet bomb the USA without remorse using the same justification.
Look, IANAL, and I realise I've just used the phrase 'carpet bomb the USA', but you do realise it was jus CARRIER LOST
I work at a company that builds a laser system for blinding snipers in Iraq. It points a low power laser at the sniper temporarily blinding them. They chose temporary blindness because they couldn't be sure that the snipers in Iraq wouldn't use innocents as human shields. Obviously it can be hooked up to sensors for automated target determination. The low power makes it a defensive weapon only. High power lasers aren't going to create wounds any worse than shrapnel, bullets, or missiles. There is no metal ricocheting around in your body. Unfortunately, dead is dead no matter what weapon system gets you there.
Gabe My Blog
It's about damned time!
+= E
...telling it like it is.
Don't lase me, bro!
For me they are quite diffrent things though admittedly they only seem to be able to build them for wars and also the thec gained can be invaluable but the point that comes to mind for me at the moment is the British government spending billions on new war ships when many in the country might die of the cold this winter, the us government ignoring new orlines the first time round to keep troop levels up in iraq, it just doesn't make sence to me how come every things falling apart since these wars and yet we seem to continue to put all of our resorsess into them ?
what a ridiculously pompous word
i'm an asshole
and proud of it!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in the idea of a unipolar world
but since we live in a multipolar world, and always have, and always will, that analysis is useless
most laughably, you articulate american "failure" in the context of a vacuum of anything else happening in the world, as if the usa were just randomly invading countries because it was in a bad mood
reach into the vast stretches of your imagination and figure out if maybe what the usa was doing was done in the context of anything the ussr was doing at the time
given THAT bizarre exotic context (since you seem to have a firmly entrenched opinion of american action without even faintly considering what was actually going on in the world at the time), what say you now?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
BEST TAGS EVER!
you forget the power of ultranationalism and demagoguery
if the people's stomachs are empty, fill their minds with myths of glory, and give them a gun, and put them on the front lines
were the words you say above 100% true, then blind imperialism would never exist in this world. but it does. because of the simple dynamic i just outlined. this simple dynamic comes into play when you have nothing else going for you. russia has what? energy exports? which it uses to pump up its military. what else? a national system of governance pretty much modeled on the mafia
that's all russia has going for it. no respect for freedoms of the press, gays. nothing concerned with modern european emphasis on rights and freedoms. russia is a question mark, a grey area, getting darker
so you go ahead, you pillory me for my false alarmism
as if your false sense of security is somehow superior
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Or space blankets?
This is garbage, and just like the "smart bombs" (right, being fired into a city of 7M (Baghdad), they only hit bad guys (tm)). And then there's all the high-tech weapons on the attack jets... the ones that are hitting civilians, or dropping bombs on wedding parties.
The only intelligence is behind the drivers seat, and there ain't much in this administration who's at the wheel.
mark
you only focused on american actions, not russian actions, you only analyzed american actions in a vacuum of anything else in the world
therefore, your anaylsis is flawed
furthermore:
everything the usa did was done in an attempt to fight the ussr. such actions had toxic backscatter, but the usa also defeated the ussr, such that, in the long run, including a consideration of all the failures and missteps, the usa, overall, did a good job during the cold war. it won the cold war
to go even further:
everything that is happening in the world today is not merely bills come due for cold war american actions
if someone thinks that what al qaeda is doing on the world today is done in the name of antiamericanism, they are a provincial fool. what al qaeda does is done in the name of its own religious bigotry: revive and extend the caliphate. if the usa never existed on this planet, there would still be an al qaeda, still doing what al qaeda does, because al qaeda's motivations and its goals are not centered on the usa, they are centered on a flawed interpretation of islam. there would still be bali bombing, madrid bombings, islamabad bombings. what created and motivates these people is NOT the usa
the usa is not above criticism. but neither is the usa the only thing that should be criticized. you see to many fools in this world criticizing the usa for things that the usa is not at fault for in the least
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1912 called to remind you that idea's nationalism and powerful oratory does not always work.
The situation in Russia is nowhere near as bad as 1920's Germany, in fact its the opposite, things are looking up for the Russian people, they're better off then they've been since before WWII (Pre Stalin days). When the peoples stomachs are full, powerful oratory will only server to inflame the people against government and not for war. The average Russian is more concerned about organised crime weakening their country and have seen the benefits of trade with Western Europe.
I never said imperialism didn't exist, or even military imperialism didn't exist. I said, historically military imperialism has never worked, the most successful empires have used their military as backups to their primary forms of expansion (trade, culture, technology).
I will berate anyone for scaremongering, don't take it personally I'm not singling you out. Yes there are nasty people out there but they are so very far from having their hands around my throat, even if they did I would still berate anyone for scaremongering as that would not be a situation to panic in.
What do you mean by false? I am not threatened by Russia or the Evil Terrorists(TM). I'm more concerned about drunk drivers, because here in Australia, I'm far more likely to be hit by some idiot speeding home from the pub pissed as a newt in the next 24 hours than dying from a Terrorist attack or in war for the remainder of my life.
Point in short, you'd have a valid point if my sense of security was actually false, but unfortunately your theory falls down when my sense of security is quite real.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
far form the heat of the situation, eager to criticize and take potshots
without actually risking anything yourself
oh, and enjoy your vacation in bali, because Evil Terrorists(tm) are obviously just a hollywood invention
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
two scenarios
1. guy falls asleep behind wheel of a truck, plows into schoolbus, kills 10 kids, feels absolutely terrible about it
2. guy watches school bus route for months, carefully planning when to kill as many kids as possible, plows into schoolbus, only kills 5, wishes he killed more
you seem to be proposing that scenario 1 is worse than scenario 2, simple because more lives were taken, this is what you are angling for when you talk about electrical accidents and drunk drivers as being worse than terrorists. according to most, no all, codes of morality in this world, situation 2 is worse, because of a magic concept called intent. do you understand what "intent" means?
even far off exotic australia understands the difference between manslaughter and murder in their legal code. why don't you? so why do blather on about drunk drivers and electric switches? people concern themselves with the death of 10, if on purpose, rather than the death of 10,000 due to regular statistical inevitability. why? because of intent, oh great swami
oh but not you, right?
to people who actually think, human intent means something, something profound that you cannot grasp: were those same morons who blew up bombs in bali get their hands on something more serious, they would use it against australians, they would use it against the balinese, they would use it against americans, they would use it against thai, they would use it against timorese, they would use it against javanese who were not adequately religious. they would kill anyone outside their little bubble of religious bigotry. because they are religious bigots. who kill anyone who is subhuman. whewre subhuman = not a raging fundamentalist like them. do you dispute that? or are people who blow up resorts reasonable and kind in your determination?
why do these people concern me? is this fear motivating my words? you really think i am motivated by fear? ok, i'm hiding in my closet, quaking in fear. omg! terrorists! this is really me? or a cartoon in your mind?
what is really motivating my words is i understand some concepts, you don't even seem to be able to recognize: intent, determination, imagination, perseverance, passion. these guys have that, and they are only getting started. it took one ultranationalist with a gun on a sarajevo streetcorner in 1914 to start world war i. in which how many australians and kiwis died, by the way, if you are so concerned with nothing more than quantity of death? see, to someone who thinks, they recognize in the actions of terorrists a rationale, a desire, and a continuing effort to kill as many as possible. i don't see drunk drivers organizing in chat rooms to take out a maximum number of nondrunks, do you? so i concern myself with terrorists rather than drunks. this is fear? sounds like brains to me!
and you worry more about statistical inevitable electric accidents and car accidents. incredible! you are a blind fool. because you think quantity of death is more important than the intent that formed the death. because you mistake fear for dead reckoning. someone who appreciates exactly what is behind an intent, and gives it the respect it deserves, and appreciates the urgency to to fight and destroy that threat. a threat, that if unopposed will, through determination, will of force, take over, for example, pakistan. nuclear pakistan. which of course doesn't bother or concern you at all, right?
pffft. blind ignorant provincial hick
like i said, it must be nice off in yonder ivory tower in australia, far from the real threats in the world, happy to criticize, because no one really cares to fight over the antipodes, and bask in your feeling of superiority, a false sense, simply because you have nothing to gain or lose in the fight. you curl your lip in a sneer, peer out your ivory tower, and thinjk less of those struggling in the mud because they are muddy, struggling. you aren't sturggling at all. you are jus tlooking for a reason to feel superior
so why don't you go out in th
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Why do I need to be afraid of the great grim spectre of Terrorism."
just make believe, for a moment, that what is motivating my words is not fear. just reach into the limits of your imagination and make beleive there is someone who can say what i am saying, and yet they are not actually afraid of anything
can you do that twatstain?
good, then you can begin to actually address what i am actually fucking saying, for the first fucking time
"The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand (did you even know his name) was the catalyst not the cause, a spark in a room full of petrol, it was bound to happen"
oh, ok and bombing the wtc led to the invasion of iraq. there's your spark in a room full of petrol, moron (smacks forehead). you realize this one sentence of yours completely nullifies everything you said before that, right? and by saying that, you've completely validated what i am saying, right?
you understand exactly the threat terrorists pose. you articulate the threat in your own words. you understand exactly what i was getting at when i brought up the allegory of sarajevo 1914. benzair bhutto. waziristan. the bombing of the islamabad marriot last week. none of this concerns you? none of this smells like sparks, in a room full of petrol. nuclear pakistan? doesn't concern you at all? you have to be a sweat-dripping ball of fear to even concern yourself with this situation? you can't simply be intelligent and care about the world you live in?
try to close the loop in your mind, between your own ball of contradictions in your own words, and get back to me, oh great swami
"Death is only important to the living. Once I am dead it doesnt matter how I got there, its not like I get to go back if I've done it correctly now is it? ... It doesn't matter what I die from, it matters what I do when I am alive, you preach of intent, is not my intent more important to those I love or to me?"
oh man, thanks for the laugh, i love this kind of shit: "nothing matters, there's no point in caring about this... but i need to talk about it passionately"
LOL
nothing matters? ok. therefore, logically, you should shut the fuck up, and never even reply to me, right? it DOESN'T MATTER what some asshole in new york city spews on the web, right? i can sit here and say "bomb australia". i can commandeer the fifth fleet and sail to darwin and start shelling. doesn't matter, right? NOTHING MATTERS. no reason to intervene, to reply, to get involved, to lift a finger, right?
but wait a second
i didn't reply to you, you replied to me
in a whole shitstorm of mumbling contradictions. meaning what? YOU DO FUCKING CARE. so it DOES matter to you. another contradiction in your own words
here's some irony: a guy screaming at the top of his lungs he doesn't care (snicker)
so a bit of advice from me to you in order that you might grasp the rarified air of logical coherence for once in your moronic life: either 1. prove you don't care, and shut the fuck up. 2. admit you care, and keep talking. but replying to me in long winded passionate paragraphs proclaiming how much you don't care is the very definition of blind ignorance
"'blind ignorant provincial hick'
Now youre projecting. You want to see these qualities in me because they are the only way your arguments can hold merit. To the external observer this is not the case so you need to point them out and then attempt to draw attention to it, once again buy picking a label which is completely inappropriate you have only served to demonstrate your lack of understanding and alienate your audience (I doubt many others are reading this)."
no, it's because you are a blind ignorant provincial hick. no really, you are the genuine article
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Meh,
Try block quotes or any other way of identifying your work from that of another (quotations marks, italics, "MJWX wrote:"), anyone other than me wouldn't have a clue what that disjointed mess of a comment was about(and my punctuation isn't that crash hot so I don't normally complain but you're special).
You stopped making sense at all now, you're just parroting my points in a vain attempt to twist them to your POV, which isn't working even if someone else could understand the mess you've left above. It's Friday and I've got more important things to do than feed trolls.
Good day.
P.S. The irony of being called blind and ignorant by someone who by their own admission, is too lazy to use punctuation is too hypocritical to bear and I like irony.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.