Slashdot Mirror
Laser Weapon Shoots Down Airplanes In Test
airshowfan writes "Boeing's directed-energy weapons (a.k.a. frickin' laser beams) have been getting some attention lately. The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) is a C-130 that famously burned a hole through a car's hood, and the YAL-1 AirBorne Laser is a 747 that shoots a laser from its nose that is powerful enough to bring down an ICBM. But even cooler is the Mobile Active Targeting Resource for Integrated eXperiments (MATRIX), a laser that is mounted on a truck (which probably costs less than a 747, but who knows) and that can shoot down small aircraft, as shown in the picture on this article. (The Laser Avenger supposedly also has this capability). We live in the future!"
Yeah, but if you make your plane shiny and reflective, you make it a lot easier to target with other weapons, like missiles.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
So when do our soldiers get to stop dying because of homemade street bombs?
When we stop invading other countries?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wouldn't making your plane or missile shiny / reflective defeat these things pretty easily?
The answer is no, because no shiny surface has 100% reflectivity (your bathroom mirror probably tops out at around 85%): some of the light will always penetrate to the base layer, and if the surface is being hit by a megawatt weaponized laser, it'll just burn straight through.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Czarangelus...
I always wondered where you would pop up after you were banned on Fark. (A pretty impressive feat in its own right). Needless to say, you certainly haven't stopped with the flamebait.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Will will stop invading when they promise to stop trying things like hijacking planes and flying them into really tall buildings to kill a few thousand civilians.
What country were those hijackers from, again?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
instead of a police action where every activity is on film or subject to investigation.
Well, the obvious difference is that the Nazis, Italians, and Japanese were the national leaders of their countries. Now we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are working with the Iraqi and Anghani governments against irregulars within their borders. You fight these battles two very different ways.
What do you suggest we do differently?
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
With the world economy in the toilet, all-time record in unemployment, massive desertification, energy shortage, more than 1 billion starving, epidemics of malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis, global warming, what we really really need is the ultimate super cool weapon.
Not that I believe your premise, but what better time to have a superweapon than when other countries start getting desperate enough to attack?
It wouldn't hurt.
Yes, yes it would. It would hurt tremendously. It has hurt tremendously to the extent that we've used them.
The tactics of WW2 (mass bombardment, armored warfare, submarine warfare, etc) aren't very relevant here but we could certainly learn a thing or two from the way the Greatest Generation behaved on the battlefield. Tying one hand behind our backs and following the rules when our enemies refuse to do the same is extremely foolhardy. You don't fight fair -- you fight to win. We used to understand that. Our enemies still do.
What you need to understand is that "win" means different things in different conflicts, and the "win" in state-vs-state warfare like WWII is monumentally different than "win" in a counter-insurgency nation-building conflict like we are now engaged in. Our enemies understand this, but many still don't understand that even though it already bit us in the ass in Vietnam, then again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because they refuse to see that these wars are not just different from WWII tactically, but in their fundamental objectives.
To fight an insurgency you need intelligence from the locals. To get intelligence from the locals, they need to be on your side. For them to be on your side, you do need to fight "fair". Refusing to take prisoners, shooting anyone who looks like they might be an insurgent, "rigorously interrogating" suspected insurgents, being cavalier about "collateral damage" -- all these things lose the support of the locals, and thus cause us to lose the war.
Fighting to win? You're talking about fighting to lose. The rules of engagement that our soldiers abide by are critical to ensuring that we can succeed. Does "tying one hand behind our backs" make it hard to succeed? Absolutely, but without that it would be impossible to succeed. Don't like fighting wars where you must tie one hand behind your back to have a hope of winning? Well maybe you shouldn't get into that kind of war. There's another lesson you should learn.
The enemies of Democracy are