U.S. Air Force Developing Microwave Weapon 677
Makarand writes "A weapon that uses an intense microwave pulse to fry electronics in computers
and communication systems is being developed by the US Air Force
according to this BBC News article. This weapon is totally harmless to people and could be used in
situations where hitting targets could result in civilian casualties.
This weapon could be carried by an unmanned drone or a cruise missile." EMP weapons have, in general, been under discussion and research for a very long time.
Advantage.. (Score:3, Funny)
Early reports ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Advantage.. (Score:2, Informative)
If the weapon is not dangerous for people, it would also mean that it is unusable to cook food with...
The microwaves in microwaveovens has a frequency that energizes water-molecules. And it has the same effect in live tissue as it has on dead. So if it is unharmfull to people, it should not energize watermolecules...
why it won't hurt people (Score:3, Informative)
Just my 2c of freshman college physics.
Re:Advantage.. (Score:5, Funny)
Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine this being used near a busy traffic intersection, or near a hospital.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:5, Insightful)
But in most cases it's safer than conventional weapons: disabling electronics in a hospital, on an intersection or at a chemical plant is better than just pelt those targets with bombs.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:4, Interesting)
They're not valid targets, they're specifically protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention.
But then, water and power plants are protected under Article 54 of the Fourth Protocol of the Geneva Conventions [deoxy.org]. Britain and America are both signatories of the protocol, yet they bombed Iraqi water, sewerage and power systems during the last Gulf War. Neither party has been charged with war crimes.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:5, Informative)
But then Article 56 has the 'military necessity' clause:
Article 56.
2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph I shall cease:
a. for a dam or a dike only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
b. for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
c. for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A lot of these weapons don't actually work. (Score:3, Funny)
We need poor weapons developers! Developers develepers developers developers developers...
Re:A lot of these weapons don't actually work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Blame the enemy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blame the enemy... (Score:5, Informative)
So while I believe you are correct in theory, in practice sometimes the public isn't quite aware.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:5, Informative)
Just imagine this being used near a busy traffic intersection, or near a hospital.
You've obviously never driven or been to a hospital in the third world. In the first case nobody pays much attention to the lights (if they exist or work) in the second electricity is unreliable even without the occasional attack by an EMP weapon.
However, I'll grant it's not *completely* safe but it certainly beats the alternative. Take the example of a battery of SAMS in downtown Bagdad. In the not-so-distant past we would bombed the neighborhood killing hundreds of innocent civilians*, With current technology we would try to take it out with a "smart" bomb maybe killing two or three innocent civilians, unless we miss in which case we may kill a few dozen innocent civillians. With this new technology we blast it with an EMP pulse and everybody's lights go out - not a big deal in most of the third world.
* in the example of bombing the neighborhood to get at those SAMS and killing hundreds (or even thousands) of innocent civilians. It's quit possible that there would be a war crime involved in this scenario, but NOT on the part of the USA. Putting military assets in civilian areas to sheild them from attack is a war crime. Legally the existance of the military assets removes any immunity that target would otherwise have had. A Mosque, church, hospital, orphanage, etc with a SAM battery or Radar installation on the roof is a legitimate target and legally (and morally IMO) the guilt for those innocent deaths is on the heads of the person that made it a legitimate target. The attacker in this situation does still have a general responsiblity to minimise civilian deaths - now that we have precision bombs it would be a war crime to use dumb ones in such a situation but prior to their invention such bombings did occur.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your problem is not with me or with the USA but with the Geneva convention, international law and every other country on the globe. To be fair to you though, in the case of a hospital you do have to give notice prior to attacking even if the enemy is using it in a way that voids it's protected status. As for the "hundreds or thousands" dying to save the life of one or two American pilots - it is to avoid that situation that this weapon is being developed. But hundreds OF thousands of innocent civilians did die in WWII because of both types of war crimes (bombing illegitimate targets, and also making otherwise protected places legitimate targets by stationing military assets there) commited by both sides. As for me those responsible for the decision to bomb Dresden should have been executed. But by the same token so should anyone using their own civilians to shield their military - while their enemy has no responsiblity to attack it and should still avoid it if possible - if it is not impossible to ignore and the target must be attacked to achieve their objectives - those deaths are firmly on the head of the person that put them in that situation.
Hey ! There some oil ! Let's bomb the bastards and put in a puppet administration to get it to us cheaply rather than reduce our fosil fuel needs
The reasons for a war are largely irrelevant to this discussion which is about the conduct of that war. The legal situation is the same when bombing a civillian neighborhood in Nazi Germany (or occupied France for that matter) back in the imprecise days when it meant hundreds of civilian deaths to take out a flak gun or taking out a SAM battery with precision munitions when it may cost no or at most a dozen civilian deaths or in the future when an EMP pulse may make it possible to take it out without even any military deaths.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
You live in a very simple world. Lets take some not so far fetched hypothetical situations (let me say up fron I'm not saying these have any relation to the administoin motives for going to war but they are situations that we HAVE faced in the past few years). We have quasi allies in northern Iraq called the Kurds. Kurds are the victims of occasional attempts at genocide by the governments they unhappily find themselves living under - Turkey, Iraq & Iran. It was largely to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south that rose against Saddam that the no fly zones were established. Now if you saw an Iraqi artillary unit of a few hundred men advancing that you had certain knowledge was going to attack Kurdish villages in order to kill many thousands of innocent civilians would the deaths of those innocent civillians be the "any" cost it would be worth paying to refrain from killing the Iraqis? To muddy the waters further - what if the Iraqi unit situated themselves in the middle of an Iraqi village "protected" by the presense of their own civilians? I don't know that the moral position stays so crystal clear for anyone other than a fundamentalist of one stripe or another. The moral costs of passificm can be quite as high as those of beligerence when dealing with truly brutal people. As George Orwell noted "pacifists are objectively pro-nazi" - quite a bit more harsh than any position I would take but his sentiments reveal the lack of moral consensus (on the left) on the propriety of avoiding killing at "ANY" cost.
By the way our pilots in the northern no-fly zone did face exactly that moral dilemma (though as it turned out without mustard gas) We decided NOT to attack the Iraqis and they killed a very large number of Kurd civilians. Civilians that we had given explicit promises to protect. By your reasoning still the right moral decision but I'm a little uncomfortable with it.
I am reserving judgement on the morality of the US cause in this (potential) war - if Saadam can be shown to be developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons I think his past history (and his sponsorship of terrorists - albeit atheistic ones like Abu Nidal rather than fundamentalists like Bin Laden) create a situation with a lot more uncomfortable moral dilemmas than the "no blood for oil" crowd are willing to admit. The administrations intentions are probably quite mixed with a heavy dose of those that are "far less than noble" but I think there are other motivations in the mix that are not so purely oil black as you are willing to admit.
Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm bothered that the United States is singled out for thier accidents, "crimes and human rights violations" and no one else is called on the carpet for it.
American, French and Moroccian prisoners were tortured and in some cases held after fighting ended in Cong Truong 5, Thanh Tri and Cuu Loc prisons as part of the Proselytizing Bureau.
The North Vietnamese National Liberation Front assassinated 36,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,000. During Tet, when the city of Hue was occupied by the NVA, they killed 5,000 people and threw them into mass graves.
During a modern lethal war things happen, soliders get out of control, but don't for one minute think the Americans or Allied soldiers are the only ones out there doing bad things.
Perfect for disabling RFID tags! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfect for disabling RFID tags! (Score:4, Funny)
Probably won't affect them any more than a regular cruise missile would.
Missile Shield (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Missile Shield (Score:5, Informative)
$G
Re:Missile Shield - ballistics (Score:5, Informative)
No, a ballistic weapon can't change direction at all once it's fired. That's what separates a ballistic weapon (bullet, shell, dumb bomb) from a 'smart' weapon (guided missile, smart bomb); the guided weapons are just that, while a ballistic weapon relies soley on it's own momentum from firing and gravity to put it on target (remember projectile motion from Phys101?). 'ballistic missiles' aren't technically truly ballistic, with final-stage guidance on the MIRVs, but the launch to suborbit is.
Re:Missile Shield (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Missile Shield (Score:4, Insightful)
That treaty had an exit clause that we chose to excercise. You can disagree with the policy but we are not doing anything "despite signing a treaty" nor are we "breaking a treaty." We have fulfilled every requirement of the treaty. In either event the treaty did not bar research only deployment in more than one location. (We never deployed any ABM systems despite being allowed by the treaty to do so in one location - IN SOVIET RUSSIA they chose to protect Moscow with an ABM system)
Even before the proliferation of nuclear weapons to many more unstable and unpredictable countries there was a good argument for ABM systems to *preserve* MAD. Prior to the development of precision guidance systems you could nuke your enemies missle silos but the weapons were so imprecise and the silos so well protected that even with nuclear warheads you were unlikely to destroy them. That all changed when the USA and much later the Soviets developed dependable precision warheads. A preemptive attack could have (for the most part) worked. We could have nuked them or vise versa and had a good chance of getting their weapons on the ground - the stability of mutual suicide was already being undermined. ABM would have restored it - nobody thinks or claims it would have been 100% effective but it would have made a preemptive strike infeasible.
In todays world things are different - we are worried about a handful of countries with only a handful of nukes each - There is no MAD balance of power between us and Korea, Pakistan, India, (Iran - soon)(Iraq - fairly soon if not prevented) or even China (for the moment, they're bulking up fast) A preemptive strike on our part against any of these countries would be effective. Right now it would be our only defense against being nuked by them if a crisis turns really ugly. If you don't think our military planning regarding Korea during this current crisis doesn't include nuking the location of the one or two nukes (assuming the CIA knows their location) as a last resort during a war you are naive. And if you don't think that this president (or ANY president) wouldn't use that option if he *thought* the likely alternative was several thousand American and several million South Koreans being reduced to glowing cinders you are very much mistaken. The absense of another alternative is much likely to cause us to rush into using an nightmare option which can only work if we beat them to the punch. Our options in a really nasty crisis with a minor nuclear power could narrow down very quickly to "nuke them... it's the only way to be sure". In the next decade we have no idea what kinds of crises we may be involved in. China is very close to invading Taiwan (which is certainly advanced enough and desperate to have their own nuclear program), A nuclear war between Pakistan and India is frighteningly likely. A preemptive strike by Isreal against Iran or Iraq (whichever gets nukes first) or vise versa will be a real possiblity by the end of the decade. How will we be involved, at what risk to our troops or our mainland (China can already hit us, N. Korean missile development which they will sell to the highest bidder is getting very advanced). I for one would rather we have options other than either rolling over to who knows what nightmares or unleashing a nightmare ourselves.
Re:Missile Shield (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh, yes you did deploy a system. It was called Safeguard, started in 1969 at two sites, one in Montana one at Grand Forks in North Dakota. Additional sites were planned in Wyoming and to protect Washington DC.
The signing of the ABM agreement in 1972 limited the USSR and USA to two sites for ABM systems and a total of 100 missiles. The US abandoned plans for Safeguard in Wyoming and Washington DC. Shortly afterwards, the USSR and the USA agreed a further codex to the ABM Treaty limiting themselves to a single site, either around the nation's capital or around a ICBM site.
The Soviet Union chose to protect Moscow with the GALOSH system. The US chose Grand Rapids and abandoned all work on other sites.
Safeguard was declared operational in early 1975 and reached its full deployment of 100 missiles later that year.
In October 1975, Congress declined to continue to pay for the upkeep of Safeguard and the project was dismantled from 1976 onwards.
Your argument about MAD is weak in that you seem to assume that all of the nuclear powers out there, with the exception of the United States are much more willing to use these weapons, whilst on historical grounds it has been the United States military which has countenanced the use of nuclear weapons in a series of conflicts. Richard Rhodes' 'Dark Sun' gives a whole series of deliberately provocative actions by American forces during the Cold War that very nearly ended in disaster.
All of the countries out there know what the use of nuclear weapons means. None of them are so stupid as to threaten the United States with the handful of weapons that they possess. Any American retaliation would mean annihilation. Yes North Korea is run by an evil man - but he's not insane enough to fire a missile at America.
Those countries faced with any ABM system have one easy remedy. Assuming that few, if any countries out there can defeat America technologically, the only solution is to build more nuclear missiles with multiple warheads. History will repeat itself, except it won't be the US versus the Soviet Union, it will be dozens of countries proliferating advanced weapons like crazy.
Then I'd argue with your claim that the system would decrease the chance of nuclear conflict. The US and UK have already said that they would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear opponent that they believed was going to use chemical or biological weapons. We have already lowered the threshold for our countries exploding nuclear warheads. President Bush has approved money to the Department of Defense and Department of Energy for the development of 'bunker buster' nuclear warheads - to be used to destroy hardened underground bunkers in an otherwise non-nuclear war. We are already foreseeing new uses for nuclear weapons, they are no longer being seen as the ultimate protection against attack.
And as the Devil's Advocate in Chief here, I have to ask - why shouldn't other countries have the right to the ultimate protection? We seem to need it to uphold our national interests, why should Iran and Iraq be denied the same choice. Its quite clear that North Korea can feel completely justified in its development of nuclear weapons - the West has excluded any attack on the country and chooses a diplomatic solution. Saddam Hussein must be kicking himself that he didn't wait a couple of years before invading Kuwait under the protection of a nuclear bomb.
Finally, we have to consider the (hopefully remote) possibility of an American government that is belligerant, that chooses to threaten other countries with nuclear conflict in the knowledge that it has a working ABM system. Let's hope it never happens, but ABM can be seen as part of an offensive capability.
But let's be honest, NMD is just a Bush pork-barrel pay-back to the defence contractors who poured so much money into his election campaign. At the end of the day I doubt they care very much whether it works on not, just as long as the money keeps pouring in.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Missile Shield (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the countries out there know what the use of nuclear weapons means. None of them are so stupid as to threaten the United States with the handful of weapons that they possess. Any American retaliation would mean annihilation. Yes North Korea is run by an evil man - but he's not insane enough to fire a missile at America.
Many of the nations we are talking about are not exactly the most stable, In North Koreas case neither is the individual in charge. Sure none would intentionally precipitate a crisis that leads to a nuclear exchange but it is naive to suppose that they wouldn't under any circumstances or to suppose that they have the wisdom to avoid those circumstances. Take North Korea for one example - the population is starving off by the hundreds of thousands, China has seen a sharp increase in the number of refugees despite the fact they are repatriated as a matter of course and usually killed or tortured & put into concentration camps. The regime is strong but brittle and has never shown any concern for the deaths of millions - what desperate risks might such a regime be willing to take to preserve itself? A war might be good for moral, a successful invasion of the south might change the situation on the ground in the north? With the US and South Koreas technological superiority such a move would probably be doomed but maybe they figure sheer numbers, suprise and speed could effect a fait accompli before the US could intervene? When their strategem's flaws are revealed with a massive counter attack would they stay their hand or attempt to cauterise the invasion route with a nuclear attack? Would we be so fearful of that possiblity that we preempt? The world is not a stable place, things change in unpredictable ways - history is NOT over no matter what Franicis Fukuyama says. It's getting interesting and that is a very bad thing.
And as the Devil's Advocate in Chief here, I have to ask - why shouldn't other countries have the right to the ultimate protection?
In short, because if they get them they might nuke us, our allies or each other. As a moral issue? As an issue of "rights"? or "fairness"? Since when has international politics dealt with such issues? I'm not really so concerned about being fair to North Korea or Sadaam Hussein who don't seem to hold morality, fairness or rights in very high esteem when dealing with their own people or their neighbors. I suppose it's only "fair" that when dealing with those regimes those pleasant concepts that don't trouble their thinking don't trouble ours either.
I have a foster brother from Cambodia. He was a young teen when he escaped the killing fields - his experiences make me less sanguine about insane Maoists getting the bomb as being "only fair" and I am a little less tolerant of the moral equivalence and lack of seriousnes about the risks involved that underlay such "fair minded" reasoning.
Another argument is that many of the countries that are currently developing this technology don't have the social or political maturity to have developed it on their own without the seepage of technological advancement beyond their native capabilities from countries that ARE more socially and politically advanced. (I may be accused of racism for this argument but it is really culturalism (if there is such a term)) The technological explosion in the west that produces such weapons is made possible by social and cultural and political forces and structures that have other advantages that mitagate against the use and abuse of such weapons. If you don't believe me try having a peace march protesting government policin downtown Bagdad or Pyongyang - try casting a vote against the chosen policy in either of their parliments etc. or just try opening a business without masses of money to bribe local officials. The ideas that the law is superior to the ruler, that government is accountable to the governed, that individuals are accountable to a law superior to clan kinship, the dictates of honor or loyalty to the "supreme leader" are all ideas that on rare occasions are imperfectly realized here but are *completely* alien in some of the nations striving to master a very dangerous technology their culture could never have developed on it's own. Think of it as the "prime directive" arrogant - damn straight, but also prudent and less likely for everybody to end up glowing in the dark.
It seems sometimes that those "against" nuclear ware (as though anyone is FOR it) aren't really against it as such - they seem perfectly fine with nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone other than the western powers - especially the USA. I am deeply worried about our policy towards Iraq but it ultimately is a very aggresive policy of non-prolifieration. Our more tender non-prolifieration policy towards N. Korea obviously didn't work and our more tender non-prolifieration policy towards N. Korea now is the result of the earlier policy not working.
The USA is not the only actor on the world stage - nations are not developing Nukes just because of us but because of their own squabbles and rivalries. China developed nukes and that made it imperitive for India to have nukes which made it imperitive for Pakistan to have nukes. North Korea has nukes and if we listen to the pacifist left and isolationist right we will pull out of South Korea, without the security guarantee of a few thousand US troops on a "tripwire" and a Nuclear opponent South Korea will be tempted to develop nukes, Japan too will be tempted all of which will lead China to enlarge their stockpile. Iran is on a crash program to develop nukes. How long would it take various Arab nations to respons in kind to the shia Persian threat? What are they already doing about the more real Isreali threat" Iraq is likely doing *something* would the Saudi's sit out? Would Egypt? Regardless of what we do proliferation will increase exponentially as various rivals pop up with the nuclear option. Right now some of the most advanced nations aren't bothering because of the USA's conventional security guarantees but will that be enough now that our slaveish desire to avoid offending Pyonyang reveals such guaranatees as toothless in the face of a nuclear opponent? As proliferation increases and various complex "balances of power" are established and increasingly unstable, incompetant, corrupt regimes are involved I think it is very likely that we will see nuclear war in our lifetimes. Hopefully, it will not involve us but that is a real possiblity and one we should be prepared for.
Re:taiwan not a flashpoint (ot) (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that is their plan and it has a good chance of working BUT there is a military stick accompanying that economic carrot. China is bulking up it military across the straight and is willing to use it if that gateway to the west gets too uppity. Those pesky voters are wont to do that every few elections. The election of a more vigorously pro-independence candidate could lead to actions even more aggresive than "training excersises" by amphibious troops across the straight and "missle tests" in Tiawans airspace ("Hey Tiawan is just part of our sovereign territory - of course we can conduct missile tests there") Sure everybody wants a slow reintegration of Tiawan accompanied by slow move from mainland totalitarianism to something merely authoritarian and that seems to be what is happening. But a misstep, or a miscalculation - a little too much freedom & independence in Tiawans actions or a little too much saber rattling to keep them in line on China's part. An accidental firing during one of the periodic high tension stand-offs and all bets are off. The leaders of mainland China will tolerate a fair amount but are capable of tremendous atrocities internally and will risk war externally to keep their people in check - and they consider Tiawan their people. Tiawan for their part is willing to (and must as a matter of necessity) dance with China. But they have a first world military against China's third world one and they don't seem likely to just roll over to unreasonable demands either. Aging Chinese plutocrats accustomed to totalitarian control don't seem the best judges of when their own demands are reasonable or unreasonable - as they march towards reunification there is a lot of risk that they will misjudge the attachment that the Tiawanese have formed with democracy and political & personal freedoms and their willingness to risk war to protect them.
Re:Missile Shield (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you'd get the 12 kg of Pu vaporized and in the air causing cancer for the next million years or so. Probably preferable to have it localised where it impacts and more easily recovered. (Unless that's the centre of a city.)
Oh goody, no civillian collateral damage (!) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh goody, no civillian collateral damage (!) (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. The news media can be explained simply in one word. Ratings.
People like smart weapons, so the media shows them. People like watching disasters and war, so the media shows them. Best personal analogy is slowing down to take a nosy at a car wreck.
If television news is your primary source of "news", then you simply don't have a clue.
Re:Oh goody, no civillian collateral damage (!) (Score:5, Informative)
Taken from a useful set of articles over at CBC News [cbc.ca], including one on new weapons [cbc.ca] which mentions the microwave bomb. CBC's reporting tends to be less enthusiastic about things military.
Re:Oh goody, no civillian collateral damage (!) (Score:2)
In the last Gulf War, this percentage was very high (IIRC, 90% were dumb). But in the conflicts since then, the percentage of smart vs dumb bombs has increased steadily. In Afghanistan 60% of bombs were smart.
The cost of 'smart' weapons (mainly GPS-guided bombs) has come down (thanks to Moore's law) significantly. Also, many weapons that were still experimental in Gulf War I, are now in production.
War is clean these days (hah!) (Score:4, Insightful)
Watch for casualty pictures in the news during the next gulf war (I hope not, but I'm a pessimist these days). Chances are, you might hear about casualties, but look for any actual dead bodies. They will not show them, because then it makes the war "real", and dirty, and unpopular.
Re:War is clean these days (hah!) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:War is clean these days (hah!) (Score:3, Interesting)
Trucks and tanks are one thing, but what about the dead people - they are much less visible in photographs of the Gulf War. There was a gruesome picture originally published on the front page of 'The Observer' here in the UK. It was an Iraqi soldier still at the wheel of his truck, he had essentially been reduced to charcoal but was still recognisably a human being.
The paper received an enormous amount of criticism from elsewhere in the media and many American news organisations refused to reprint the photograph.
I'm sure its out there on the Net, but it is so disturbing I really don't want to go and find out.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Oh goody, no civillian collateral damage (!) (Score:5, Informative)
"After watching dozens of such slam-cam clips, most observers thought precision munitions were the go-to weapon during the Gulf War, but during Operation Desert Storm, of all the bombs dropped over Iraq, only 20 percent were "smart." And in fact many of those missed their targets because of weather problems or malfunctions. Saddam's destruction of Kuwaiti oil fields late in the war foiled the laser guidance systems of many because the smoke deflected the laser energy the bombs homed in on.
But if America goes to war again in Iraq, close to 100 percent of its bombing sorties will be conducted using smart bombs. And this time, they'll be smarter. Advances in laser technology, targeting systems, and the now ubiquitous global positioning satellite system have revolutionized how America conducts war from the air--and, in many cases, the ground.
During the Gulf War, pilots had to calmly keep a laser trained on their target and wait for another plane's bombs to follow the beam to the bull's eye. Today, targeting pods attached to an aircraft's wings can keep their eyes on the target while a pilot zigs and zags his way out of trouble. A laser-guided bomb dropped on Baghdad during this war will reach its target even during the most severe defensive maneuverings.
However, it's the GPS-guided bomb that has truly changed the face of air-to-ground warfare. An inexpensive retrofit to existing "dumb" bombs, the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, literally screws onto the tail and around the belly of a conventional 1,000 or 2,000 pound unguided bomb, making it in many cases more precise than a laser-guided bomb. The pilot simply programs in the GPS coordinates of a target, sometimes broadcast to air crews from ground forces by radio, and the bomb glides its way to the target, day or night, in clear skies and stormy weather. There are no laser beams to bend or bounce, just the steady signals of America's GPS constellation beaming their coordinates from space.
So apparently we will be using smart tails strapped to dumb bombs, it works for me.
But . . . (Score:2)
Didn't we already know [hamjudo.com] how to do this?
Oh, sophisticated computer components.
not 'totally harmless to humans' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not 'totally harmless to humans' (Score:2)
Agreed. Even if the EMP does not affect flesh it's very dangerous. Normal life is based on a big lot of electronic devices. Cars have electronic injection and steering correction, you cellphone will burn a hole in your pocket and I do not even want to think about what this does to hospitals.
Anyway I wish the US luck with the development of such weaponry. You have the biggest cities and most electronic equipment. Looks a little suicidal to me.
Coldbringer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think any army has ever been overly concerned with civilian casualties. The real boon for this is that it leaves strategic buildings intact for use by the bomb's owner.
Re:Coldbringer? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Coldbringer? (Score:2)
Oh... their motives might not be entirely clean. It might just be propaganda for the bleeding hearts back home... But come on, what is the US army going to do with a bunch of intact buildings in Iraq?
Good against computerized enemies... (Score:2, Funny)
On the other hand, the scary robot plane in the picture is COOL.
Re:Good against computerized enemies... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not trawling for +1 funny points here, nor indulging in knee-jerk anti-US sentiment: successfully taking the fight to a group as amorphous as, for example, Al-Qaida which has no intention of cooperating with your preferred choice of battleground is hard. I just wish I could be more confident that the activities and emphasis that have been made public so far aren't the whole of it.
Soviet EMP Devices (Score:4, Interesting)
I seem to remember reading about a Soviet 50 megaton nuke. A warhead of that size wouldn't be usable against ground targets, as the force of the blast would cause it to bury itself and reduce the actual damage--or something. I'm no physicist.
Anyway, the upshot was that these things would be far less economical in terms of distributed damage than lots of small MIRV'ed warheads.
Instead, supposedly, a Soviet nuclear attack would have been designed to blanket the US with a nationwide series of mega-EMP pulses prior to actual ground target attacks.
I couldn't find a good link, but a description of some Russian/Soviet delivery vehicles is here [cdi.org]
Over 1MT is wasted (Score:5, Informative)
The devasting effects we associate with nukes comes from the effects this radiation flux has on the atmosphere. It's like a vastly oversized thunderclap. The radiation instantly heats up a large amount of atmosphere and this is what creates the blast wave and starts a lot of the fires. Of course, there's lots of radiation left over to flash fry things further out. Heat a quantity of atmosphere up enough and it's going straight up in a hurry.
That isn't to say that there are NO noticable effects of making the bomb bigger but from a military point of view the law of diminishing returns kicks in with a vengence. There is another threshold around a gigaton or so that makes a bomb a planetary threat with some different effects involved (similar to a large asteroid collision) but who wants to set a Backyard Bomb off? It's called a Backyard Bomb because it doesn't NEED a delivery system. You set it off in your backyard and it fries your enemies anyway.
The 50MT Soviet bomb was the biggest public relations stunt in history. Khruschev literally told Sakarov to make something to "scare the ^$#@ out of the Americans" in time for a conference. It also came from a touch of Texas in the Russian mentality. The worlds biggest church bell sits on the ground somewhere in Russia because no one wanted to build the matching bell tower. It is Tsar Bell (the King of Bells). It is an impressive gesture that is practically useless. Tsar Bomba is same thing: a militarily useless ridiculously oversized weapon intended only as a gesture.
A few zeroes missing (Score:2, Insightful)
Much of the work into developing this next-generation weapon is being done at the High Energy Research and Technology Facility.
The $9m lab is located in a canyon in the Manzano Mountains, part of the remote Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.
I wish they would check their figures before releasing stories. Could you possibly build a lab like this for 9 million dollars?
Not quite EMP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not quite EMP (Score:3, Informative)
Farley Cage?? (Score:3, Informative)
You could imprison any of them in a bamboo cage fer chrissakes.
OTOH, a device remarkably like the one you described exists. It's called a "Faraday Cage", and is named for British Physicist Michael Faraday, the God Father of Electromagnetism.
You can even buy "instant cages" made of mu-copper foil -- the Army has a bunch. These cages are slowly replacing the Aluminium Foil Deflector Beanies that the crazy nutbags out there are wearing as countermeasure for the government's mind control rays. Do a google for HAARP if you're in for a good laugh.
Tempest hardened .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other problem becomes apparent when you think of what tactical targets this may be used against.
The first stage of any modern war is to blind your enemy and disrupt thier communications - this means they cannot effectively detect your invasion and coordinate a counter attack.
Currently this is done by an initial attack wave - use radar seaking missiles to destroy air surveilance equipment, cruise/smart bomb/iron bomb to take out communication centers like radio realays and phone exchanges. Maybe use special forces to ensure destruction or imparement of key facilities.
The problem with all of these is you have to physically destroy the equipment - and this means any person near it.
Now if you could use an EMP pulse to destroy electronics then you could argue that that presents a lower risk to humans in the target areas.
The reason that you can't shield this stuff is that radar needs its scanner unshielded to hear its return pulses, radios need unshielded antenna to work, telephone exchanges need miles of unshielded phone cable.
The way to defend against this is to have backup systems in shielded enclosures that are safe from the initial attack, and then connect and use them after it has passed. This is what was done for the civil defence bunkers in the UK - and I presume elsewhere. If it works anything running or connected at the time is toast.
So this is where tactically these weapons can be used - unmanned drones can sneak into the terrotary and destroy comms and survielence systems.
I don't think you could easily get this into a cruise missile - you are going to need a lot of power, probably stored in a capacitor bank to generate a high energy short duration pulse from a directional maser system. Something like the Golden Hawk may do as you have capacity and a large jet turbin to tap for power.
One thing I don't agree with is that these are 'safe' weapons - no weapon is 'safe' it depends on its tactical use. As outlined above it could be used very effecticely - and of course another attraction is that its multi use rather than trhowing away cruise missiles at half a million dollars a shot.
One thing I disagree with in the report (and I'm in the UK) is that it would be good for taking out chemical weapon facilities. No its not.
For a start small scale clandestine chemical weapon manufacture could be carried in small labs by hand - destroying a few PCs, telephones and multimeters doesn't win you anything.
If you target a large automated plant (if the chemical agents are being made in secret at some generally normal chemcial plant) then you had better hope the control systems are totally failsafe, other wise you are going to release those agents, and other noxious substances, in potentially massive quantities.
I mean, look at it this way - would you believe that a safe way of disabling a nuclear power station would be to instantly and simultaneously switch off every control system, every safety system, every hardwired multiple backup system - because that is what a weapon like this will do if it works.
The Russians tried something like that at Cherynobyl - and I think we learned something there.
High Power RF @ Microwave Freqs == Heat (Score:2, Redundant)
Don't beleive me? Stick a slab of bacon in your microwave. That's likely 500 - 2000 Watts.
EMP weapons are typically hundreds of megawatts (million watts), and the high end ones are in the gigawatt range (billion watts). Throw in that they'll be using an extremely directional antenna, and the effective radiated power could start at hundreds of megawatts into even the low terrawatts (trillions of watts).
You can take a common fighter aircraft's radar, aim it a nearby bird and in a few seconds it will fall out of the sky, dead. And that's 5 - 40 KWatts, effective is of course more.
Harmless to humans. Yeah, okay. Go ahead and stand near one of these, go for it! Be a gerbil.
OOPS! That's what the US government uses the military for! Couldn't forget about that, could we?
Microwave aircraft HAVE cooked people (Score:3, Interesting)
So even if the microwaves are supposedly tuned to silicon instead of water, I am highly sceptical of any focused microwave energy being 'mostly harmless.'
Re:High Power RF @ Microwave Freqs == Heat (Score:5, Informative)
Collateral Damage (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, this is a valuable weapon, and better than carpet bombing. I just don't want to see it (like sanctions) become a supposedly "bloodless" way to achieve foriegn policy goals.
Watch out for the RIAA (Score:2)
Very light on information. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the United States are kind of pushing up one notch the "psychological warfare" and disinformation on Iraq.
This is not a troll: if you were going to launch a war soon, you'd want your enemies to believe you have several new, exotic and deadly weapons in your arsenal.
In the first Gulf War, Some Iraqi soldiers surrendered as soon as they saw unarmed drones. Drones are now armed, and dangerous, and some Yemenis terrorists learned this the hard way (meaning they were blown to smithereens by a Predator-launched missile.
Add some rumors -- before the conflict -- on how some drones may now carry some super duper microwave weapons and watch even more Iraqi soldiers surrender real quick when a drone flies over them...
Re:Very light on information. (Score:2)
Re:Very light on information. (Score:4, Informative)
Next-gen battlefield (Score:2, Insightful)
However, military planners should remember places like Afghanistan (vs USSR) and Vietnam (vs USA), where superior technology didn't mean certain victory. In fact, guerrilla operations by the natives of those contries killed and maimed a great many young men from the "2 world powers". The natives were armed with nothing more than assault rifles, low yield explosives, a few RPG's, and ALOT of desire to succeed.
When you build a system like this, it had better be protected on the back end, or some 17 yr old enemy sapper with a death wish will blow your control systems to hell. Also, you run the risk of thinking that your enemy thinks about these systems the same way you do. Maybe he builds these systems knowing you'll attack them, so he lays a trap.
And, while you are busy figuring out why that command center was undefended, you have a couple thousand guerrilla fighters rush your base of operations. Checkmate.
So microwave radiation is safe... (Score:2)
Reducing the enemy to sticks and stones (Score:2)
Of course, if the other side had them then maybe we effectively return to the days of WWI combat technology.
And in WWI (Score:5, Interesting)
In ONE battle (the Somme) 60,000 Allied forces died on the first day. This doesn't include the numbers that the Axis lost.
Part of the point of weapons such as this is to disable the military and reduce the number of dead, this leads to a less pissed off defeated nation than one that has just seen a large portion of its population killed.
Of course given that Iraq use Scuds which have bugger all electronics in them, and North Korea still appear to be point and fire propulsion rockets this would be really effective against the British and the French should they decide to attack the US.
Sort of like the Stealth Fighter, Iraq has bugger all radar that is any good but Stealth Fighters and Bombers still fly at 30,000 feet because Iraqi air defences don't reach that high. But to the British Navy's Radar a golf ball flying at 30,000 feet and 500mph is still at target that can be blown out of the sky.
Re:And in WWI (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand you're point about the British and French attacking the U.S. but there is plenty of modern-enough Soviet hardware floating around out there for HMP to still be an effective weapon. Also consider that someday, these nations/organizations will have access to technology that the wealthy Western nations possess today so development of these weapons is still a worthy endeavor.
Interesting point about military destruction without death toll results in a less pissed off nation in defeat. This may end up being true but the first thing I thought of was what led to the rise of Hitler and the introduction of WWII - an economy in shambles and a people that felt humiliated about their defeat in WWI and the resulting terms of surrender they were forced into by the Allies. What I envision is a scenario where, sure there were less casualties in the war but now they are left to repair a nation in defeat and no modern day machinery and electronics to rebuild or restart a peacetime economy. The end result to a war fought with these weapons may end up being quite similar to one that was fought with conventional weapons.
New term: Economy Busters (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope we havn't invented the means of our own destruction.
Re:New term: Economy Busters (Score:4, Insightful)
To observe the obvious: the terrorists involved in 9/11 have no objection to "messy" images. They did target the WTC as a symbol of the US's economic hegemony, and the Pentagon as a symbol of the military -- but their specific targets had everything to do with inflicting lots of casualties in a "spectacular" way, too. "Terror" has a lot to do with bodies.
Forgive the lack of a clever twist on this post, but there it is.
oooh, scary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:oooh, scary (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine the damage this weapon could inflict on the enemy when all of their popcorn pops at once.
Well, if that 80s vintage documentary [imdb.com]showed me anything, it's that...
the house will rapidly fill up with popcorn
the windows will break outward, followed by popped corn pouring out of said windows
the front door will burst open in slow motion, and one of the more annoying antagonists will be engulfed in a mass of kernels as he is propelled down the front steps
eventually part of the foundation will collapse, and the house will list about 15 degrees to port
local townsfolk will rejoice in the corny goodness (also in slow motion)
Terrifying stuff, that is.
In other news..... (Score:2)
... intelligence reports that the Chinese are developing a new, high tech armor code-named "Redenbaucher"
Once they go on general release (Score:2)
Make your own for $150 (Score:5, Informative)
EMP "rifle"
http://www.plans-kits.com/
Know all those speed cameras? Congestion charging cameras? CCTV cameras? Whap, they don't work anymore.
Re:Make your own for $150 (Score:2)
They claim a 300 yard effective range.
NOT so Harmless (Score:2, Informative)
I bet that stuff is away above the 10 milliwatts!
I'm calling my lawyer.. (Score:2)
I'm calling my lawyer the second the popcorn in my pantry starts to pop.
Is this like earlier war days? (Score:2)
So are we now throwing microwaves? In Russia, Microwaves attack you?
Scary Threat (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Good" weapon? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd much rather live in a future where police are armed with neutralizing weapons a la Minority Report, rather than walking around with god damned AK-47s like the police in many countries do today.
If I had to choose, I'd rather be made to puke with a vomit stick by accident than be shot through the heart over a simple Halloween misunderstanding...
almost howstuffworks.com... (Score:3, Informative)
Nicola Tesla (Score:2, Interesting)
Totally Harmless To People? (Score:4, Informative)
Basically in both cases the default configuration is to be nonlethal, but it wouldn't take a whole lot to change that in a hurry.
pre-war propaganda? (Score:4, Informative)
Just for a rough sanity check...
Decent rigid coaxial cable offers about 100dB of shielding
. One-million watts = 90dBm, so that would drop it down to -10dBm interference in a shielded signal. Not enough to damage anything, but definately enough to interfere. Bluetooth and 802.11b run at a max of 20dBm and no cars crash outside when I key up the old bit blaster.
The absorbtion of the radiated power is also an issue. Different circuits absorb different frequencies better than others. If this was a fairly narrowband emission, it would wreak havoc on some things (soft tissue maybe) but not others. If it is very wide band, then you have to jack up your total power so that many different freuquencies have a potent allotment of power.
It would just be a lot easier to interfere (jam) with guidance systems and radar. And GPS is easy jam. At least that was the FCC's standpoint with respect to UWB. But that's another thread...
The two major questions about EMPs. Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) If a high power EMP device is as simple to make as several
Re:The two major questions about EMPs. Anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Avoiding civilian casualties (Score:3, Insightful)
One would think that with the US being the "Good Guys" that avoiding civilian casualties would be a goal of all missions.
It's more than likely an effective way of preserving the real estate.
A neutron bomb without the residual radiation problems and nuke escalation issues.
Megawatts of microwaves?
It would be too awful to brag about their new weapon in terms of frying people like a hot dog in the radarrange
but I'm sure that's what Gen. Amana has in mind. How could they resist?
Wouldn't this be useful as a nuclear shield? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have the links around any more, but there is a fascinating discussion of nuclear triggers that shows how this is done and why.
Anyway, the point being, if you had a directed EMP type device and you saw an incoming ballistic missle, wouldn't it be easy to fry the electronics of the missle so the thermonuclear device wouldn't detonate? Sure, you'd have a lot of destructive problems with the missle itself, but I think it would preferrable to have a 10 ton hunk of aluminum dropped on a city than a 10 megaton H-bomb, right?
Can't computers be shielded? (Score:3, Interesting)
The technology behind HPM is based on that used in household microwave ovens
Now even if the microwave rays are many times stronger and even if you use a directional antenna shouldnt it be easy to stop the rays?
From a google search i got http://www.provincia.venezia.it/comenius/eu_oven2
Or I think you can just use an aluminum foil wrapper around your computer to temporarily stop the rays (atleast till the aluminium starts burning, and then you can have fun) , Anyway how long is a drone going to be able to produce some millions of watts of power ? (746 watts =1 horsepower, I think?)
This is precisely why.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you will your world with no electronic devices. Not a lack of electricity, just a lack of devices that are working currently. No computers, no internet, no car, no stop lights, no elevators, no microwave ovens, no pizza deliver, nothing that requires electronic components.
Could you live in that world were you suddenly thrown into it?
The super market wouldn't have food for very long and of course everyone instantly becomes a looter.
Luckily buildings would still be standing. But could you heat and cool your home?
Really bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. Army doesn't "build" such weapons anyway, government contractors do, which are ordinary corporations whose goal is to make and sell products to make a profit and stay afloat. Any old customer will do, so they sell some of these weapons to other friendly nations. Those nations turn around and sell them to somewhat questionable nations. Those turn around and sell them to nations that we would never sell to, such as Iraq (for a huge sum, probably).
So, now, if we and our enemies both have such a weapon, who will sustain the most damage from its use? The U.S. of course! We are more dependent on electronics guidance systems and computers and radios than any 3rd world nation!
Iraq/Palestine/Al Qaeda are probably jumping for joy at this news. Dammit.
Re:So why are they not used? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So why are they not used? (Score:2, Informative)
In the second place, how "harmless" do you suppose these things are if they land next to a hospital full of electronic monitoring equipment? Or if an EMP was set off in the middle of Wall Street?
In the third place, given that the USA has one of the most automated militaries in the world, they'd better hope that Saddam isn't working on the same things!! Ever wonder what a close-range EMP would do to an F-16 at 10000 ft? (yes, I know they're shielded from EMPs, but it's a lot easier to make a 10x stronger EMP than to put 10x the shielding in place)
Finally, keep in mind that these things won't affect any plain old mechanical or chemical reactions, so an AK-47 will keep firing even if an EMP weapon lands right next to the firer. These things can't do everything, and they sure as heck can't win a battle for you.
Re:So why are they not used? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So why are they not used? (Score:2, Insightful)
And US officials have hinted that new developmental weapons technology could be used in an attack on Iraq
Maybe their time has come.
Re:So why are they not used? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, when they tried to use it in Bosnia, the vehicles there were so old, it had no effect because it targeted the electronics in the cars, and the ones they used were too old =)
Re:i think we used this weapon on the BBC because. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a hint: If the US military considers a project or weapon secret, as they did the F-117 in the mid-80s, you likely won't know about it until the second or third time it's used in combat.
Re:Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that Iraq rapes [yahoo.com] the wives of political prisoners (with an on-staff professional rapist) tortures its Olympic athletes [canada.com] who fail to perform, and cuts out the tongues [scotsman.com] of people who criticize the government, right?
The people of Iraq are already suffering - a few may be accidentally killed during the liberation, but the only thing we know for sure is that if we do nothing the suffering will continue. I know of no liberation in the history of the world that has been causualty-free for the oppressed, but I also know of no liberation in the history of the world where the oppressed have asked their liberators to please go home.