Slashdot Mirror


Airborne Boeing Laser Blasts Ground Target

coondoggie writes "The airborne military laser which promises to destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage has for the first time actually blown something up. Boeing and the US Air Force today said that on Aug. 30, a C-130H aircraft armed with Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) blasted a target test vehicle on the ground for the first time. Boeing has been developing the ATL since 2008 under an Air Force contract worth up to $30 million."

96 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Quick! by nhstar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone find the house full of Popped Corn!!!

    --
    --- no sig to see here... move along.
    1. Re:Quick! by socceroos · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, seriously. That was a pretty corny joke.

    2. Re:Quick! by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Absolutely!

      I mean seriously. How did they get the shark to fly?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Quick! by pryoplasm · · Score: 5, Funny

      They just took jumping the shark to a whole new level...

      --
      Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
    4. Re:Quick! by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Dude, seriously. That was a pretty corny joke.

      And yet there's a kernel of truth to it.

    5. Re:Quick! by Per+Wigren · · Score: 4, Funny

      You should take it with a grain of salt...

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    6. Re:Quick! by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And stop buttering us up. . .

    7. Re:Quick! by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      . . .but where was the frickin' laser on its' head ??

    8. Re:Quick! by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, I've been married for 10 years!

    9. Re:Quick! by LifesABeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Consider looking for a Silo with a "Orville Rickenbacker" sign on it. It would the only time a U.S. site was attacked by its government, and the victim paying for the media rights.

    10. Re:Quick! by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

      And yet there's a kernel of truth to it.

      What truth would that be? I'm all ears.

    11. Re:Quick! by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quite eavesdropping. You're stalking.

  2. And Kent? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stop playing with yourself!!

    1. Re:And Kent? by a_nonamiss · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoever modded this offtopic clearly missed the reference.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    2. Re:And Kent? by jayspec462 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It *is* God!

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
  3. Sigh by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how is it working against mirrors?

    1. Re:Sigh by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Sigh by Jurily · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I meant the reflections. Are they willing to blind anyone within eyesight?

    3. Re:Sigh by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose that would fall under the category of collateral damage, and they're probably expecting everyone within sight of the target to be, well, "The Enemy(tm)."

    4. Re:Sigh by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of this tool is war. So, yes.

    5. Re:Sigh by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The purpose of this tool is war. So, yes.

      We already have plenty weapons with lots of collateral damage and they're being used, that was never in dispute. The question was how can this be a weapon "with little to no collateral damage" if in fact the reflections do collateral damage. If we didn't care about colleteral we could just throw a nuke at it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Sigh by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was looking for a good place to crack a "Real Genius" joke. There's already a thread about popcorn... something about a "Real Genius" thought of that...

      A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.

      Surprisingly, a mirror wouldn't work nearly as well as cheap glossy white paint.

      Mirrors reflect (typically) 60-70% of the light that hits them, turning the rest into heat. Cheap, glossy, exterior-grade white paint often reflects in excess of 90% of the light back.

      In other words, mirrors would turn about 4x as much of the light into heat as the white paint will. The difference is that mirrors reflect light without losing its coherency. White paint, on the other hand, just reflects the light in random directions.

      Worried about teh lazers? Paint your tin foil hat white!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:Sigh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, permanent blinding weapons are illegal

      Blinding weapons are banned by 1995 United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)
      http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/49de65e1b0a201a7c125641f002d57af?OpenDocument

    8. Re:Sigh by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read your own links? From the second:

      It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.

      Causing blindness is not a combat function of this weaponry; it's a side-effect of the other side trying to subvert the weapon. They were also not specifically designed to have such an effect. Their goal is to blow shit up from the air, with a particular emphasis on fired projectiles but probably used for vehicles as well (as per this example). In most cases there won't even be anybody around to get blinded.

      A bullet through the eye can cause blindness too, that doesn't make it banned. Intent matters.

    9. Re:Sigh by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're screwed if you're a ground target. On the other hand, a lot of laser systems (although not necessarily this one) are aimed at intercepting missiles. Missiles have more options...

      First, a missile can spin. That help keeps the laser off one spot. Next is to introduce a wobble - difficult to do, although with modern control systems not completely impossible - that also keeps the laser hitting a varying spot. Lastly, if your rocket has a cryogenic fuel (i.e., LOX + LH2), you can pump your fuel through capillaries under the skin of your rocket before entering the rocket motor. That'll absorb whatever energy the laser does impart. Of course, that doesn't work with a ballistic missile after its ascent stage... but at that point you're hopefully relying on decoys.

    10. Re:Sigh by Quothz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.

      Any laser that can melt mirrors very quickly would self-destruct even faster unless its own mirrors were constantly changed. Well, I s'pose you'd only have to change the surface rather than the entire mirror. Either operation would be tricky to do precisely in field conditions. Also remember, the atmosphere itself is gonna tend to scatter that beam, so if you want to melt mirrors from a distance, your own are gonna have to get considerably hotter.

      A decent reflective surface seems like it would be good enough to protect a building from this, although if the planes can also drop, say, rocks, that takes care of that. On a person, running around with a mirror would not do wonders for concealment. Personally, if I thought I was gonna be on the wrong end of a hurtin' laser, I'd light a smoky fire, kick up lots of dust, and/or wear thick layers of heat-resistant material like Kevlar while moving around a lot.

    11. Re:Sigh by feyhunde · · Score: 4, Informative
      Visible light they reflect you mean. This is a hard concept for many people to grasp, but depending on the part of the spectra you are looking at, objects can vary to how much they reflect and how much they transmit. If everyone chooses the same reflector, like a cheap paint, you just gotta change the frequency of the light.

      A great example is silver. In the very close UV, like 310 nm, it's completely transparent. Light goes thru it perfectly. by the time you get to Green light, it's over 90% effective at reflections. Good, somewhat expensive, white paint used as a reflectance standard is good between 250-2500 nm. The type of laser they have is about 1000 or so nm. Using frequency doublers you can make that high UV in 3 jumps and below the bottom of where the paint can reflect well. I've used such high powered lasers in Academia. Doublers are common.

      --
      I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
    12. Re:Sigh by Toonol · · Score: 5, Funny

      What international convention is the US a party to, that it doesn't follow? Specifically?

    13. Re:Sigh by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firing at civilians is illegal too... but dropping a bomb on an enemy that is surrounded by a thousand civilians is perfectly fine.

      Creating a blinding weapon is illegal. Creating a destructive weapon that may blind as an accidental side-effect is perfectly fine.

      By 'perfectly fine', I mean within the terms of international agreements on the conduct of war.

    14. Re:Sigh by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Causing blindness is not a combat function of this weaponry;

      Define "combat function". I guarantee you that this thing will hit more eyes than targets.

      Causing blindness is not a combat function of this weaponry; it's a side-effect of the other side trying to subvert the weapon.

      Yeah, those morons should've made their tanks from black holes. (Hint: if you can see it, it reflects light.)

      In most cases there won't even be anybody around to get blinded.

      This thing can blind someone on the moon.

      A bullet through the eye can cause blindness too, that doesn't make it banned. Intent matters.

      Compare "tactical nuclear weapon". Hey, we only wanted to take out that factory!

    15. Re:Sigh by rastilin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends if the reflection deflects perfectly or if it bounces off a rounded angle and deforms. If it's rounded it will lose nearly all of it's power at distances exceeding "half the fucking planet".

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    16. Re:Sigh by qbast · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've not heard a valid example of the US violating it.

      Do you consider general Taguba, who conducted investigation of Abu Ghraib valid source? According to him prisoner were raped among other things. Is it good enough example of violation for you? I also remember (not link this time, but should not be hard to find) of hooded prisoner attached to multiple wires. The whole scene looked like something from Frankenstein.

      Remember, the Geneva conventions are primarily concerned with the treatment of uniformed members of national military forces (and includes definitions of such).

      Whole 4th convention is about civilians. Most relevant here is article 5, talking about spies and saboteurs (or in American newspeak "illegal enemy combatants").
      Direct quote: "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

      It also is only in force when engaged in war with another state that is also bound by the convention.

      Like Iraq which ratified it in 1956? Ah, I forgot: you just need to slap 'liberation' sticker on your invasion and it is ok.

      Legally, at least; morally/politically is a different game, of course.

      What is the problem? You just need to redefine 'morality', like 'torture' and 'war' got redefined.

    17. Re:Sigh by Entropius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Frequency doublers aren't 100% efficient, are they? In a high-power but compact laser, would the heat deposited in the frequency doubler be enough to cause damage?

    18. Re:Sigh by Entropius · · Score: 3, Funny

      After the ascent stage you're dealing with a vehicle designed to survive reentry. Somehow I doubt you're going to do much damage to it with a teeny little laser.

    19. Re:Sigh by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      > No, permanent blinding weapons are illegal

      Yes but please see "Article 3" in your link.

      Article 3
      Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.

      So if one of those common laser targeters or this super laser can blind you, they still comply since they weren't designed specifically to blind people, they come under "incidental or collateral effect".

      You're just not supposed to:

      "employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision"

      So just blind people and say "Oops".

      --
    20. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Close you missed the some key aspects of the article 5.

      "Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

      In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

      A protected person detained as a spy or saboteur. Non uniformed terrorists do not fall under the "protected person" definition. So they are not protected by the GC.

    21. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mirrors reflect (typically) 60-70% of the light that hits them, turning the rest into heat. Cheap, glossy, exterior-grade white paint often reflects in excess of 90% of the light back.

      Finally, an explanation for the Stormtrooper armor design!

    22. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      with remaining eye?

    23. Re:Sigh by fnagil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mirrors reflect (typically) 60-70% of the light that hits them, turning the rest into heat.

      Have you ever looked in a mirror? Seriously!

      The next time you go to the barber, and he shows you the back of your head by holding up an extra mirror, check if the reflection looks even detectably darker than the real thing. If you check out one of those places where you can stand between two mirrors and get "infinitely" many reflections, how do you think you can see so many reflections?

      (Assuming we are speaking about visible light, of course)

    24. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      International conventions haven't prevented war, torture, genocide or other massive human rights abuses. They are the constructs of an intellectual class that has their heads in the sand until it is to late to prevent the very acts they claim to be preventing.

    25. Re:Sigh by Hubbell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Boo, Fuckity, Hoo. War is SUPPOSED to be inhumane, SUPPOSED to be degrading, SUPPOSED to be horrible.

      It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
      Robert E. Lee, Statement at the Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862)
      US-Confederate general (1807 - 1870)


      All the people crying OMG WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL LAWS AGAINST DOING THIS AND THIS AND THIS are the kind of people who don't understand this fact. The more horrible war is, the less likely it will happen. The population of the west today just doesn't get that war is ugly, they've pacified themselves culturally to believe that war is NOT the ugly horrible thing it always was, and always will be, and seem to think that OMG A CIVILIAN DIED THIS IS AN OUTRAGEEEEEEEEEEEE is how you should respond to finding out 20 enemy fighters died...but 1 civilian did as well cause the enemy was hiding in a family's house. I don't really care that I'll get modded as flamebait/troll because this is the fact of life in western society. They've been pussified since WW2 and can't handle a real war. God forbid the chinese or russians ever decide to have a real war with another country, the citizenry of the west will collectively shit their pants and break down into tears at the 'atrocities' they'll hear about that happen in what a real war should/does look like.

    26. Re:Sigh by neongrau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i was under the impression that lasers in the visible spectrum are the least powerful so for the purpose they'd use a spectrum that's not visible.

      so have fun finding an appropriate mirror for that spectrum ;)

      and i bet noone wi'll get blinded by it either.

    27. Re:Sigh by WayneTheGoblin · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only problem with that is: Good luck finding a frequency doubler that can handle that kind of input power. The best frequency doubling crystals I know of can handle at best a few dozen watts of laser power before melting. Also, because frequency doubling crystals don't have anything near 100% efficiency, you're talking about turning a tactical laser into (at best) an expensive, albeit high power laser pointer. Anyone with a superior knowledge of optics care to comment?

      --
      I refuse to engage in a duel of wits with the unarmed.
    28. Re:Sigh by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Weapons like this actually make an ICBM strike *more* likely against the US. If conventional war were to break out between the US and a country like China, with neither party really wanting a nuclear escalation but reserving their nukes as a deterrent, they'd be afraid that if they lost the ability to effectively shoot down aircraft over their territory they'd also lose the ability to launch ICBM's in case of escalation. So, at the first sign of the US gaining air superiority, they'd go ahead and launch ICBM's.
      Not really. First, this is the ATL. It is a different craft with a different mission. It is designed to take out targets on the ground.
      Second, for us to take out China's missile, we would have to have multiples of these craft located deep inside of this countries AND all over the world. The reason is that China has a number of boomers and is building 1-2 new nuclear boomers EACH YEAR. In fact, they will surpass America's count in the next 2 years. As it is, China now has boomers patroling both the American Atlantic and Pacific seaboards as well as the Mexican gulf (Venezuela has begun quietly allowing them to have port calls). We also know that China has at least 10 boomers, and will surpass it within 4 years (more likely 2). In addition, to be able to take out all of China's sites with this would require us to be in every country that surrounds China, with multiple aircraft (and russia would require at least 4 to 8 of these). Think we can swing that? Neither does China. TO be honest, we will probable need a lot more. China appears to be building new nuclear warheads. They restarted their factory last decade. They started their build-up before we decided anything about the ABLs.

      Finally, the ABL shooting horizontally will have a range of around 500-700. It it probable that it would have a range far shorter over china due to their pollution. In addition, this craft will become more ineffective on 2'nd and third round since dust would have been kicked into the air.

      Neither the ATL nor the ABL will be a threat to China's missiles.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    29. Re:Sigh by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First surface mirrors like the ones used in frickin' lasers can be made much more reflective than ordinary household mirrors. Covering a tank with 99.99% reflective precision mirrors would get awfully expensive, and any bit of dust or grease on them would ruin the whole deal.

    30. Re:Sigh by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about the Geneva conventions?

      Do yourself the favour of looking up which sections of the Geneva Conventions the USA is a signatory to. Then read those sections. Then come up with examples of us violating those sections.

      Be aware, by the by, that we never signed on to the sections giving near-blanket immunity to guerrilla forces

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    31. Re:Sigh by muridae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The laser itself needs several small laser-quality mirrors. The target would need a much larger quantity of the same mirrors, and in the same spectrum as the weapon. A plain bathroom mirror is not smooth enough to reflect that much without those imperfections absorbing a good bit of energy. If the laser really does use 'as much power as a household over an hour' then we are talking about 10kwh. 3.6E7 joules, over how ever large the surface area of the 'impact' point is, and you end up with a lot of heat in that 5 second burst.

      Nope, that is definitely is going to take high quality mirrors to protect. For a moving target, say a rocket that is going to undergo high G acceleration, those mirrors will probably not survive launch. Other mobile targets, maybe. Buildings, well, putting meter tall neon letters on the roof saying 'this building is important' would be just as conspicuous. Mirrors, meet Predator. I think it has 500lbs of some iron that it would like you to meet.

    32. Re:Sigh by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compared to a missile, this does little to no collateral damage, because most targets don't walk around wearing mirror-covered suits. Do you understand now?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    33. Re:Sigh by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Excellent -- someone on the internet who understands the logic of MAD!
      It's troubling how many Americans don't seem to get that strength is all well and good, but peace and security require cooperation under a relative balance of power. Terrorism is "asymmetric warfare," but people take those means because symmetric warfare is impossible and they won't accept asymmetric diplomacy any more...

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    34. Re:Sigh by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, this is a poster child for why the US should not follow such conventions. Killing someone with a laser while risking eye damage to those nearby is far more humane than bombing the entire neighborhood. Screw the inhumane convention.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    35. Re:Sigh by pwfffff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This thing can blind someone on the moon."

      Yeah well the sun can blind me from the frickin' SUN.

      "Yeah, those morons should've made their tanks from black holes. (Hint: if you can see it, it reflects light.)"

      OK so according to you, something that can blind you after traveling millions upon millions of miles through space will also inevitably blind you upon reflecting off any visible surface? Just like, you know, looking outside during the day?

      Thanks for letting me know I've been blind since the first time I looked out a window. I feel real silly wearing these glasses, since I apparently haven't been able to see at all for quite a while now.

      You're a moron.

    36. Re:Sigh by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The more horrible war is, the less likely it will happen.

      Only if horrors happen to both sides. If horrible things only happen to the other guy, most of the population forgets the war is even happening.
      As for people not understanding that war is horrible -- of *course* people understand that; did you really think millions of Americans protested the invasion of Iraq because they liked Hussein? Complaining about civilian deaths is a weak fallback for people who don't have a clear enough anti-war position, something along the lines of "if you have to go kick in the door of some guy's shack and then shoot him forty times when he tries to defend it with a stick, at least try not to kick his dog, too."

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    37. Re:Sigh by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me get this straight... Are you telling me I have to modulate my shield frequency?

      KHANNNNNNNN!

    38. Re:Sigh by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the blind people are melted, they tend to complain about it a lot less.

      But seriously, this probably wouldn't be as effective against personnel as it would against large vehicles or buildings. Individuals are too small and mobile for a weapon like this to have any great effect. There are already TONS of anti-personnel weapons in existence now anyway.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    39. Re:Sigh by RabidMoose · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I was going to moderate, but I feel it more important to ask this question:

      What, exactly, is the difference between a saboteur and a terrorist? Aren't all terrorists out to sabotage?

    40. Re:Sigh by 2names · · Score: 3, Funny

      When was the last time you saw a person/vehicle/whatever having a mirror?

      Pretty much every vehicle I've ever been in has at least one side mirror.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    41. Re:Sigh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Uh, no, only Americans have convinced themselves that due to not having a war on their own soil in 150 years. Europeans (both West and East) are damn fucking well aware of how nasty and horrible war is."

      The United States had war on its soil until 1890 (119 years ago), mass terrorism in 1993, 1995 and all out war in 2001. Or don't you remember the 3000 people dying back then?

    42. Re:Sigh by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just reflect the light STRAIGHT BACK WHERE IT CAME FROM, and all those distortions will lead it to the point of origin. Three mirrors arranged as a corner of a cube do just that -- this is how a bicycle reflector works.

      You do realize that aiming a laser back at a moving aircraft from the ground with a device rugged enough to be carried by a fighting vehicle is a "non-trivial problem".

      Just getting said device on the correct side of the vehicle will be tricky enough in the environment where you'd see an AC-130 (air superiority, radar sites already destroyed, night).

      Even if you have 5 of them to "cover" the top and 4 sides of the vehicle, then you have to somehow position them to the spot where the laser is firing, and move them so quickly that the reflector's in place before the vehicle is destroyed.

      Let's say you're dumb enough to put gigantic reflectors the cover all sides of the vehicle....well your vehicle is now pretty much useless for things like 'moving'.

    43. Re:Sigh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The United States had war on its soil until 1890 (119 years ago), mass terrorism in 1993, 1995 and all out war in 2001. Or don't you remember the 3000 people dying back then?

      See, this is perfectly illustrates my point regarding the American civilian perspective on and experience of the horrors of war.

      You think two whole buildings getting knocked down is "all out war". You think one guy setting off one bomb in OK City who wasn't even part of an extensive network like al Qaeda, or the singular bomb exploded in the first WTC attack, is "mass terrorism". You think mopping up native resistance in the western half of the country gives you a perspective into knowing what it is like to be terrorized in your own home in the city.

      "Mass terrorism" is when multiple, coordinated attacks by extensive networks are conducted on a regular basis, like a typical day in Iraq. Mass terrorism is when you know there's going to be an explosion that day, and the only question is if its close enough to kill you. It's not one dude with one bomb. I feel silly even having to point this out, but that's the complete opposite of "mass"!

      No survivor of the Bombing of Warsaw, the Battle of Britain, or the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo, or any number of other battles where entire cities were targeted with mass bombardment for days, weeks, and months in addition to troops and tanks rolling down their streets is going to call two freaking airplanes on a suicide mission "all out war". You tell a Londoner in 1940 that "all out war" is coming, and then two freaking buildings fall down and then its over, and they're going to thank their lucky stars that you were so wrong! They're going to wonder what you were so hysterical about. You explain to them about "9/11", and they're going to laugh politely and tell you that your 9/11 isn't all-out-war until you don't call it "9/11" but "your average Tuesday in war-torn America".

      The last time American civilians really experienced war was 1865. This was apparently too long ago for many Americans today to have any perspective on what real war is like.

      It's not that the things you list weren't awful. It's that by elevating them to the level of "all out war" and acting like that's the same experience as people living in European cities in WWII, perfectly illustrates how mentally ill-prepared Americans are to deal with real war, because they have no idea what real war is like.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    44. Re:Sigh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was no specification of "all out war" or "real war" or "total war."

      I didn't call two buildings being knocked over "all out war", I called it war.

      Yes there was and yes you did. You're the one who specified "all out war in 2001." Read your own damn post please.

      And I was of course talking about "real" war, and "total" war, because I was talking about what civilians went through in WWII. I thought you were trying to make a point, not ignore the context of the discussion in order to be pedantic.

      The fact of the matter is, there was "real, all out and total war" on the Great Plains and Southwestern United States from 1865-1890.

      Oh geeze, yeah, against the natives. War on the least populated parts of the U.S. at the time (and still) is technically on U.S. soil, so again score one for pedantry. Sure if you were a homesteader or a remote town aka settlement, you were in danger, but when was Dallas or any other U.S. population center ever threatened by this "real, all out and total war"?

      As for this ideal that the Europeans are less likely to start wars because they have a more recent experience with it, I don't see that in recent history.

      Meh I know that Eurasian countries aren't paragons of pacifist virtue. I was going along with the idea presented in the post I replied to -- that accepting the reality of the horrors of war will result in less wars being started -- because it's the absence of this virtue that explains why the United States and its people have been cavalier about war and its "horror" because that hasn't been visited upon us since Sherman marched to sea.

      Other things explain other country's military mis-adventures. An absence of cultural understanding of the human consequences of war is not the reason. For rants like the one I originally replied to? Absofucking-lutely it is.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Slashdotted? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    They missed and cooked their server instead.

  5. no collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thank god this circumvents the stipulation in the Geneva Convention against weapons that cause blindness. As the lasers purpose is stated as an anti-vehicular weapon, the side affect of inducing blindness is A-OK.

    1. Re:no collateral damage by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As in the Falkland war, one flash and your pilots retina is ash.
      A 'ship' can just light up the sky with its weapons based laser system and the tame media will never know.
      Thank god the embedded media will never tell the truth about weapons that cause blindness or phosphorus weapons ;)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:no collateral damage by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
      ~William Tecumseh Sherman

      More quotes...

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  6. Re:$30 million? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Million, with a M? Are you sure that is not a typo?

    Shhhh, it's only a model.
       

  7. Pocket change! by richardkelleher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    30 Million is pretty small money for the DOD and for Boeing. There must be more money in this project somewhere.

  8. Re:Video? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even if it's just an artist's conception, there's always a picture. No exceptions.

    (If there isn't, make one)

  9. Still a chemical laser by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's still a chemical laser. It's quite possible to make chemical lasers powerful enough to be used as weapons, but so far the equipment has been too big to be very useful. The Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser is able to shoot down artillery shells and small rockets, but the equipment takes up three trailers and costs too much.

    The solid state laser people are catching up. The current output record is around 100 KW. This is enough to be marginally useful for anti-aircraft use. Around a megawatt, things start to get militarily interesting.

    Cooling is a huge problem for the solid state devices, though. With the chemical lasers, most of the heat is dumped with the spent chemicals. For the solid state devices, the gear has to be cooled, and efficiency is only around 20%.

    1. Re:Still a chemical laser by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the solid state gear, you can use heat exchangers running along the exterior of the aircraft. It's mighty chilly at FL350. You just need efficient heat pipes to get the heat outside (like you mentioned).

    2. Re:Still a chemical laser by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Efficiency often increases as you get bigger, so the 1 MW laser would probably require a smaller power system and a smaller cooling system, and be physically smaller itself.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Still a chemical laser by avandesande · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think anyone planning this project ever believes that this chemical laser will make it into service(the logistics are horrible)- however the aiming and mirroring systems will and solid state lasers should 'snap in'

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  10. Is this really what passes for jounalism today? by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 3, Insightful
    FTA

    According to as post on Wikipedia, each COIL burst produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical American household for more than one hour

    /facepalm

    1. Re:Is this really what passes for jounalism today? by pipedwho · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if that fails you could always resubmit your essay to your comp sci lecturer as a media example of infinite recursion.

    2. Re:Is this really what passes for jounalism today? by bitrex · · Score: 4, Funny

      It could have been worse, it could have been something like "produces 300,000 volts of power, which in watts per second is larger than an aircraft carrier and enough to burn down the entire Library of Congress..."

    3. Re:Is this really what passes for jounalism today? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's wrong with that? Unless you're complaining about the use of Wikipedia, everything in that sentence is perfectly within norms.

      A typical American household uses about 11,000 kWh per year.

      A very simple use of Google's calculator function will tell you that this equals 1,255 Wh per hour.

      This in turn is 4.52 megajoule. Expended over 5 seconds, this is 904 kW. Pretty close to a megawatt laser.

    4. Re:Is this really what passes for jounalism today? by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to as post on Wikipedia, each COIL burst produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical American household for more than one hour

      Produces?!? I think they mean it dissipates that much energy. Also, is that an American house at night, day, or mid-afternoon in the south in summer? I smell a new unit forming to go along with LOCs.

    5. Re:Is this really what passes for jounalism today? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably produces yes. Remember a COIL laser is something where you generate laser light by mixing a bunch of chemicals.

  11. Faster than a speeding bullet? by eggnet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, according to the article, the laser is supersonic. Good to know.

    1. Re:Faster than a speeding bullet? by Shadyman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whew. For a moment there, I was scared the laser might be going the speed of light. Now THAT would be dangerous.

    2. Re:Faster than a speeding bullet? by Statecraftsman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you were being facetious but they were referring to the ignition of the chemicals, not the speed of the "projectile".

    3. Re:Faster than a speeding bullet? by labnet · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not only that. They want to develop phased array systems with a total power output of 10W. Watch out paper aeroplanes!

      --
      46137
    4. Re:Faster than a speeding bullet? by eggnet · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can only say that due to the absurdity of any other interpretation, not due to any clear communication by the author.

  12. I'm waiting for them to shrink it down... by macraig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... to a size I can strap onto my sharks, since I haven't yet figured out how to grow them to the size of C-130s.

  13. Actually the first SUCCESSFUL attempt... by SunSpot505 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My company's developer had a side job as "computer support engineer" for this group a couple month ago (translate: 45/hr to configure software and as a human "fail-safe"). They actually did the first test fire a month or two back.

    It was only half successful.

    It did destroy the target which he described as a "basketball sized item" while traveling at ~450mph or whatever a C-130 cruises at (not supersonic). Unfortunately one of the chemicals has a ph of 17 and is stored at 2500 psi. When the tank developed a leak everyone had to don gas masks, move the cockpit and then make an emergency landing before it ate the plane. A full hazmat crew run by the company had to be flown in from Albuquerque to run decontamination.

    It makes me think that perhaps if they just shot those chemicals rather than the laser it might be just as effective and quite a bit cheaper.

    1. Re:Actually the first SUCCESSFUL attempt... by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, there are a few issues with that.

      1) It'd probably count as chemical warfare
      2) It cannot hit anything nearly as fast or track it as accurately
      3) Not everything can be corroded
      4) If air for a target in a city with a laser and miss, turn off the laser and that's it.

      Now, if you think it's bad when unexploded cluster bomblets look like food rations (picture here), imagine the reaction when a few kg of an insanely corrosive lands in the middle of a market place or playground.

    2. Re:Actually the first SUCCESSFUL attempt... by doug141 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only aqueous solutions are limited to pH below14.

    3. Re:Actually the first SUCCESSFUL attempt... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only in water. You may wish to read up on Superbases

    4. Re:Actually the first SUCCESSFUL attempt... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Within water you can't have anything more basic than OH- since the base will just dissocate water and be neutralized (leaving lots of OH-). In other solvents you can have far more acidic and basic substances and do lots of chemistry that wouldn't be possible in water.

      However, I don't believe that the actual term pH is defined outside of water, since it is the concentration of H3O+ which doesn't exist outside of water. You could define something analogous for another solvent. However, since that solvent will have a different dissociation constant and/or pKa a "pH" of 7 might or might not be neutral.

      In any case, if you make your measurements in a non-aqueous solvent you can have pKas that are far greater than 14 or less than 2.

      Disclaimer, it has been a while since I took General/Organic Chemistry, but I am a chemist...

  14. Er, not exactly? by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Informative

    From WP:

    The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) program is a US military program to mount a high energy laser damage weapon on an aircraft, initially the AC-130 gunship, for use against ground targets in urban or other areas where minimizing collateral damage is important. The laser will be a megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL). It is expected to have a tactical range of approximately twenty kilometers and weigh about 5,000â"7,000 kg. This program is distinct from the Airborne Laser, which is a much larger system designed to destroy enemy missiles in the boost phase.

  15. And this obeys it by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and yes, we do obey international convention. The treaties say that no weapon can be designed for the purpose of taking out somebodies vision. These lasers are NOT designed for that purpose. Just like many bombs are not designed to kill, there is collateral damage. The ATL was designed to DESTROY a target similar to how a bomb would work. Likewise, the ABL is designed to collapse a sidewall of a missile. If somebody 'hardens' it causes the collateral damage, how is that America's fault?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Impressive journalism by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From 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.

    I'm pretty sure the laser fires at the speed of light which I guess is technically supersonic. Correct but a retarded way to explain technology the author clearly doesn't understand.

    Then TFA follows up the next sentence with the following gem:

    According to as post on Wikipedia...

    So Wikipedia is a source of journalistic research now? Oh dear... This guy isn't even smart enough to hide the fact he used Wikipedia as a primary source AND he has a typo in the same sentence. Is he trying to get on the Slashdot editing staff?

    Known as the SWEEPER, which is wicked short for short-range wide-field-of-view extremely-agile electronically-steered photonic emitters

    "Wicked short"? Is this some teenager from Boston writing this? Not according to the picture but the author certainly writes like a high school freshman.

  17. Re:Interesting that you point to Kyoto by khayman80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why land size and not population? Emissions are fundamentally related to electricity consumption (when produced by coal and oil plants) and gasoline use. Each of these are proportional to population. All else being equal, if the population doubles the electricity consumption doubles. Population density plays a role, but only by making mass transit somewhat less effective.

    Land size doesn't seem relevant. Doubling land size doesn't affect electricity consumption, and it (rightly) doesn't affect a per capita estimate. If the U.S. had the same emissions as today but a population of exactly 1 person, your metric would imply that the situation hadn't changed at all. But it would, of course. That 1 person would be using up fossil fuels at a rate 300,000,000 times faster than the average American. Doesn't that seem like something that you'd want your metric to be able to measure?

  18. To all you a**holes.... by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    .... with the laser pointers: We're shooting back.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. GOLD: Effective counter measure against the ABL by rcb1974 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article says that the the ABL uses a COIL laser which has an output wavelength of 1.315 Âm, the wavelength of transition of atomic iodine. What reflects light well at that infrared wavelength? Gold. Yup, just plate your missile with gold and it might be able to survive hits from a laser like this. They probably use gold on the mirror(s) used to aim this laser. The reflectivity of gold at 1.315 microns is about 98%.

    So if this really is a 1MW laser, then only 20kWatts of energy gets through. Plus, the beam diverges, so at a long distance the beam diameter might be something like 1meter. The USAF probably can't even run this laser for very long or else it will self destruct. So, 20kWatts of energy that is pulsed for a few seconds over a 1meter area? You can design a missile to withstand that. Just plate it with gold, and put on some aerodynamic heat sinks and/or shield and/or insulation.

  20. Re:10 W? by avandesande · · Score: 2, Informative

    This was the power of the aiming laser, not the main laser.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  21. Re:Goodbye Geneva? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can this not be considered a blinding weapon?

    Because if it hits you anywhere near your eyes, the hole burned through your head will kill you. Since you'll only have a fraction of a second that you've been blinded due to your eyes melting, I really don't think you'll get a chance to file any sort of charge.