Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Builds Microwave Weapon To Take Down Enemy Drones (thestack.com)

Posted by msmash on from the drone-despise dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Russian government is backing a military research project to develop a powerful microwave-based weapon designed to take out unmanned enemy drones from up to half a mile away. The country's United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (UIMC) created the microwave gun specifically to disrupt the electronics of enemy missiles. Using the ultra-high frequency waves the weapon can completely disable aircraft communications, resulting in loss of control. The destructive rays, which belong to a group of warfare technologies known as directed-energy weapons (DEW), will be emitted from surface-to-air Buk missile systems. Military analyst Alexander Perendzhiyev noted that the new weapon would be particularly effective against systems carrying microelectronic equipment. He also suggested that the impact of the radio-electronic waves could even be deadly to humans -- and referred to potential use against terrorists.

2 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Syrian drones by unixisc · · Score: 1, Troll

    Thanks to the incompetence of the US not being able to figure out the right group to back in Syria, you have drones ending up w/ ISIS, and now the Russians have to figure out a way to get them downed.

    A nuke here or there on Raqqa, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, would fix things for good

    1. Re:Syrian drones by unixisc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Excellent point!!! This is the very issue w/ the Bush Doctrine, which was derived from the Sharansky principle of 'Democracy being the antidote to wars and oppression'.

      The theory w/ which the US intervened in Iraq was that once that country became democratic, it would become a pluralistic society tolerant of all minority groups. Until that was put into practice, and one saw Iraqi Shiite militas attacking Christian liquor shops, and persecuting Christians, forcing them to flee to Syria(!!! Of all places) Why? B'cos the Sharansky principle doesn't apply to Muslims.

      This is b'cos Islam is not a 'live and let live' religion. Beyond their boundaries, they are about converting or suppressing or fighting non-Muslims. But it doesn't end there. Even if the rest of the world were to decide to collectively embrace Islam, it wouldn't solve the problem. Why? B'cos there'd be the issue of which is the true Islam? Is it Sunnite or Shiite? If it's Shiite, should one go by the Ayatollahs of Iran or Najaf? If it's Sunnite, should one go by the Saudis, or the al Azhar geniuses in Cairo, or the al Qaeda pooh baahs in Fuckistan, or the headchoppers of ISIS in Raqqa? Who do we go by? And if we went w/ any one of them, we'd be duty bound to fight to the end those who bought into different interpretations of Islam. And that's what one has in both Iraq & Syria today.