U.S. Developing 100-Kilowatt Laser for Strike Fighters 737
redwolfoz writes "New Scientist reports that American defence contractors, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are developing a 100-kilowatt infrared laser weapon for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter that may be powerful enough to blind people on the ground, even if they are relatively far from the target."
FIRE THE LASER! (Score:2)
France prepares defenses (Score:5, Funny)
Re:France prepares defenses (Score:2, Funny)
JOhn
Re:France prepares defenses (Score:3, Funny)
Pain Beam (Score:2, Interesting)
Convergence (Score:2, Funny)
Modern technology rocks.
Re:Pain Beam (Score:3, Insightful)
-B
Re:Pain Beam (Score:2)
We are not seeking a loophole in the treaty. The treaty specifically excludes as a fundamental part of its text weapons which blind as an incidental function. The only weapons covered are those whose purpose is to blind. This same language is what allows us to use laser designators (which can blind) to guide a bomb to its target.
The Real Ultimate Power (Score:5, Funny)
Facts:
1. Airborne lasers are lasers.
2. Airborne lasers fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the airborne laser is to flip out and kill people.
Weapons and gear:
laser
Testimonial:
Airborne lasers can kill anyone they want! Airborne lasers kill people ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. They are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this airborne laser who was flying around in the sky. And when some bird crapped on it the airborne laser killed the whole flock. My friend Mark said that he saw an airborne laser totally evaporate some dog just because the dog opened a window.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't believe that airborne lasers have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
Airborne lasers are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. They are totally awesome and that's a fact. Airborne lasers are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start flying next year. I love airborne lasers with all of my body (including my pee pee).
Q and A:.
Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about airborne lasers?
A: Airborne lasers are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, airborne lasers are very careful and precise.
Q: I heard that airborne lasers are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?
A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other lasers, airborne lasers can be mean OR totally awesome.
Q: What do airborne lasers do when they're not vaporizing people or flipping out?
A: Most of their free time is spent flying around, but sometime they land. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)
Thier Mom Should Have Warned Them (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand (Score:2)
The idea of a clean kill is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. Bombs go astray [yahoo.com], the jury's still out on the health effects of distributing DUP dust into the atmosphere from a burning target, and at least with lasers you won't have all that dreadful unexploded ordnance [berkeley.edu] to clean up.
In a computer lab at WPI (www.wpi.edu) ... (Score:5, Funny)
-posted in one of the laser labs at WPI.
Re:In a computer lab at WPI (www.wpi.edu) ... (Score:3, Funny)
collateral damage ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:collateral damage ... (Score:2)
True, but the following makes me wonder:
If fired into the cockpit of a fighter jet, for instance, the infrared beam would pass through the canopy and strike the plane's electronics - reflecting random beams at the crew. And if accidentally aimed at a person on the ground, the beam could fall onto a spot just 30 centimetres across, which would be intense enough to burn skin, corneas and retina.
It almost seems like it's not going to do any damage OTHER than warm things up.. Intense enough to burn skin? Hell, if they're aiming it at engines, the damn thing BETTER EXPLODE, not just overheat. I could burn my skin touching recently used brake pads.
Re:collateral damage ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Might people nearby be blinded by reflections? Sure, and people nearby when a bomb hits might be blinded (or worse) by shrapnel.
You seem to be sugegsting that bombs are supposed to be surgical weapons designed to disable fortifications or weapons, people are just hurt if they're in the proximity. Yet you acknowledge that bombs contain shrapnel, which are metal shards intentionally added to bombs to fill the air with flesh-rending projectiles. Also, artillery was most certainly not invented for surgical strikes, and its most active use (during the Great War) was certainly primarily against people.
My point being that the concept of humane weapons is an oxymoron, whether it be poison gas, artillery, or landmines. Too bad geeks don't rule the world, we could settle our differences using more humane means. "The former Soviet Union took possession of Uzbekistan today in a tense deathmatch culminating in an amazing respawn telefrag!"
Re:collateral damage ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Only in the most tenuous sense that it's got a metal casing wrapped round the explosive. If you bother to do ten seconds of research [globalsecurity.org] you'll find that the BLU-828 (to which I assume that you're erroneously referring) has its effect primarily from the massive blast of the explosion, not from shrapnel. This is what makes it so useful for clearing forest (it flattens, not shreds trees), triggering mines, and (relevant to this discussion) causing crippling injuries [198.65.138.161] to distant combatants even behind or inside fortifications.
You really couldn't have picked a worse example to use to make your point.
Re:collateral damage ... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a wonderfully humanitarian vision, most likely spoken by someone who has never been near a "battlefield" such as Beirut or Kosovo or Baghdad or anywhere else Big Daddy Warbucks has spent his excess ordinance. Be thankful that the current "battlefield" is not on your doorstep, as it is for so many peoples of the world (but that's why this is much ado about nothing for you, right?)
There *is* no "battlefield", other than perhaps the human consciousness. The real "war" is between your perception of reality and that of the self-justifying State. And if your point comes down to staying away from places where state violence is being perpetrated, then it's pretty obvious just how close the State has come to winning the war.
Awesome, but (Score:2)
I wonder if it can be rented for laser light shows.
"Now everybody put on your welding helmets. <ZZZZaaappp!!> Uuuuuu, aaaaaaahhh...."
Mmmm Popcorn (Score:2)
...in all seriousness... (Score:3, Interesting)
any optical engineers in the audience care to comment on the likelihood of these accidental reflections causing blindness?
to be sure, if this 100KW NIR laser was fired into the cockpit of a plane, and some of the beam were reflected into the line of sight of the crew...don't we think they've got some more immediate problems than blindness? no more flight electronics...plane going down...ahem.
I think that the article fails to address that accidental reflection would be dependent upon the material being hit. Certainly most glass substrates would reflect some, but the power behind that beam is enormous!
my math regarding optical incident and accident angles is a little rusty...can we have some factual analysis here?
"Will you and the "laser" get a friggin room?"
^^ obligitory reference
Re:...in all seriousness... (Score:3)
100%. I work with 3-10 milliwatt telecom lasers- and they can blind, although they don't if you stay atleast arms length away. (Diffraction makes them spread out very quickly.)
100KW lasers are 10 million times more powerful...
These may start to remove small portions of your vision if you view a reflection up to a kilometer away; but mostly you'd have to be closer than that. If you were right next to something that was hit, I doubt you'd ever see again one way or another.
Re:...in all seriousness... (Score:4, Informative)
* Is this near infrared or far? A CO2 laser will put out far IR, with a wavelength of 10.6 microns. At that wavelength the light will damage the cornea, and possibly the lens of the eye. Near IR (under 1.4 microns) will damage the retina, possibly causing a foveal blind spot.
* Specular or diffuse reflection? The big problem with lasers is that you have a serious amount of power focused in a very collimated beam, all of which can get focused into a very small part of the eye. It's a question of intensity -- power per area. Diffuse reflection will send the laser power all over the map, but less of it will get in the eye. Direct reflection won't be spread out over as much of an area, but if it gets in your eye, eyoikes.
We're talking 100 kW, which is a giant dumptruck full of power. A 100-watt CO2 laser, which is nice and invisible, will give you serious burns with a beam that's a centimeter in diameter. Now imagine focusing that power down into your eye. And that's three orders of magnitude less power than this 100 kW laser.
Air To Ground Capability (Score:2, Funny)
1.21 gigawats (Score:2, Funny)
spectrometry (Score:2)
Um. (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about it. You go in and you can drop, depending on the fighter between 6 and 24 500-pound bombs, in more or less one go, which is going to pulverize everything in the area... Or you can loiter around as a sitting duck for anti-aircraft fire and pop off two four-second laser bursts every thirty seconds.
Now, the other thing, and IANALS (I Am Not A Laser Scientist), my understanding is that solid-state lasers are a bit fragile at the moment. How is this thing supposed to handle the G-loads experienced by a strike fighter?
Also, maybe I've been watching Real Genius [imdb.com] a little too much, but I was always under the impression that a kilowatt laser wasn't that impressive.
There's no reason to adopt laser technology of the kind mentioned in the article, when bombs are safer for the pilots to use, have proven reliability, and are more combat-effective. This leads me to believe that this is either another money-pit for the Department of Defense, or the capabilities of this laser are grossly understated.
kW IR lasers (Score:5, Informative)
you have been watching too much real genius. one of my friends works with a multiple-laser mass spectrometer over in atmospheric sciences (the Single Particle Laser-Ablation Time-of-flight Mass Spec, SPLAT-MS, if you're curious) - they have a 1.5 watt, 20ms pulsed CO2 (infrared, same wavelength range the military wants to use) laser that will cause third-degree burns if you put your hand in the beam for *two pulses*. now this laser they're talking about is a 100kW; i don't know if the solid-state is less efficient than the gas laser, but either way there's still going to be a lot more than 1.5W coming out, for a lot longer than 20ms. i'd like to see what happens if you blast a chunk of asphalt with that sucker - the SPLAT laser makes little firepuffs of burning tar vapor; the military laser would probably "ablate" (vaporize) the entire rock. and to ice the cake, IR laser emission is totally invisible, even the scattered stuff...
4 seconds is enough (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's powerful and accurate enough, you could hit him before he's more than a blip on your radar screen. Just like a missile, except that all the chaff and flares in the world won't save him.
War sucks. If we put half as much $ and effort into figuring out how to cure diseases and end poverty, as we do into these fucking Dr. Strangelove, penis-waving weapons systems...
Re:4 seconds is enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, we already know how to prevent plagues and famines. Why do you think they've been unknown in the West (including Japan and Australia) for centuries? Because liberal, democratic capitalism pretty much works. The countries that do suffer from plagues and famines on a regular basis are anarchies or feudal states (varies parts of Africa) or Communist (North Korea) or under some other form of totalitarian government (Iraq, Afghanistan, until recently).
The situation will continue until one of two things happen. One possibility is that these countries establish governments and economies like ours. The other is that one or more Western powers simply conquers them and establishes an Empire. The British tried this, and it worked remarkably well, it was only when they got bored and went home that the former provinces of the Empire reverted to poverty and neglect. The US is doing this in Afghanistan as we speak, and will probably do it in Iraq at some point too (to get back on topic, maybe using laser weapons).
Re:4 seconds is enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not be hyperbolic here.
The Dust Bowl [uwec.edu] adequately fits definition one, and happened in 1930. The food situation in Western Europe in 1945 also qualifies. I also believe the Irish Potato Famine is less than a "couple of centuries" ago. This event [pbs.org] in 1918 seems to qualify for definition one. Definition 2 remains endemic in the Southwestern US today. It is also a periodic problem in the world's largest democracy. [indianembassy.org]Re:4 seconds is enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep being well fed, healthy and unable to defend yourself will make a power mad asshole with an Army think twice before he attacks you to take the food, medical care and whatever else he feels like.
Re:4 seconds is enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the reason for all that war equipment is not to actually defend the U.S., but rather to enforce its will on governments that would dare go against its perceived national interests. As the only remaining superpower, the U.S. gets to call all the shot, and you'd be a fool to think that they'll use that power to promote democracy and the rule of law! Since the 1953 coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government, now known to have been orchestrated by the CIA (and incidentally helped Islamic fundamentalism become what it is today), history has showed us that the U.S. actually prefers dictatorship to democratic governments, especially in OPEC countries, as it makes for lower crude oil prices.
So now, the U.S. will have even more force at his disposal to ignore international laws and national sovereignties...great! [Sigh] I remember a time when american soldiers were not afraid to go into battle, mano a mano. Now they just bomb the crap out of the enemy - too bad if there are civilians among them - and soon they'll be able to blind them from above. Because the life of an american soldier is sacred, while that of a foreign one isn't worth shit. And you wonder why the rest of the world dislikes the U.S. govt. (Not actual americans, mind you - there's a difference.)
Re:4 seconds is enough (Score:3, Funny)
Only a man would say this.
m-
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first rifles were single-shot muzzle-loaders, mostly made of wood, that required the user to mess around with gunpowder, flint and small lead balls. They were effective only over very short ranges, and it took a well trained user to get out more than one shot per minute. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't take them long to evolve from there into the 20mm Vulcan cannon firing 100 explosive rounds every second.
Re:Um. (Score:2)
Except for B-52 carpet bombing, airstrikes these days are meant for "surgical strikes", Meaning 2 shots every 30 seconds or so should be sufficient assuming good aiming assistance.
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think "surgical strike." A laser-guided smart bomb is fairly accurate. Most of the time the bomb lands within a few yards of the target area lit up by the laser. A laser, on the other hand, hits exactly where the laser is aimed. You don't have to worry about winds and drifting.
You also have the advantage of a beam that travels at the speed of light, versus a bomb or a missle that may take a few seconds or minutes to hit the target. Ever seen a fighter plane dodge a missile with chaff or flares or fancy maneuvers? They can't dodge a laser.
Then there's the advantage of stealth. With an IR laser, you don't see it coming, you don't see it when it gets there, and you don't see where it came from. All you see is the "poof" when it's done.
How many laser-guided bombs can an F16 carry? Compare that to the number of potential shots you'd get with the laser weapon. You don't have to worry about running out of ammo. Sure there's a cool-down time of 30 seconds between shots, but you've also got the capability to neutralize four targets in the first 1:16, and two more every 38 seconds after that. Take a couple stalth planes with a laser onboard and you could do some serious damage.
Think of the reduction in payload. Would you rather have a single (or maybe dual) laser array that weighs a couple thousand pounds or 16,000 pounds of munitions? Less weight equals more speed and more maneuverabilty, not to mention more room for other weapons or a larger fuel load to increase range.
There's a whole stack of benfits out there.
Re:Um. (Score:2)
If it detects the refacted beam then the point of orgin will be the point of where the beam refacted from and not the actual source.
Also considering the fact that this can be shot from a plan that could quickly goto mach 1 or higer and be gone before you had a chance to wipe the explosion dust from your eyes.
Re:Um. (Score:2)
Re:Um. (Score:2)
Ummm... (Score:2)
Now, I might be wrong, but the explosion from a missile/bomb covers a rather large amount of area, and does a whole lot more than blind. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with reflected laser light than with shrapnel (though I'd like to not be in the flight path of either, thank you very much!)
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Surgical strike" won't look so good in the PR if even on a perfect hit you end up blinding everyone looking out the window of a hospital three kilometers away.
The Humanity of the Geneva Convention? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Humanity of the Geneva Convention? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. It's supposed to be the more civilized way to make war. If you think about it, all soldiers who go off to war realize that it may result in their death. Not many think about the potential of being maimed or crippled for life. In the eyes of the government, death is an acceptable side-effect of war. But if someone is crippled or maimed in war, they become a burden on their family and society. If you die your family will probably get over it in a year or two. Your widow/widower won't have your income to help support them, but they will probably find another spouse and go on to make another family. If you come back maimed or crippled, your family may still lose its source of income and will have an additional burden of having to support you. If you can no longer be productive the family may stay together, but they may be driven into poverty. This can be disastrous for a family and to a nation (on a large enough scale).
Think about it this way: what if the Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians killed in World War II were only blinded or otherwise maimed instead? Can you imagine the vast problems that recovering nations would have had trying to integrate and support the millions of victims? It would be only towards the end of the 20th century that the nations involved would have begun truly recovering. In the eyes of governments (and many people), killing is better because your can start over with a relatively blank slate.
WTF? (Score:2)
Russians have done it for years (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Russians have done it for years (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.house.gov/hunter/LtDaly.htm [house.gov]
The problem isn't blinding (Score:5, Funny)
Go Joe!
Re:The problem isn't blinding (Score:3, Funny)
to put a lot more information on their optical
storage devices, now wouldn't they?
I say *we* use the blue lasers, and they can use the red ones.
Hmmm, I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
And FYI, the purpose of the laser is to attack electronics targets not to blind civilians. Blinding is a side effect everyone is afraid of (and, as FUD is want to do, implied to be the real goal of this weapon).
Also the US, a country that has shown that even it is unwilling to disregard the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't be so stupid as to blatantly break the GC.
I know there are going to be people asking why is blinding worst than death according to the Geneva Conventions. Well the gist of the GC is that combat should be a noble enterprise: weapons should avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. It would be nice if wars could be fought kill-less. If not, then if injuries would be simple things that just disable combatants for a period yet don't leave them scarred for life. But since neither of these are too realistic, it is best to make sure that we are not just going out and crippling people (combatants or civilians) en mass. That is why biological, chemical, blinding weapons, and non-Full Metal Jacketed ammunition are illegal under the GC.
Re:Hmmm, I dunno (Score:2)
Yeah, and all those prisoners we took in the war are not prisoners of war because we say they aren't. To justify that we even had to claim that generals in the Afghan army are iilegal combatants. But we did it.
And we would never deliberatly target civilian infrastructure like the electrical grid. Except when we do of course. (Bosnia,Serbia)
Anb we would never deliberatly target the Red Cross. Except when we do. I wonder if we sent a sympathy card to the familys of the Red Cross security guards? (Ahghanastan) (Actually, that one may not violate the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure it covers noncombatant organizations.)
They're a little late... (Score:3, Funny)
Potentially very scary (Score:2, Flamebait)
Think about the potential for abuse if it falls into the wrong hands. Wanna bring down a couple jetliners, but don't have 19 hijackers to spare? That's easy! Just point one of these lasers at the wings of passing planes and watch the fuel tanks explode. Since the beam is invisible, nobody would know what hit them or be able to tell where the attack came from. You could probably drop 3 or 4 planes before you'd have to move on to another location.
Inhumane Weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets revive the microwave beam weapons while we are at it. We'll pretend they are for disrupting electronics or radar mapping, but they also do a great job of interfering with brain activity. (You only have to head the brain a couple of degrees.) We'll make protective headgear for our soldiers.
How about poison gas? I'm sure flourine and chlorine gasses do a great job of disrupting (corroding) electronics. We already have protective gear for our soldiers for that.
Or better yet, we could use tiny, indiscriminate robot devices that detect humans and explode and cripple anyone that comes near them for years to come. Oh wait, we already have that one and refuse to join in a ban on their production and use.
I'm glad we are the good guys.
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:2)
So, let me get this straight, developing flak jackets, steel helmets, steel soled boots, even emergency medical kits, is really just a sinister hint that artillery, grenades, mortars, and even rifles might have (gasp!) side effects, and are therefore immoral?
Maybe having seat belts, side impact beams, crush zones, airbags, and all the rest of that safety crap are just an indication that cars aren't designed well.
Submarine rescue vehicles, escape hatches, Momsen lungs, all that are just a clue that we shouldn't have submarines? Lifeboats mean we shouldn't have ships which actually go to sea.
Or, closer to home, parity and ECC are indications that memory might fail, and therefore
Yeh, just a bit sarcastic I guess, but this kind of nonsense thinking really galls me.
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
If the goggles are issued to maintenance people and a few key people like forward designators that is one thing. They are clearly a sensible safety protocol.
If the goggles are issued to all US troops and they wear them in normal combat situations then that is clearly another thing.
We will have to wait until 2010 or later to find out.
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
But more to the point, all weapons and all machinery and in fact just about everything in the world has unintended side effects. Guarding against unintnded consequences of using them is not a crime, even if the thing in question is a crime. What is wrong with that?
Zillions of actions are illegal, yet we have courts and police and jails. There are also all sorts of regulations and laws against government malfeasance, yet there are also regulations designed to punish transgressors, even to help find transgressors.
There is zilch wrong with issuing protective goggles, any more than issuing helmets and flak jackets.
And in case you still don't get it, these new lasers are not illegal, since their intended purpose is not illegal. Only their side effect is illegal, but only if it is the main effect, not a side effect.
The main effect of any weapon is to kill enemry soldiers, not civilians. Yet a side effect is to kill civilians. Shall we now also ban civilian ambulances near a war zone, or make their use illegal when responding to an unintended side effect of a war weapon?
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:2, Troll)
Are you aware that under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war are supposed to receive equipment to perform scientific experiments, if they so desire? Care to give a chemistry set or bio lab to an enemy in this day and age?
The fact is that the Geneva Conventions were nonsense from the beginning. Well-meaning nonsense, but nonesense nonetheless. You might as well cite the the Kellogg-Briand Pact when complaining about wartime activities. You know, the agreement that outlawed war in the 1928? It won its sponsors the Nobel Peace Prize. Worked real well, didn't it? Haven't had a war in the world since it was ratified...
-jon
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I'd be more concerned about one of these malfunctioning in a civilian area.
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no good answers to these questions, but a laser weapon would actually give the military a lot of new options for disabling targets without harming anyone. Let's say I want to stop a truck convoy from the air. Which do you think is the most humane approach:
1) Tear it apart with bombs.
2) Strafe it with high caliber automatic weapons
3) Systematically blow out the tires, with a small risk of blinding.
I'd take the small risk of blinding over being decimated by explosives any day. Of course this is just one example. There have many applications that can achieve military objectives while preventing risk of injury and death.
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:2)
That is the example use we are hearing from the contractor that is being paid millions of dollars over 10 years to develop the system. I have very little faith that it will turn out that way in practice. After all, smart bombs were going to precisely strike their targets with a minimum of collateral damage. They do have quite a bit less collateral damage than dumb bombs, but they also do not perform anything like they were billed during their early days.
We are hearing the early day claims for the lasers. When they deploy and we find that say one in five tire shots reflects off of a fender or hubcap (ok, military trucks aren't known for these) and blinds three people will the weapon still be justifiable?
Or to be more in tune with 2010, when we program the laser carrying drones to make automated milk runs over enemy territory identifying targets and firing, what will the effect be?
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:2)
It's [raven1.net] been [govexec.com] done. [fas.org]
Re:Inhumane Weapons (Score:2)
Suppose a column of enemy tanks or transports is moving through a civilian area, and we have fighters overhead. Now we can take them out with a laser, which *might* cause eye damage to people in the surrounding area, or we can just drop "smart" bombs on them, and kill a few dozen civilians.
It always cracks me up when people get in a fit about how inhumane new weapons are, when they're replacing firebombs, bullets, and missiles.
Now I probably agree with your opinions on US military activity. We killed far too many civilians in afghanistan. We are causing war with our unqestioning support of Israel. And we are about to violate 230 years of protocol by invading Iraq unprovoked. However, these facts don't really matter when discussing the merrits of a particular weapon, especially one that will save civilian lives.
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:2)
Better story on Aviation Leak (Score:5, Informative)
But can it (Score:2)
like my mousepad! (Score:2)
In what year were we supposed to have orbiting phaser platforms, again? I left my Star Trek Chronology at home for some reason.
(Oh, and my mousepad is even weirder when you consider where I'm working [awis.org] (I deny any connection to that site, yech).)
Lasers are -already- being used to blind people (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, the US Armed Forces have researched this issue [navy.mil] extensively, and most aircrew helmets and visors are now designed to protect the wearer from laser-induced eye damage - accidental or otherwise.
Worse than land mines! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Given a choice, I'd rather lose a leg than go blind, wouldn't you?
I do realize that weapons that injure are far more effective against an enemy that cares for its wounded. However, there's a difference between a bullet wound, which can heal, and being blinded for life!
On top of this, the U.S. has a reputation for hitting civilians and friendly troops recently. Is this really going to be an effective weapon for U.S. troops to have on the battlefield? I hope we're also trying to perfect occular implants at the same time.
test target #1 (Score:2, Funny)
100KW (Score:2, Informative)
Re:100KW (Score:2, Interesting)
However, if you happen to move in front of it at the wrong moment... well, the effect would be the same as the smart bomb that it is replacing anyway.
Free Electron Laser (Score:4, Informative)
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:All's you'd need is a spinning mirror... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:All's you'd need is a spinning mirror... (Score:2)
Re:All's you'd need is a spinning mirror... (Score:2)
I thought she was kinda hot, too! I like the scene when they test her rebreather in the pool.
I always try to catch that movie when it comes on the tv.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:2, Funny)
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if that was the intended effect of the weapon. If it's a laser weapon that is designed for use against planes, anti-aircraft installations, and ground vehicles that could accidentally blind someone standing nearby, it's considered legit.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:2)
Nukes are legit (Score:2)
Now of course using something that powerful would require rather extenuating circumstances, but that would be true regardless of treaties.
By teh way, conventional bombs do a great job of disfiguring, blinding, deafening, and (of course) killing people that happen to get caught in their blast radius. A laser would offer far greater precision and far less risk of incidental damage.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:5, Interesting)
It's entertaining, but a little worrying to see how military lawyers interpret things like the Geneva Convention and other documents supposedly governing the acceptable conduct of war. One example is the use of White Phosphorous, a powerful incendiary distributed over a target area using explosives. It comes in everything from grenades to mortars to bombs. Due to the horrific burns it causes, it is prohibited for use against personnel, but can be used against materiel, i.e. equipment. This is a matter of interpretation, after all, rifles and backpacks are equipment, they just happen to often be found in close proximity to enemy soldiers!
It's important to understand that the West is supreme in battle not because of divine right or objective moral superiority, but rather because our culture has elevated warfare to its most efficient. It is debatable whether wholesale blinding of enemy soldiers (and indeed, any civilians who happen to be in the vicinity) is more or less humane than the traditional form of battle, in which some individuals are wounded and killed, but the majority, even in the defeated army, escape more-or-less unscathed.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:2, Informative)
Foreward Air Control OA-10 Warthogs, Kiowa Warriors, F-18s and other types use WP fired from 2.75 inch rockets to establish smoke on a target as a visual identifier for follow-on Close Air Support from fixed and rotary wing aircraft. WP is used because it burns well, and burns even in damp conditions.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:2, Funny)
As one Marine Sniper-School instructor was quoted saying, "Yes, it's only for shooting equipment and vehicles, so don't shoot people with it... Shoot their uniforms."
- Jones
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:3, Insightful)
Right (Score:2, Funny)
And when the next generation of Osamas... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring the legal ramifications (and frankly, nobody can stop a powerful country if it wants to ignore any convention) there are two interesting effects of non-lethal weapons
1) injuring one person removes at least two people from the battlefield, because one other has to care for him. This is why it's considered more desirable to maim than kill.
2) the effects of the weapon last for decades. If you blind 10,000 enemy troops, they will then be an economic burden on their country for the rest of their lives.
Nasty thing, the military mind.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:2)
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:3, Interesting)
As it states, (and the reply above states), it only violates the rules if it's specifically designed to use to blind people.
Actually, almost any weapon that is designed to hurt and not kill humans are banned by the geneva convention as inhumane weapons.
Never the less - what stops this weapon from being used as such? Sadly, this is an un-enforceable addition.
PS. Yes - I'm a pacifist and a ultra-liberal.
Re:blinding people violates geneva convention (Score:2, Insightful)
Put it this way - you see a terrorist limo driving through a busy street from a jet 10,000 feet up. Do you:
1. Fire a directed laser weapon at it and blow up just the car and maybe blind the dozen people who happened to be looking in that direction.
2. Drop 1000 pounds of high explosive in a steel case on the car - turning the surrouding block and anyone happening to be in it into a blast crater. (Regardless of which way they happen to be looking.)
Obviously the goal should be to minimize civilian casulties when attacking military targets. However, most nations fought by the US currently tend to park their military targets right next to hospitals, schools, and places of worship to cater to the national media when they are hit. This is just another option for the military to use to combat this.
Re:Laser weapons illegal (Score:2, Informative)
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision." But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
Re:Laser weapons illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Same diff really, but obviously this way is vastly superior since you can always end up on the side of law (which you crafted to favor yourself). Isn't being a superpower great?
Re:The point being? (Score:2)
The article states (we did all read the article, didn't we?) that they are trying to determine what locations on a target would be the most advantageous. Uses they cited were possibly targetting a fuel tank, an area with a high concentration of electronic equipment (like the cockpit of a plane) or an communications array.
It does (Score:2)
Here's an interesting extract.
The most visible opponent of the proposed ban was
the Unite States. The
Clinton administration argued that a ban would interfere with the legitimate
development of the U.S. high-tech arsenal. The United States signed the
weapons convention in 1981, but it wasn't until last May that the measure was
sent to the Senate, where it still awaits ratification.
Re:geneva convention (Score:3, Informative)
Rip form article follows....
Why the Geneva Convention will not stop blinding by laser
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has laudable aims. It states, "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision."
But Article 3 opens the door to lasers that blind so long as that was not their aim. It states: "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol".
Big question is whether the US plans to take advantage of this loop hole to blind enemies on purpose (excluding the usual collateral damage and "accidents" that occur).
- HeXa
Re:What happens if the beam is reflected back? (Score:2, Informative)
1. the fighter plane will not remain stationary in the air while it fires the laser beam
2. it's not a continuous beam
3. the people on the ground shouldn't have the accuracy that a fighter plane with targeting equipment does
In all likelyhood, reflecting the beam back is a very slim probability, most certainly until ground troops get man-mounted, extremely accurate targeting systems. Which I don't think they have now nor do I think they will have for a while. Especially since one small movement places your point of aim onto a point in space much farther from where it was before, without the stability of the plane, a human couldn't reflect that beam back very well.
Re:Banned weapon... (Score:2)
Obviously, you don't want to
- Read the article that explains it, or
- Read the hundreds of other responses which address this as well.
In case you haven't gotten it yet, this weapon does not affect treaties against using weapons to blind, because blinding is not the primary purpose of the weapon.Re:I wouldn't believe anyone whose editors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really Good News (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, anything on that list would be easier to do with conventional weaponry. If we felt like invading Iraq and taking all their oil we wouldn't do it with a plane-mounted laser that can only fire twice without a cool-down period. We'd roll over them with tanks and machine guns. It's tradition after all.
Secondly, providing that the link that you provided wasn't a sham (Which it probably is), bombs would -still- be a more effective way to go about it. The lasers could certainly -blind- everyone in the convoy, but killing them would be more difficult. And holding one on a manaquin for long enough to get that particular toasty look from the photograph would be damn difficult indeed.
Continuing on. Depopulating the west bank with lasers. Funny thing really, the world has these things called "Nuclear armaments" they would do a far better job of clearing out an area than a mere beam of light (So far).
Your last statement is just hilarious. If some little Chinese girl were making Nikes slow, they certainly wouldn't blind her. What use is a blind worker? Perhaps they would beat her, but that is another story.
So... all in all... you made a series of poorly thought out, stupid comments. Then you tried to use emotionally charged subjects (Chinese labor, West bank territory, terrorism) to support these stupid comments, but you really didn't even do a good job of that.
Come back when you have developed a brain.