DARPA Working On Arthur C. Clarke Weapon Idea 453
holy_calamity writes "DARPA is working on a weapon which is similar to one first described by Arthur C. Clarke in his 1955 novel Earthlight — firing jets of molten metal using strong electromagnetic fields. The Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition (MAHEM) will function on a smaller scale than Clarke's fictional blaster. DARPA's write-up says it could be 'packaged into a missile, projectile or other platform and delivered close to target for final engagement and kill.' Clarke is also widely credited with suggesting geostationary communications satellites — what other ideas of his will come to pass?"
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bring the marshmallows (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that if you were hit by this stuff, you'd be dead almost before the nerves could send the signal to your brain telling you, "hey bub, I think you're about to die, so here's some pain for the road."
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to say probably all of them. Even the far-fetched ones like the telekinesis you allude to.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the old fashined way (Score:4, Insightful)
how about the idea of civilization (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've seen time and again weapons designed and built in the US being used against our forces. (Stinger missiles, anyone?) Does DARPA *really* need to be Al Qaida's R&D division?
It's not about defense (Score:5, Insightful)
congress and george bush are fucking retards (Score:0, Insightful)
signed,
pissed patriot
Re:What about the old fashined way (Score:1, Insightful)
Shaped charges consist of metal and an explosive. The explosive deforms the metal in such a way that it is a molten jet, and the liquid jet penetrates your target better than a solid would.
MAHEM, I'd imagine, uses an explosive to generate a large amount of electricity. This electricity is stored in an capacitor, and then released into what amounts to an on board rail gun.
While you lose energy converting from explosive to electricity, you gain in speed. Although an explosive is fast to you, a capacitor discharge can be an order of magnitude faster. This high speed discharge liquefies and propels the metal in more manageable and higher velocity ways.
Thus an improvement on existing shaped charge warheads.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you people give it up on the flying car already? People have invented flying cars. Flying cars aren't the problem. The problem is that people are too stupid to navigate in 3D space, especially when you consider how "well" they seem to be coping with 2D space.
Re:Automated memes (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, it seems DARPA in usual fashion is looking at the best way to help keep raising the national debt level. If anything, the military industrial complex has been the bankers best friend, it has managed to keep spending at insane levels, without really producing any new ways of killing people... not even those who are defenseless and easy to kill in the many innovative ways militaries and governments have devised for the last few centuries.
I mean hell, the missile, bullet, DU Penetrator, APFSDF rounds, all of it, its still the same principle of a hurled projectile, spear, sling stone or arrow. New methods of slinging shit, but still the same old idea. Pretty sad if you think of it. They keep reinventing the wheel, but the wars aren't even fought for land or gold anymore, they're fought so the idiot masses can feel good about themselves. That, there is the worst part of it, as far as I am concerned. Its one thing to fight evil bastards who want to take what is yours, whether it be, life liberty or property, but most of the wars today are fought merely to keep the cattle spending their hard earned income without asking questions. What is not as much sad as it is remarkable is the bovine imbecility present in the vast masses of humanity. THAT amazes me.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are only a few of them, no problem (although the cost will be higher without that economy of scale), but once you get enough people using them, you need "roads" and people can't be counted on to learn enough to fly cars, or maintain them (if you have to pull over in a car, fine, if you have to pull over in a flying car, look out below?)
Without an "easy" control (semi-automated control/ATC?) and maintenance (outsourced rental?) system flying cars probably are not going to appear any time soon.
Re:It's not about defense (Score:1, Insightful)
This new weapon clearly has an offensive implication. It is an munition. It will be used against the armored targets. Maybe not in Iraq, but it might be used against some other ( oil rich ) country. I'm not saying that because I think that USA will attack some other country soon, but because the history teaches me that every 6-10 years USA has to have some weapon testing ( war ) in some part of the world.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the definition of a 'humane' weapon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your flying car is delayed while awaiting an engine with higher power-density and higher reliability at lower cost, and a smart enough flight/navigation computer to operate the vehicle in the traffic densities that would be encountered after widespread adoption.
The bronze-age myths persist because religions are ideological rootkits, most of your brethren have been rooted, and the rootkits all include strong imperatives to infect one's offspring. You can't put a stop to the rootkits because society depends on them and hence is patterned to persecute any cleanup effort. Nor can you design a more infectious rational alternative rootkit because you can't rationally answer the universe's many sources of cognitive dissonance, chief among them "you will end", "they'll get away with it", and "religions are rootkits".
In the end you just have to search for and then surround yourself with those occasional outliers, those people who are honest enough to look the universe's uncaring meaninglessness squarely in the eye without reaching for a scripture to anaesthetize themselves with.
Mod -1 off topic (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bring the marshmallows (Score:5, Insightful)
There's very little that's as bad as being hacked to death by a rusty foot of steel.
Re:Rail Gun (Score:2, Insightful)
(Armchair)Generals Always Prepare for the Last War (Score:4, Insightful)
However, this really applies equally well to the arm chair generals on Slashdot that tend to bring the phrase out.
In the case of research into advanced weaponry, obviously we shouldn't just be doing research (such as this) that would only come in handy in the types of war we saw in the past (i.e. in the Cold War).
However, just as true is that we shouldn't be doing only research into advanced weaponry that is useful for "current needs" as you put. The enemy we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face at the moment is not using heavy armor, therefore you argue we should discontinue research into weapons useful against heavy armor. That seems like a smart investment until an enemy that isn't exactly like the one we face now comes up.
Given the long development time behind advanced military hardware, and the fact that the US's time as the sole superpower in the world seems to be rapidly approaching its end, maybe it's not such a bad idea to be putting at least some of our research money into preparing for future, as well as current threats.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nostramus said some extremely vague shit in code. It has been poorly translated and deciphered by people who either A) want to make a big name for themselves or B) have the aforementioned elsewhere in this thread religious rootkits installed and seem to have a vested interest in the world coming to an end just to prove that their religion is "right" and everyone else is "wrong."
Or both.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get why people are so afraid of the universe being uncaring? It's not that shocking, nor does it affect your life to know this, since it's always been true and never been different. However, if people knew and accepted this they might actually behave more humane, because they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit for them.
Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only "safe" way to do it would be to make them all 100% computer controlled (i.e. humans would not be allowed to pilot them under any circumstance), and even then it would only safe until someone hacks the system (which is easy when you have direct access to the hardware).
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want more power you can buy a variety of assemble-yourself kit flying cars and put any powerplant you want in them. Apparently people have used everything from turbofans to liquid rockets.
Personally I prefer a sail powered flying car. It's purely for recreation, of course, because of the unreliability of the power source.
against civilian targets, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#Usage_in_warfare [wikipedia.org]
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only problem with hers was that you only figured out what the heck she meant after the fact. THEN it's obvious, but not before.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem you mentioned could easily be solved by incorporating an onboard computer so that it keeps a minimum distance from other dirvers and buildings. The driver could still actually drive the thing, but it would repel like a magnet from other vehicles thanks to the "3D radar" type equipment.
Re:how about the idea of civilization (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't forget that in conventional war we removed a government in about 3 weeks.
I won't argue that pork needs to be limited, but don't forget that a lot of military research makes it to the civilian world or gets applied to other applications. Like... oh the internet for example.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is stuff we don't know about the universe. There is probably more stuff we don't know about the universe than we do know about the universe. But we don't need to fill in the gaps with "God did it" to make ourselves feel better. We can admit we don't know something and try to find the answer rather than make something up and move on. That's the difference in believing in made up fairy tails and "believing in science".
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps they'd behave LESS humanely, since they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit TO them.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automated memes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bring the marshmallows (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Napalm is no worse then any other area of effect weapon. It just got a bad name in Vietnam because they dumped it on civilians so much.
The only AOE weapon you can begin to argue is inhumane is cluster bombs, simply because they leave so many unexploded bomblets around. Napalm doesn't sit around waiting for some civvie to come by and trigger it ten years later.
Re:(Armchair)Generals Always Prepare for the Last (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever see how drivers react on a 2 or 3 lane road who enter a newly paved area where the lines haven't been painted yet?
Now imagine that - but flying
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually the chief problem as I see it is the organization that has made it so near impossible to develop personal aircraft in the first place. The FAA has tailored all regulations to suit Boeing and kin who have the fat wallets and their similarly financed customers. Most Cessna pilots use $10 stop watches mounted to their yoke. Why would anyone do something that sounds so stupid? Because the $400+ FAA certified flight clock found in Cessnas like the plane itself was developed in the 50's and 60's is off by minutes per day and the cheap, made in China stop watch [aircraftspruce.com] will run for months and still keep near perfect time. There hasn't been any real innovation and development in personal aircraft outside of the FAA experimental category in nearly half a century. You still have to control your own air/fuel mix because there aren't any modern "FAA certified" fuel injection systems. It simply costs too much to jump through the hoops. If it wasn't for the FAA that new plane that typically costs as much as a house to purchase would be as cheap if not cheaper than the average passenger car.
I also don't buy the "people are too dumb for 3D" argument either. Most pilots will tell you that learning to fly a small plane is easier than driving a car.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
But there's a deeper issue with your argument. You are assuming that the commandments were handed down by God, but it's actually quite likely that they were arrived at by one or more smart people (who, after all, would have to be smart if they could read and write at the time). So your argument is just begging the question (circular logic). The reason rational morality looks so much like the judeo-christian commandments is because it was created by rational people. Heck, even if it was created by God, are you saying He's not rational? If you happen to believe the judeo-christian mythos as fact, what's wrong with also trying to understand *why* God made those commandments?
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lewis' theory says:
A moderate objection to point one is that not everyone has altruistic urges.
A severe objection to point two is that altrui-social behavior is demonstrably beneficial to every member of a tribe, and therefore it will evolve in all social creatures.
An obvious objection to point three is that it's stupid. Of all the explanations for a seemingly inexplicable data point, saying "An invisible ghost in the sky did it!!!1!" is the least useful.
Lewis's theory is useless bunk. Its only function is to give religionists a feeling of rationality.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're talking about an infrastructure problem. There ARE places where you park your plane (or helicopter) within walking distance of your home, and you can land it within walking distance of work. No, it hasn't caught on. Could it, minus the Joe-average-can't-be-trusted-with-an-aircraft problem? Certainly. And it would require a lot less infrastructure than the car currently does.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automated memes (Score:3, Insightful)
All battlefield anti-tank weapons tend to do nasty things to the crew because it's the best way of ensuring that the thing stops shooting at you.
"Now that I think about it, military wars, where militaries are fighting on both sides, rather than just one military butchering civilians, is a good thing, in a way."
Wars have to be fought somewhere, and it's usually a place where at least some people live, so civilians inevitably suffer irrespective of whether either side is actively trying to kill them or not.
"Its a whole bunch of government worshippers reducing their own numbers."
Forcing others to fill their ranks hasn't been a problem for governments in the past, and it won't be in the future.
"The Leviathan State is self destructive. Those who value freedom have to merely side step it and let it run off the cliff."
History teaches us that (a) Leviathan States can take a very long time to destroy themselves; (b) they take a lot of people with them, the majority of which did nothing to deserve their fate; and (c) that which arises from the aftermath is usually significantly worse than the old Leviathan.
"I seem to be under the impression from my reading of the available literature on tanks, that most modern military tanks (with the exception of Israeli tanks which are remarkably reliable) tend to use several parts per mile."
They don't approach the reliability figures for civilian vehicles, but it's by no means as bad as you suggest. The standard endurance test that Western main battle tanks (i.e. the big, heavy ones) have to pass before being accepted for military use is 11 hours without a major systems failure, but it should be noted that these tests are usually performed on prototypes, which are far less reliable than production versions.
"Without massive manufacturing support, most military units of non Israeli nationality would quickly be forced to cannibalize units."
They would indeed have to cannibalise vehicles, but it would be over periods of weeks rather than days. Most of the components that fail during normal use are non-critical systems that aren't required for normal operation, or things that can be repaired without the need for replacement parts. A far more critical logistical requirement is keeping them supplied with the huge amounts of fuel they consume and ammunition for their weapons systems, none of which can be reclaimed after use.
"Thus, insurgents with RPGs are probably aiming at the easily destroyed, hard to armor parts. You know... treads, etc?"
Treads have carried stand-off plates to protect them from RPGs since WWII, so the main threat to drive trains is anti-tank mines. Infantry armed with RPGs who know what they're doing will therefore tend to aim for the vehicle's rear (or if they have a suitable vantage point, its top), both of which are much more thinly armoured than the massively reinforced front or lesser but often still formidable side armour.
"I'm curious, has the US Army actually FOUGHT anything that actually was capable of putting up a fight with all that hardware they have? "
Yes. The Battle Of 73 Easting in the 1991 Gulf War had US and British armoured groups against the Iraqi Republican Guard, professional soldiers who knew how to use their tanks properly, and fought with determination and courage. There are plenty of details on the Web if you Google for them.
Re:what other ideas of his will come to pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you're absolutely correct on the economics. But I'm very uncertain that enough people are smart enough for 3D.
The hardest part about driving a car isn't operating the vehicle - it's avoiding all the yabbos on road who aren't paying attention. On an open, unoccupied road or a gentle off-road, driving is dead simple.
To steal a line from No Exit, "Driving is other people". But at least in 2D, I can track them all. In 3D, it's going to be a lot harder to monitor drivers where I can see 50 to 100 vehicles at a time. Which is not a lot of cars in my view on an 8 lane highway! The third dimension is going to exponentially add to the variables that other drivers can introduce into my drive.
Assuming that all the people that I can see on a multi-lane divided highway are in the air, all of them of course to different destinations. They're going to want to travel as the crow flies. Isn't that the significant advantage of flying? That means that instead of being protected from half of my fellow travellers and being parallel to the other half, I'm avoiding vectors from all directions.
There may be currently possible or technically imaginable solutions, but I very much believe that "people are too dumb for 3D". Not all people, and not inherently, but enough of them and by their willingness to be (or unwillingness to learn better). I think there are people to dumb for shoes! 3D adds significant complexity, and I've seen and met drivers who are clearly too unaware and stupid to drive well. I shudder to think of them all in the air. And although I haven't met many pilots, I haven't met many who are morons - I'm not surprised that they find it easier to drive than a car. I believe that point, too (on your authority), but I don't think it's the operation of the vehicle but maneuvering it among other drivers that is the challenge in either case. You can't take the sky from me, but for now, at least, it's fairly empty up there.