Airborne Boeing Laser Blasts Ground Target 419
coondoggie writes "The airborne military laser which promises to destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage has for the first time actually blown something up. Boeing and the US Air Force today said that on Aug. 30, a C-130H aircraft armed with Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) blasted a target test vehicle on the ground for the first time. Boeing has been developing the ATL since 2008 under an Air Force contract worth up to $30 million."
no collateral damage (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank god this circumvents the stipulation in the Geneva Convention against weapons that cause blindness. As the lasers purpose is stated as an anti-vehicular weapon, the side affect of inducing blindness is A-OK.
Pocket change! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose that would fall under the category of collateral damage, and they're probably expecting everyone within sight of the target to be, well, "The Enemy(tm)."
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of this tool is war. So, yes.
Is this really what passes for jounalism today? (Score:4, Insightful)
According to as post on Wikipedia, each COIL burst produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical American household for more than one hour
Re:no collateral damage (Score:1, Insightful)
regular explosives can cause blindness from the flash too, or the concussion.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of this tool is war. So, yes.
We already have plenty weapons with lots of collateral damage and they're being used, that was never in dispute. The question was how can this be a weapon "with little to no collateral damage" if in fact the reflections do collateral damage. If we didn't care about colleteral we could just throw a nuke at it.
Re:no collateral damage (Score:4, Insightful)
A 'ship' can just light up the sky with its weapons based laser system and the tame media will never know.
Thank god the embedded media will never tell the truth about weapons that cause blindness or phosphorus weapons
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I was looking for a good place to crack a "Real Genius" joke. There's already a thread about popcorn... something about a "Real Genius" thought of that...
A mirror surface will harden the target, but even the best mirrors do not reflect all light and a combat laser can still burn a hole in it very fast.
Surprisingly, a mirror wouldn't work nearly as well as cheap glossy white paint.
Mirrors reflect (typically) 60-70% of the light that hits them, turning the rest into heat. Cheap, glossy, exterior-grade white paint often reflects in excess of 90% of the light back.
In other words, mirrors would turn about 4x as much of the light into heat as the white paint will. The difference is that mirrors reflect light without losing its coherency. White paint, on the other hand, just reflects the light in random directions.
Worried about teh lazers? Paint your tin foil hat white!
Re:Faster than a speeding bullet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read your own links? From the second:
Causing blindness is not a combat function of this weaponry; it's a side-effect of the other side trying to subvert the weapon. They were also not specifically designed to have such an effect. Their goal is to blow shit up from the air, with a particular emphasis on fired projectiles but probably used for vehicles as well (as per this example). In most cases there won't even be anybody around to get blinded.
A bullet through the eye can cause blindness too, that doesn't make it banned. Intent matters.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Creating a blinding weapon is illegal. Creating a destructive weapon that may blind as an accidental side-effect is perfectly fine.
By 'perfectly fine', I mean within the terms of international agreements on the conduct of war.
Re:Sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
The purpose of this tool is war.
Ha ha ha, the real purpose of this weapon is Pork.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
It's safe to assume no one will be standing next to them.
Ahaha. This is light we're talking about. It the missile is high enough, "next to them" means half the fucking planet.
Re:Sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
The Geneva Conventions.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Close you missed the some key aspects of the article 5.
"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."
A protected person detained as a spy or saboteur. Non uniformed terrorists do not fall under the "protected person" definition. So they are not protected by the GC.
Re:Sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is this really what passes for jounalism today? (Score:2, Insightful)
Produces?!? I think they mean it dissipates that much energy. Also, is that an American house at night, day, or mid-afternoon in the south in summer? I smell a new unit forming to go along with LOCs.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever looked in a mirror? Seriously!
The next time you go to the barber, and he shows you the back of your head by holding up an extra mirror, check if the reflection looks even detectably darker than the real thing. If you check out one of those places where you can stand between two mirrors and get "infinitely" many reflections, how do you think you can see so many reflections?
(Assuming we are speaking about visible light, of course)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee, Statement at the Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862)
US-Confederate general (1807 - 1870)
All the people crying OMG WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL LAWS AGAINST DOING THIS AND THIS AND THIS are the kind of people who don't understand this fact. The more horrible war is, the less likely it will happen. The population of the west today just doesn't get that war is ugly, they've pacified themselves culturally to believe that war is NOT the ugly horrible thing it always was, and always will be, and seem to think that OMG A CIVILIAN DIED THIS IS AN OUTRAGEEEEEEEEEEEE is how you should respond to finding out 20 enemy fighters died...but 1 civilian did as well cause the enemy was hiding in a family's house. I don't really care that I'll get modded as flamebait/troll because this is the fact of life in western society. They've been pussified since WW2 and can't handle a real war. God forbid the chinese or russians ever decide to have a real war with another country, the citizenry of the west will collectively shit their pants and break down into tears at the 'atrocities' they'll hear about that happen in what a real war should/does look like.
Re:Still a chemical laser (Score:2, Insightful)
Efficiency often increases as you get bigger, so the 1 MW laser would probably require a smaller power system and a smaller cooling system, and be physically smaller itself.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
so have fun finding an appropriate mirror for that spectrum
and i bet noone wi'll get blinded by it either.
And this obeys it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
First surface mirrors like the ones used in frickin' lasers can be made much more reflective than ordinary household mirrors. Covering a tank with 99.99% reflective precision mirrors would get awfully expensive, and any bit of dust or grease on them would ruin the whole deal.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
The laser itself needs several small laser-quality mirrors. The target would need a much larger quantity of the same mirrors, and in the same spectrum as the weapon. A plain bathroom mirror is not smooth enough to reflect that much without those imperfections absorbing a good bit of energy. If the laser really does use 'as much power as a household over an hour' then we are talking about 10kwh. 3.6E7 joules, over how ever large the surface area of the 'impact' point is, and you end up with a lot of heat in that 5 second burst.
Nope, that is definitely is going to take high quality mirrors to protect. For a moving target, say a rocket that is going to undergo high G acceleration, those mirrors will probably not survive launch. Other mobile targets, maybe. Buildings, well, putting meter tall neon letters on the roof saying 'this building is important' would be just as conspicuous. Mirrors, meet Predator. I think it has 500lbs of some iron that it would like you to meet.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Compared to a missile, this does little to no collateral damage, because most targets don't walk around wearing mirror-covered suits. Do you understand now?
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent -- someone on the internet who understands the logic of MAD!
It's troubling how many Americans don't seem to get that strength is all well and good, but peace and security require cooperation under a relative balance of power. Terrorism is "asymmetric warfare," but people take those means because symmetric warfare is impossible and they won't accept asymmetric diplomacy any more...
Re:Sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee, Statement at the Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862)
US-Confederate general (1807 - 1870)
The more horrible war is, the less likely it will happen.
Lee was wrong. You are wrong. I humbly suggest that you look at Africa in the past 30 years or SE Asia in the past 50 years. History can be a great teacher about how people will respond to things. History has also proven that the more you anger a populace, the less likely they are to be peacefully occupied.
Just because you don't feel like moral atrocity is worth outrage does not mean it should be acceptable for the nastier aspects of war to be considered standard operating procedures. Dehumanizing the enemy further is not conducive to achieving peace or military objectives, unless you desire to remove the entire enemy populace.
Finally, as someone who's grandmother was in Nanking -- fuck you.
Re:Interesting that you point to Kyoto (Score:3, Insightful)
Why land size and not population? Emissions are fundamentally related to electricity consumption (when produced by coal and oil plants) and gasoline use. Each of these are proportional to population. All else being equal, if the population doubles the electricity consumption doubles. Population density plays a role, but only by making mass transit somewhat less effective.
Land size doesn't seem relevant. Doubling land size doesn't affect electricity consumption, and it (rightly) doesn't affect a per capita estimate. If the U.S. had the same emissions as today but a population of exactly 1 person, your metric would imply that the situation hadn't changed at all. But it would, of course. That 1 person would be using up fossil fuels at a rate 300,000,000 times faster than the average American. Doesn't that seem like something that you'd want your metric to be able to measure?
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, this probably wouldn't be as effective against personnel as it would against large vehicles or buildings. Individuals are too small and mobile for a weapon like this to have any great effect. There are already TONS of anti-personnel weapons in existence now anyway.
GOLD: Effective counter measure against the ABL (Score:4, Insightful)
So if this really is a 1MW laser, then only 20kWatts of energy gets through. Plus, the beam diverges, so at a long distance the beam diameter might be something like 1meter. The USAF probably can't even run this laser for very long or else it will self destruct. So, 20kWatts of energy that is pulsed for a few seconds over a 1meter area? You can design a missile to withstand that. Just plate it with gold, and put on some aerodynamic heat sinks and/or shield and/or insulation.
Re:Still a chemical laser (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think anyone planning this project ever believes that this chemical laser will make it into service(the logistics are horrible)- however the aiming and mirroring systems will and solid state lasers should 'snap in'
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
"Uh, no, only Americans have convinced themselves that due to not having a war on their own soil in 150 years. Europeans (both West and East) are damn fucking well aware of how nasty and horrible war is."
The United States had war on its soil until 1890 (119 years ago), mass terrorism in 1993, 1995 and all out war in 2001. Or don't you remember the 3000 people dying back then?
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that aiming a laser back at a moving aircraft from the ground with a device rugged enough to be carried by a fighting vehicle is a "non-trivial problem".
Just getting said device on the correct side of the vehicle will be tricky enough in the environment where you'd see an AC-130 (air superiority, radar sites already destroyed, night).
Even if you have 5 of them to "cover" the top and 4 sides of the vehicle, then you have to somehow position them to the spot where the laser is firing, and move them so quickly that the reflector's in place before the vehicle is destroyed.
Let's say you're dumb enough to put gigantic reflectors the cover all sides of the vehicle....well your vehicle is now pretty much useless for things like 'moving'.
Re:Goodbye Geneva? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if it hits you anywhere near your eyes, the hole burned through your head will kill you. Since you'll only have a fraction of a second that you've been blinded due to your eyes melting, I really don't think you'll get a chance to file any sort of charge.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States had war on its soil until 1890 (119 years ago), mass terrorism in 1993, 1995 and all out war in 2001. Or don't you remember the 3000 people dying back then?
See, this is perfectly illustrates my point regarding the American civilian perspective on and experience of the horrors of war.
You think two whole buildings getting knocked down is "all out war". You think one guy setting off one bomb in OK City who wasn't even part of an extensive network like al Qaeda, or the singular bomb exploded in the first WTC attack, is "mass terrorism". You think mopping up native resistance in the western half of the country gives you a perspective into knowing what it is like to be terrorized in your own home in the city.
"Mass terrorism" is when multiple, coordinated attacks by extensive networks are conducted on a regular basis, like a typical day in Iraq. Mass terrorism is when you know there's going to be an explosion that day, and the only question is if its close enough to kill you. It's not one dude with one bomb. I feel silly even having to point this out, but that's the complete opposite of "mass"!
No survivor of the Bombing of Warsaw, the Battle of Britain, or the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo, or any number of other battles where entire cities were targeted with mass bombardment for days, weeks, and months in addition to troops and tanks rolling down their streets is going to call two freaking airplanes on a suicide mission "all out war". You tell a Londoner in 1940 that "all out war" is coming, and then two freaking buildings fall down and then its over, and they're going to thank their lucky stars that you were so wrong! They're going to wonder what you were so hysterical about. You explain to them about "9/11", and they're going to laugh politely and tell you that your 9/11 isn't all-out-war until you don't call it "9/11" but "your average Tuesday in war-torn America".
The last time American civilians really experienced war was 1865. This was apparently too long ago for many Americans today to have any perspective on what real war is like.
It's not that the things you list weren't awful. It's that by elevating them to the level of "all out war" and acting like that's the same experience as people living in European cities in WWII, perfectly illustrates how mentally ill-prepared Americans are to deal with real war, because they have no idea what real war is like.
Re:Sigh (Score:1, Insightful)
The United States had war on its soil until 1890 (119 years ago), mass terrorism in 1993, 1995 and all out war in 2001. Or don't you remember the 3000 people dying back then?
Maybe when that kind of attack happens everyday for months it could be considered war. In reality it's not even a battle. Lets face it you're proving the GP right when he says we Americans don't know how nasty war is.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes there was and yes you did. You're the one who specified "all out war in 2001." Read your own damn post [slashdot.org] please.
And I was of course talking about "real" war, and "total" war, because I was talking about what civilians went through in WWII. I thought you were trying to make a point, not ignore the context of the discussion in order to be pedantic.
The fact of the matter is, there was "real, all out and total war" on the Great Plains and Southwestern United States from 1865-1890.
Oh geeze, yeah, against the natives. War on the least populated parts of the U.S. at the time (and still) is technically on U.S. soil, so again score one for pedantry. Sure if you were a homesteader or a remote town aka settlement, you were in danger, but when was Dallas or any other U.S. population center ever threatened by this "real, all out and total war"?
As for this ideal that the Europeans are less likely to start wars because they have a more recent experience with it, I don't see that in recent history.
Meh I know that Eurasian countries aren't paragons of pacifist virtue. I was going along with the idea presented in the post I replied to -- that accepting the reality of the horrors of war will result in less wars being started -- because it's the absence of this virtue that explains why the United States and its people have been cavalier about war and its "horror" because that hasn't been visited upon us since Sherman marched to sea.
Other things explain other country's military mis-adventures. An absence of cultural understanding of the human consequences of war is not the reason. For rants like the one I originally replied to? Absofucking-lutely it is.