Boeing 12,000lb Chemical Laser Set to Fry Targets 625
coondoggie writes "Boeing this week completed work on and installed a 12,000-pound chemical laser in a C-130H aircraft. Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) which is being developed for the Department of Defense, will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations."
Cool but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder what the peaceful applications of this could be? It bothers me that so much money is spent on military technology having so many other issues that could be addressed. I'm guessing that soldering might be one good use, with a scaled down model but can't think of much else at the moment. On the other hand if they are going to research more ways to destroy stuff I'd like to see a true laser hand pistol...
Oh, I almost forgot the meme: Sharks!
Little damage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, How do you attach it to the shark? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Targetting (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, it ain't the laser that kills you, its the sudden stop as you hit the dirt beneath what was once the building you were standing on.
Re:Cool but... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why my sole criterion for voting in the next election is: who will cut the military budget the most?
You can buy a *lot* with $500 billion a year, or even 20% of $500 billion a year. Tax cuts, medical research, a massive shift away from fossil fuels ($100 billion buys a *lot* of nuclear plants), education, improved infrastructure, Third World aid, whatever. We can have the debate about *which* useful thing to do with the money, but, for fuck's sake, do *something* useful with it other than piss it down the hole of the Pentagon.
Lasered to death (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this weapon even legal?
Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Delivery vehicles (Score:1, Insightful)
Note this well. The US's most significant "victory" in GWI was bombing the shit out of a RETREATING army.
Re:Hmm. (Score:0, Insightful)
I didn't think our world image could get worse. I was wrong...
Re:Cool but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because at the moment all those countries are menaced by a neighbour who is kept in check largely by the US. And all those neighbours either have or are very close to having ICBMs. And some of them are maybe crazy enough to threaten the US with those ICBMS or their neighbours. Now if the US can shoot them down there's much less incentive for them to do that. So missile defense is actually a geopolitical stabiliser.
Come to think of it, even if you're in America it's far better that America is far ahead of any conceivable rival, because that deters them from a sprint to parity and then a Pearl Harbour style attack on the US or even engaging in brinksmanship and messing it up so that they end up swapping ICBMs with the US. Which would be far more expensive than current US defense policy, even ignoring the fact that millions of innocent people would die, many of them Americans.
Most of these regimes seem to engage in brinksmanship with the US all the time. It seems likely that they view ICBMs as a tool to strengthen their hand, rather than just a defense to hunker down behind. And most of them have little or no understanding of US politics, so it's quite likely that they would miscalculate and get into a war with the US even if it were to make concessions to them. Arguably starting to make concessions to appease them would simply embolden then and make them start to demand things which the US cannot concede.
So if I were you I'd vote to keep spending on defense. Come to think of it, the good old US military industrial complex will probably managed to get the dollars somehow regardless of how you vote.
Where did all the star wars nerds go? (Score:4, Insightful)
No collateral damage? Umm .. (Score:4, Insightful)
It flies. It flies slowly (it's not a fighter plane). It flies nearby (range is up to 20km, and let's hope the adversaries don't have any smoke grenades handy). Yet aim is 100% accurate?
"No collateral damage" - from the club with the two dog film (Barney and Blair)..
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Little damage (Score:5, Insightful)
At least laser-rebound is nice enough to be benign when you are out of sight. Shrapnel will take a parabolic arc which hops over any intermediary buildings to pop you on the head.
Not to mention that rules for angle of incidence/reflection mean that a laser shot straight down on a tall structure is unlikely to cause problems for anyone else.
Anyway, say this takes fifteen years to become standard technology; by then, repairing retinas may be easy as pie, but money says that being blast-incinerary radius of a bomb will still be fairly lethal.
Re:Cool but... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It wouldn't. All of those countries live right next door to their enemies. An ICBM would hardly be necessary to inflict devastating damage upon any of them.
North Korea has enough conventional artillery pointed at South Korea to level Seoul in a manner of minutes (and vice versa). China has a big enough army to march over Taiwan and Japan simultaneously, and would very likely win by sheer numbers alone without much of a fight.
And attacking Israel is simply a bad idea. The response provoked by a nuclear attack upon Israel would be a hundred times more severe than the initial attack.
I'm guessing you're American (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, thanks for your opinion and all. But I'd rather hear from people who actually live in Taiwan, South Korea or Israel, or Japan. I'd be very interested to hear how many share your opinion.
I don't doubt some do, but I can certainly imagine that people who don't have quite the same level of trust in America (given their rhetoric and actions over the last few years) might feel somewhat more comfortable if America could actually be held accountable for their actions, rather than just having to hope their current president (and advisers) have more than just their own best interests at heart this year.
Re:Cool but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also wasn't the biggest problem with antinukes to actually target the warheads? A modern ICBM doesn't come down in one piece, there's a crapton of warheads, decoys and other debries up there and missing one warhead means the attack is successful.
Military Budget *isn't* the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now where would *I* get all the money to spend on good projects? Earmarks buried in the various bills that pass Congress. There were over 2000 (two thousand) earmarks in the Defense budget alone. This is money being spent by Congress, not the DOD, but charged as part of the defense budget. How many monunments (read research centers, bridges, etc) do we need named for LIVING members of Congress?
We spend an amazing amount on education but efforts to improve it are thwarted by Teacher Union's, Special Interest Groups, and Politicians. If you want to improve education don't look to Washington, get involved at the local level. You will see the wall first hand.
Improved Infrastucture? Look, we already budget more than enough to fix and maintain what we have. The problem is that Congress takes the money allocated and redirects it to new projects. You then have government incompetence at the state level as well. Ever wonder why a certain bridge disaster disappeared from the news so quickly? Because it was exposing the system that is failing. You cannot just throw more money at a failing system and expect good results. If that were the case we would have best schools and roads in the world!
Lets hit your next category. Medical research. The private sector is doing amazing things in this area - why? Because by not taking Federal money for all lines of research they are left with options they would lose otherwise. Getting the Feds involved handcuffs researchers in more ways than you can count. Medical research is big money, the risks are great but the rewards are great. Keeping people living longer means more money for the companies that can provide it. The government has no interest in you living longer as you cost them more money when you do. (remember that entitlement section of the budget? Nearly half directly spent there)
New power alternatives. We already have seen where Congress is going. Ethanol. Why? The FARM industry. Earmarks out the wahzoo for a fix that may cause more problems than it solves. Less food for the world and more pollutants of a different sort. Wind farms you say? Sure, just don't put them in some Congressman's backyard! Nuclear? No member of Congress has the willpower to stand behind this industry. Simply put it does not get them votes. The money is high and tied too much to a small area. Whereas ethanol allows for tax money to be spread around garnishing lots of votes!
Yes the military spends a lot of money. Yes a lot is wasted. However that same military is the reason why we can bitch about the state of our country and the world with near impunity. We don't have to worry about tanks rolling over our demonstrations, we don't have to worry about family members being disappeared overnight because a relative spoke out in university, and we don't go to the market worried about some whacko with a bomb on his chest.
My sole criteria for the next election is, who will cut the BUDGET the most. The taking from Americans is extreme. Bush was anything but a conservative, having grown the government to sizes beyond reason. There is no reason to have so many people dependant on the government to survive. By creating such a situation we doom the future generations. Where will be the innovations and great strides in society when its people don't have to do so as someone else will foot the bill and tuck them in?
Getting the government off our backs is the first step to having a great country. Our government should be here to serve us, not indenture us.
they aren't stupid, only selective (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are people like this? Dunno. But an AF officer isn't going to make much rank if he isn't convinced 24/7 that airpower is the best answer to whatever problem they have that day. And "collateral damage" (i.e. brown or yellow people who I don't have to care about) just isn't important.
From day one of the Iraq war/occupation/whatever I've said we should let cameram crews walk around the areas we've bombed. You support war? Fine--here are the pictures of the children you killed today. How's that moral clarity working out for you?
Even today, supporters of the war are crowing about how "improved" Iraq is. Fine. My problem is that I mentally transfer the car bombs and dozens of sectarian killings every day, along with the imprisonment without trial, govt-backed death squads, lack of clean water, lack of medicine, etc, to, say, Houston, and wonder how wonderful we'd consider it. We'd be horrified, and there's no way we'd be happy if another country imposed that on us, especially with ~150K troops and mercenaries on our part of the earth but with complete immunity from our laws and even their own damned laws (at least in the case of the mercs). People's insouciance is due simply to the fact that it isn't them.
If the AF blew up the school across from their house and they were picking up body parts from their front lawn, a pro forma apology and a speech by the foreign president that "things are looking up" wouldn't fly. 80% of us would be working for the insurgency. Once you just ask the seemingly obvious question "how would we feel in their place?" the BS you see on Fox and Fox Lite (i.e. the other TV channels) rings a bit hollow.
socialist! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm still a little fuzzy on how building infrastructure in Iraq is okay, but building infrastructure in the USA is socialism. Are we foisting socialism on the Iraqis?
Re:Cool but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm guessing you're American (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cool but... (Score:2, Insightful)
such a democracy--we should be so lucky (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq only became a shithole after the UN sanctions, and then a hellhole after our invasion. The USA has historically had no problem with nations that were politically repressive, even brutal (Indonesia, anyone? Saudi Arabia? UAE?) as long as they did business with US companies, allowing us to profit from their brutality. I agree that Saddam was a dictator, but saying they have us to "thank" for "democracy" is a bit cheeky. Can they thank us for arming him, or for cutting off medical supplies? How about selling him components for chemical weapons in the 80s?
As for Iraq being a democracy, stop acting as if they have self-determination. Over 150K troops and mercenaries on your soil, enjoying complete immunity from Iraqi law, with the ability to shoot you at will, isn't what I'd call a democracy. Would you favor letting the Iraqis vote next week on whether US military members and mercenaries should be subject to Iraqi law? Would you consider the referendum binding? If not, they aren't much of a soverign nation, are they?
Re:Military Budget *isn't* the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think many Americans are worried about being invaded by foreign armies. They're mostly worried about being invaded by their own government.
Bush may have killed a bunch of arabs, but he killed a ton of Americans too. The ones that lived, he made their lives just a little more miserable every few months. Keep going with this government, and soon it's the Americans that will seek political refuge abroad.
No need for 12000lb lasers to stop looting scum (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it did not. US had its own share of rioting scum — Los Angeles in 1992 [wikipedia.org], Seattle in 1999 [wikipedia.org]...
Wherever the scum riots, they are easily suppressed by real determination (which the mayors of the cities listed evidently lacked). When the Los Angeles scum moved to trash another neighborhood, for example, they were stopped by armed citizens [wikipedia.org] (thank you, Second Amendment!), and, eventually, by police and National Guard...
You don't need a flying super-laser to suppress a riot.
If true, that's a very good thing. But it has nothing to do with maintaining our military's edge against adversaries.
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
NICE quote.
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Military Budget *isn't* the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, damn those people for complaining about wages after going to school for 5 years, working unpaid for one year, and then starting at $25,000 per year with $60,000 or so in loan debt. It's such a good deal, one has to wonder why anybody would want to be a web designer, nurse, or construction worker.
Why should we pay someone what they're worth?
Re:I'm guessing you're American (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much anything > Austin Powers. Seriously. I can't be the only person around here that hated those movies. Can I?
Re:I'm guessing you're American (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, many saw the invention of aircraft as a way to prevent massive casualties in war. Pairs of airborne 'knights' would duel without the need to send in huge infantries. Of course, infantry battles only increased, and World War II saw the introduction of carpet bombing.
Much later, laser-guided bombs and other forms of 'surgical strike' were supposed to eliminate civilian casualties. Of course, 'military intelligence' brought us the bombing of non-military targets, with massive civilian casualties for no military gain.
Now the giant frickin' laser beam is supposed to bring 'surgical strikes' to a new level. Unfortunately, it's still the same people directing the scalpel.
If there is one constant in human history: War kills people. Always has, always will.
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
And which leads us to the question: so what? What you've said could apply to any of a dozen or more nation-states throughout Africa and the rest of the world. But for some reason we're not engaged in a war defending the citizenry in any of those other countries...
You've apparently drank the Bush Kool-Aid. First, we needed to invade Iraq because of presumed links to Al-Qaeda (false), then it was their nuclear ambitions and biologcal weapons programs (none), and then finally it came down to the fact that Saddam was a "bad" man and we needed to "protect" his people and bring the burning touch of democracy to them. With capitalism coming along for the ride.
Obtaining the rights to new oil blocks and clearing the way to restructing Iraq's Production Sharing Contracts to benefit US-based corporations had nothing to do with it, of course. Nor did the fact that we were in a slump and a nice little war always has a way of fueling the economy, while incidentally providing nice profits for those involved. Or the fact that Bush felt he needed to prove his manhood and the power of the US to others in the region, in the process accomplishing what his father failed to do in a previous little war.
Shock and awe, indeed.
A previous little war, one might also mention, that was also done in a noble effort to protect the nation of Kuwait from outside aggression. While also safeguarding a few oil fields, refineries, ports, and so on. Hardly worth mentioning, really.
Or to translate: It's the oil, stupid.
Re:Cool but... (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, we wouldn't want all of the other tough guys to think we were all talk and no action.
I know that sounds like something a bully would do, but this is -completely- different... No, really it is... Want to argue about it? Let's take this outside...
Re:such a democracy--we should be so lucky (Score:2, Insightful)
Tito died and the whole thing went to shit, giving us "ethnic cleansing", Screbrinicza [sp], and Democrats thumping the table for military action to stop the violence.
History will likely judge the US invasion of Iraq as a mistake - hell, even most republicans, when asked privately, will say that. But pretending that Iraq would have remained stable in the future is to ignore history - RECENT history. You can't make people of other tribes/religions/cultures love one another by pointing a gun at them. The best you get is resentful tolerance - hell, we're STILL living with the aftermath of Reconstruction in the South.
Unfortunately, the world hasn't quite figured out how to make culturally and religiously diverse people live together peacefully. I'd argue that the closest we've come is in the US, where immigrant waves have been incorporated more or less successfully. Europe is getting a taste of the problems associated with having large populations of "different" people trying to function within a monolithic society - Muslims in England, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany. Hell, there's a non-zero possibility that Belgium will decide they don't want to exist anymore, based on ethnic and religious divisions.
I am morally certain that, within 20 years, Iraq will be split into 3 ethnically identified political entities, and that it would have happened REGARDLESS of US military adventurism. Now the US simply won't have the moral high ground when it happens. Not that the US ever really does have the moral high ground in the eyes of the rest of the world - anyone remember when the US was getting blamed for allowing Kossovo to happen in Europe's back yard? And now Darfur, to which the US has never had any ties, colonial or otherwise? Somalia? These were all the US's "fault", and we swallowed that hook whole.
Re:typical military-industrial scenario once again (Score:4, Insightful)
"And call me an idealist, but isn't it more likely we'd get the natives cooperation a whole lot easier and cheaper if we dropped like food and medicine and maybe a well-drilling kit?"
we've tried that in several countries. Very often people are killed by local warlords, who then confiscate the material.