Slashdot Mirror
New Approach For Laser Weapons
An anonymous reader writes "Laser guns and other 'directed energy weapons' have remained in sci-fi lore because of their inefficiency, bulkiness, and poor beam quality. Now an MIT Lincoln Lab spinoff called TeraDiode is developing a diode laser that uses 'wavelength beam combining' to create what it calls the brightest and most powerful laser of its kind. The two-year-old company, backed by $3 million from the U.S. Department of Defense and $4 million from venture capitalists, is working on a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles. Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells. That's still at least three to five years away, but with advances in semiconductor lasers there seems to be quite a renewed interest in weaponry."
They're calling it the most powerful laser of it's kind, and it's a new kind of laser...
Agreed. It is much better when people are killed by the old methods instead.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.
War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Given the phrasing from the post, "... a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles," and the links with research from a Big Technical University, a better cultural reference would be the movie Real Genius. Much better match all-told.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
There's no technical information here, just that they can now make a more powerful diode laser. More info here.
I think you mean the Iowa class, of which New Jersey was a member.
I expect that they will have about the same success with this as with all the other types of weapons they've used to shoot down commercial airliners.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
If China gets it, I can afford the cutter and welder in the same way we afforded the computers we post on.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Dude, we ARE the world's jerks.
I think that's overly simplistic. The U.S. does lots of jerky things. But I think there's no shortage of non-U.S. jerks who would take over any land that they felt they could successfully conquer. ( China/Tibet and Russia/Georgia are two recent examples. )
Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.
I don't doubt that. But I'm just guessing that if that $7M+ could have been spent on malaria research, cancer research, water purification systems, etc., there could have been more lives saved. If Libya was at peace, that is, which goes back to my main point.
I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".
Why would the founding fathers reject citizens owning current generation weapons? Remember, these are men that took up arms and fought for freedom against an oppressive government. Many of them owned weapons that were state of their art for the day, similar to modern day ownership of AR-15s and similar firearms. Private ownership of cannons was not uncommon either.
The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect duck hunters.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
I'm perfecting a new kind of mirror that's far more efficient than old mirrors...
Mostly random stuff.
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government.
Your statement might be true if the government is distant, as in American Colonists vs George III in England. However it is untrue when the government is local, and the government officials live and work near the citizens, as in American Colonists vs George III's governors and institutions located in the colonies. Note that the American revolutionaries began by threatening the local tax collectors and such, not the king and his ministers.
A more contemporary failing of your logic would be the Arab Spring where portions of an Army with ties to the community defect when unjustly ordered to attack that community.
They canceled that "Don't ask, don't tell" policy just in time.
Have gnu, will travel.
Hey, we'll let the engineers worry about that.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.