Slashdot Mirror


The Army Is 3D Printing Warheads

Jason Koebler writes: In its latest bid to kill more people, more efficiently, and at less cost, the army is planning to print warhead components, according to the latest issue of Army Technology (PDF). "3D printing of warheads will allow us to have better design control and utilize geometries and patterns that previously could not be produced or manufactured," James Zunino, a researcher at the Armament Research, Engineering and Design Center said. "Warheads could be designed to meet specific mission requirements whether it is to improve safety to meet an Insensitive Munitions requirement, or it could have tailorable effects, better control, and be scalable to achieve desired lethality."

4 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Re:GPLv4 - the good public license? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This comes from someone who just does not understand that without weapons manufacture most of the world would be speaking German or Russian by now.

  2. Re:GPLv4 - the good public license? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just don't want to have helped them!

    But you have no problem basking in the freedom provided by those who use them.

  3. Re:I agree by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about ones that don't explode?

    Oddly enough, training shells were used by desperate gunners during the battle of Jutland. The normal shells weren't penetrating the armour of the German ships, but the concrete filled training shells were punching right through, dealing surprisingly heavy damage.

  4. Re:GPLv4 - the good public license? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. I had to laugh when reading that article:

    But the military isn’t just interested in saving lives—more often than not, it takes them.

    Really? No shit. The military kills people?

    In its latest bid to kill more people, more efficiently, and at less cost

    Isn't this what we want all government agencies to strive for? When the military's actual job is to figure out how to kill people and destroy things with maximum effectiveness and efficiency, then we really shouldn't complain when they seem to be doing a good job of it. I'm not exactly sure what this writer thought the military's purpose is, but he seems horrified at the thought of using technology to kill people more efficiently.

    So, there we have it. While comparatively small-scale dangers like homebrew plastic guns make headlines, one of the most powerful and deadly organizations in the world is using the same technology to build better weapons of mass destruction on the cheap.

    Should the US not develop technologies like this and simply hope no one else does either? People today are so damned sure that we'll never get into another large-scale shooting war. I hope to hell we don't, but if we do, I'd like our side to have the best weapons, and all the better if they're efficient to produce. Even if, in the future, the military is scaled down to paramilitary forces level (small, lean and efficient), wouldn't it be better to outfit them inexpensively rather than spending billions on weapons production? Who the hell would advocate spending more of our budget on rockets and bombs when less expensive devices could be made much cheaper (other than weapons manufacturers, I suppose)? Wouldn't that leave more money to spend on better things?

    The author got one thing right. For all it gets wrong (and I'm sure actual military folks could provide plenty of stories), the US military arguably is the most lethal and destructive force the world has ever known. They also don't go off killing random people and blowing things up. Elected civilians are the ones who ultimately decide whether or not to pull the trigger. It's easy enough to demonize the military while conveniently forgetting that they guy you voted for is the one sending them out to kill people, but it's dishonest as hell.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.