Slashdot Mirror
US Navy Authorizes Use of Laser In Combat
mi writes The U.S. Navy has declared an experimental laser weapon on its Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) in the Persian Gulf an operational asset and U.S. Central Command has given permission for the commander of the ship to defend itself with the weapon. The 30 kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS) was installed aboard USS Ponce this summer as part of a $40 million research and development effort from ONR and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to test the viability of directed energy weapons in an operational environment. No word yet on a smaller, shark-mounted version.
No mirror exposed to the open ocean will be clean enough to not explode fairly quickly when a 30kw laser beam hits it.
Honestly, I'm surprised the laser itself doesn't have issues with its own optics in that sort of environment. One tiny spec of dust on the lens would be disastrous.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
What remains to be seen is whether jets and missiles can shrug off (either through brute-force thickening or more sophisticated ablative armor or actively deployed particulates that effectively scatter incoming light) the relatively tepid amounts of energy that lasers (especially anything that dodges the rather nasty requirements of chemical lasers) are good for, particularly at range, under optically sub-optimal conditions (never have those at sea!).
.50 BMG. Now, if you can't put a bullet on target, that's irrelevant; but in terms of expected stopping power the finest in combat laser technology is...distinctly middling... compared to guns that date back to the period between the world wars. Obviously the fire control system has evolved out of sight; but given how long it'll have to stay on target, you'd hope so.)
Even under the ideal and closely controlled conditions of industrial laser cutters, lasers are abundantly unsafe for ocular exposure; but by no means the speediest remover of bulk material. In an atmosphere, range is going to be constrained by thermal distortion if nothing else, so the ease of keeping photons on target won't be quite as dramatic as it would be in space, and against close-in non-aircraft, there'll be a lot of cheap 'n nasty (but probably embarrassingly effective) countermeasures involving coating things with mud, spraying them with seawater, and generally making a 3rd world nuisance of yourself.
(By way of comparison, assuming that this 30Kw laser delivers 100% of energy to target, it'll take 2/3 of a second of continuous exposure to deliver the same number of joules to the target as a
The purpose of war is to shatter a social system that is harming our species and make space for something better. If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.
Oh please.
"War is diplomacy by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz
There's nothing moral or immoral about waging war. It is one of many methods in which a country pursues it's strategic objectives in opposition to another country or organized group. The conduct by which war is fought is moral or immoral however, which includes the cruelty of your weapons. Weapons such as chemical weapons were banned specifically because they were indiscriminate and horrific in their effects. The exact opposite of what you just said is true.