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!"
Wouldn't making your plane or missile shiny / reflective defeat these things pretty easily?
What exactly did we have the stomach for then that we don't now? Nuclear bombs?
That and the whole idea of carpet bombing populated areas. While "WE" don't have the stomach for it, I hope our enemies are at least as civilized. I have little hope for our current crop of enemies, however.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is a bit like gunpowder weapons in the 14th century. They appeared in Europe early in that century, were pretty pointless at first, then useful in special cases, then, after about 100 years, more-generally useful. Professional soldiers at that time must have been pretty skeptical. "Interesting, but I'll keep the trebuchet for now, thanks." Up to, say, 1350, it would have been difficult to predict whether gunpowder would ever become a practical weapon.
Hence why it's newsworthy that someone has created this weapon. Contrary to the title, using it to destroy test targets isn't. The purpose of this weapon, specifically, is to prevent greater destruction by lesser destruction (building and life VS missile). Also, destruction and creation are two sides of the same coin; improvement of the world requires both creating good and destroying the existing bad.
There are some strong parallels between the US occupation of Iraq and the German occupation of Yugoslavia.
To top it off, our invasion of Iraq totally screwed our operations in Afghanistan. So we did the absolute most ass backwards, ineffective thing we could have done, and now we are paying for it. Well, our young men and women are. Okay, not the sons and daughters of the people who sent us into Iraq, obviously, but, you know, our disposable young men and women are paying for it.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
As a former soldier who went to the Middle East, I can tell you that I knew very well what our mission was and fully supported it. If I didn't, I would not have gone. I would have made a pass at the Platoon SGT or something to get my ass thrown out of the Army. When I was over there, I met the people I was there defending and understood why I was there. I was given freedom from my forefathers with help from the French. I didn't earn it. What makes me so damn special that I get freedom from tyranny and these people don't? I've earned it now. Sure, I didn't fight for my own freedom, but I gave the gift to someone else and would have been willing to die for it. I made that decision before I ever signed.
And yes! It makes me VERY proud to be an American, thank you.
We invaded Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11
Right. They violated 17 UN resolutions, tried to assassinate a former US president, fired at our soldiers who were there enforcing an UN mandate, and do I need to bring up the mass graves filled with men and women still clutching their toddler children?
Afghanistan may have been their home base, but if we invade countries because they house terrorists, who should we have invaded because of Tim McVeigh?
Housing terrorists is one thing. Terrorists live everywhere. It's when the government knows they are there and do nothing about it. The Taliban didn't just "house" Al Qaeda , they harbored them. They actively assisted them and refused our offer to take care of them ourselves. What would you have Bush do? "Hello, Mr. Taliban guy, Dubya here. Listen, the guys that planned the attack that killed 3000 of our citizens are in your country. Do you mind if we come get them? I'm sorry, what was that? No way in Hell? What about my mother? Well, OK then. Thank you for your time. (hangs up phone). Sorry, Dick, they said no."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
He never described how the zero sum wars were being fought, only that they were.
You don't fight fair -- you fight to win. We used to understand that. Our enemies still do.
And what exactly is a "win" in the context of afghanistan? We need to make sure that whatever we do to "win," whatever that even is in this context, doesn't create more enemies.
The Airborne Laser isn't a waste of money - it's great!
The modern nuclear triad, submarines, ICBMs and airborne delivery are still what our opponents use.
The briefcase bomb, nuclear artillery shell, and nuclear cruise missile are other delivery systems that could be used too.
The Airborne Laser would be very effective against ICBMs in a boost phase.
It is ideal against North Korea and Iran should they choose to use a SCUD-like missile with a nuclear warhead.
It's pretty useless against ICBMs in orbit or coming down.
It's useless against all of the other delivery systems.
But for what it's good at, it's great!
Well worth the money, it's wonderful!
Please don't cancel this program.