Directed Energy Weapon Downs Ballistic Missile

A**masher writes "In a test off the Califoria coast late last night, Boeing's Airborne Laser successfully destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile. 'This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform,' reported the Missile Defense Agency. It should be noted that destroying a liquid-fueled ballistic missile is generally considered easier than killing a solid-fueled equivalent due to the relative fragility of the fueling and other systems."

Comments

Re:Popcorn and other practical applications

[mozzis]

To both the idiot who wrote this and the idiot who wrote its parent: One of the most compelling arguments for directed energy weapons, a point I have seen made time after time in briefings, is the reduction and/or elimination of "collateral damage" they will enable. In fact, no one I know in the military even uses the phrase "collateral damage" without a visible reaction of repugnance. The US military, as a matter of strategy and of tactical planning, abhors the idea of killing anyone who is not actively engaging in trying to kill us first. So the billions spent on this project reflect a commitment to that principle, which will be achieved both by the precision of the weapon (especially when used in a tactical engagement) and by its speed and range, which are unique and could possibly eliminate the threat of long-range nuclear weapons forever. THAT was the vision that motivated SDI and the ABL from their beginnings.

Re:Apparently Reuters Fails at Journalism

[RingDev]

I would hesitate to call Reuters a "left-wing" organization. They are driven by profits, if there is a larger profit to be made catering to the left, so be it, but they will report with bias to any side of the political spectrum if there is money in it. If it bleeds, it leads, it doesn't matter if it's a liberal or a conservative.

This case in specific, being a pro-military grade weapon R&D summary would IMO be considered slightly more to the right as most lefties I know are in favor of reducing military spending. If Reuters were a left-wing organization, I would have expected this article to point out how bloated, behind schedule and over budget the MDA is on almost all of its projects. I would expect them to drop the names of the congressmen/senators who sponsored the bill/amendment to get this project funded, and I would expect them to make some point about how the money could be better spent.

On the other hand, if Reuters was a "right-wing" organization, I would have expected this article to include a list of congressmen/senators who opposed the project, an iteration of countries that have missiles that this device could disable, and a number of warnings about terrorist, NBC warheads, and something to do with Sarah Pallin.

What we have though, is an article that appears to be keeping to a limited scope of facts. Although it gets a number of these facts wrong, I'm not seeing a whole lot of bias, just incompetence.

-Rick