Russia's Claim To Have Used a Laser Weapon In Battle Derided As Propaganda (bbc.com) 119
Thelasko shares a report from the BBC: Yury Borisov, the deputy prime minister in charge of military development, told Russian TV that a laser prototype called Zadira was being deployed in Ukraine and had burned up a Ukrainian drone within five seconds at a distance of 5km (three miles). [...] Little is known about the Zadira laser program, but in 2017 Russian media said state nuclear corporation Rosatom had helped develop it as part of a program to create weapons based on new physical principles, news agency Reuters reported. [...] However, an official with the US Department of Defense said he had not seen "anything to corroborate reports of lasers being used" in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky mocked the Russian claim, comparing it to the so-called "wonder weapons" that Nazi Germany claimed to be developing during World War Two. "The clearer it became that they had no chance in the war, the more propaganda there was about an amazing weapon that would be so powerful as to ensure a turning point," said Zelensky in a video address. "And so we see that in the third month of a full-scale war, Russia is trying to find its 'wonder weapon'... this all clearly shows the complete failure of the mission."
There is at least one country which has developed a laser weapon though, notes the BBC. Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett unveiled prototype laser-based interceptors that would use lasers to super-heat incoming drones or rockets.
"Within a year already the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) will bring into action a laser-based interception system, first experimentally, and later operationally, first in the south, then in other places," he said in a speech to Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. "And this will enable us, as the years advance, to surround Israel with a wall of lasers which will protect us from missiles, rockets, UAVs and other threats."
The U.S. Navy also deployed the world's first active laser weapon in the Persona Gulf in 2017. "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound, it's completely silent and it's incredibly effective at what it does," said Lt. Cale Hughes, laser weapons system officer, at the time.
There is at least one country which has developed a laser weapon though, notes the BBC. Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett unveiled prototype laser-based interceptors that would use lasers to super-heat incoming drones or rockets.
"Within a year already the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) will bring into action a laser-based interception system, first experimentally, and later operationally, first in the south, then in other places," he said in a speech to Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. "And this will enable us, as the years advance, to surround Israel with a wall of lasers which will protect us from missiles, rockets, UAVs and other threats."
The U.S. Navy also deployed the world's first active laser weapon in the Persona Gulf in 2017. "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound, it's completely silent and it's incredibly effective at what it does," said Lt. Cale Hughes, laser weapons system officer, at the time.
The Duck Knows (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Russia lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
No way! Say it ain't so. Next thing you'll tell us is it was Russia's intent to turn the Moskva into a submarine.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
No way! Say it ain't so. Next thing you'll tell us is it was Russia's intent to turn the Moskva into a submarine.
With lasers on it's head.
Also, they're trying to lure the Ukes east to Stalingrad, so they can counterattack next winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Frickin' lasers!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ukraine says they lied. But Russia has been in development of such a weapon for a few years now. It being used in a battlefield situation actually isn't unlikely. They used their hypersonic missiles in combat just a few weeks back. Look at what the statement reads: they shot down a single drone after 5 seconds. That is feasible with current laser technologies as drones are generally lightweight and thus flimsy by design. The real tricky part is target tracking (have to keep it on target to a flying ve
Re: (Score:2)
Also 5km is not especially long range, would they really want to deploy it that close to hostile forces and risk it being captured or destroyed?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia always lies. Enough so that it's best to assume they are lying first until it is verified. We're not at "trust but verify" phase here, we're still at "distrust and be suspicious of verification." So many of their new weapons show up in annual parades but aren't actually on the battlefield.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I can say the same about Ukraine. They're in a war, both sides have plenty of legitimate reasons to increase the fog of war.
As for the possibility of these weapons existing, it's not that unlikely for them to have it, since the technology behind lasers are many decades old. The US had trouble mainly because we were trying to shoot ICBMs and warships with it, not flimsy drones. Russia's also fairly poor, but large. They can concentrate efforts towards some important goal, but it's much harder to fiel
Israeli Expert (Score:4, Interesting)
Israel also claims to have a laser weapon for drones and other flying things. An Israeli expert was interviewed and he said it more like a microwave oven, you keep the beam on target long enough and eventually it heats up. He also says it doesn't work like the movies were you press a button and the enemy explodes. It takes at least several seconds and it is not very long range, the atmosphere gets in the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Israeli Expert (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember talking to a US Navy officer (I forget what rank) at some point in the early 2000's who was part of a team working on a chemical laser technology to take down ICBMs mid-launch by heating. Essentially it was trained to lock in on the fuel tank, which are always at high pressure. Once the tank wall was weakened by the laser, the pressure would do the rest and tear it apart. As I recall the real technical breakthrough for that team was to develop fast adaptive optics for the primary mirror, to handle atmospheric fluctuations while the mirror was moving to track the missile.
The motto for the program was "get ''em while they're hot!"
Re: Israeli Expert (Score:3)
Essentially it was trained to lock in on the fuel tank, which are always at high pressure.
That's not how rockets work. A pressurized tank system would be so heavy, the rocket would not fly. Pressure is produced by turbo pumps.
That said, a fuel tank is a good place to aim since it is pretty flimsy. But only during boost phase. Upon reentry go ahead and hit the tank. It's not being used any more.
Re: (Score:2)
The Minuteman missiles, at least, use solid-fuel rocket boosters, and those absolutely are under pressure during launch and will behave, well, poorly [wikipedia.org] when they've got a hole in them. Other countries probably also use solid fuel boosters: they're just more reliable and stable than liquid motors. And the long-term goal of any ABM system has always been to hit the rocket during launch: MIRV systems (especially with decoys) make it very hard to destroy them reliably during or after reentry.
Also lots of rockets
Re: (Score:2)
Do ICBMs even have fuel tanks? IIRC most of them use solid propellant.
Re: (Score:2)
The DPRK supposedly still has some liquid-fueled ballistic missiles. No-one else does, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Israel also claims to have a laser weapon for drones and other flying things. An Israeli expert was interviewed and he said it more like a microwave oven, you keep the beam on target long enough and eventually it heats up. He also says it doesn't work like the movies were you press a button and the enemy explodes. It takes at least several seconds and it is not very long range, the atmosphere gets in the way.
Wouldn't that be a maser?
Lasers work largely the same way, by heating things up until something breaks or stops working. Hence they're not really an effective weapon, especially at the power levels we can produce. With drones, I suspect that a maser or laser will be meant to interfere with sensors and communications rather than outright damage and destroy. The idea being that you interfere with it's guidance enough that it crashes itself. Similar to what British Meteor pilots did to V1 flying bombs in th
Morale boost (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder weapons are invariably found to give the soldiers a reason to think that along they go and vanquish the enemy. Every military needs to convince their soldiers that they're the best trained, best equipped, and best prepared, in order to basically convince them to go out in danger and fight. I saw one recent video of some Russian pundit talking on their TV saying that the Russians are having immense difficulty, because they're fighting against Russians, that is the Ukrainian military is Russian trained, Russian equipped military, with Russian perspectives, tactics and officer training. This is probably more to push the idea that Ukraine is a contiguous part of Russia, rather than a sovereign country, but still, part of it is to convince their own grunts that they're struggling because they're equally matched,
The point I want to make, however, is that Ukraine has effectively created an aura around several weapons with all the Saint Javelin memes and NLAWs and Bayrakter drones. Thing is, they're ordinary weapons in their arsenals, being given out, being used to kill Russian soldiers, and to some degree, exaggerated, but not crazily. The propaganda war continues on both sides, as they both need to convince their soldiers that they can win.
Re:Morale boost (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the Russian equipment doesn't work. Their rations are expired. The tanks are poorly designed and break down often. Money for maintenance has been embezzled so their tires are half-rotted and go flat all the time. Fuel has been stolen so they don't have enough. You can hide those things from the top brass, but not from the guys who are getting killed in exorbitant numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also that Russia is attacking and Ukraine is defending.
Ukrainians have a really good reason to fight, if they don't fight, they simply won't be Ukrainian anymore. Russians are just given orders, and I am sure that quite a few of them are asking themselves why they are there. All soldiers who are not completely brain dead will ask themselves why they are killing people just like them at some point and the army can't brainwash their soldiers so much that they become complete idiots.
And of course, Ukrain
Re: (Score:2)
We all saw the satellite images of the Russian convoy that was forty miles long and not advancing. The only thing amazing to me is that Ukraine didn't eliminate every single vehicle in the con
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem I think is that Putin has too much direct control. He splits up the command to limit chances of a coup as well so different parts of the military aren't talking to each other much, or with intelligence units. And Putin was convinced of his own lies that he thought it was easy. Like Bush Junior believing too much in the Iraqis saying it would be easy to take the country; Putin was being misled by the rebels in eastern Donbas that all true Ukrainians love Russia and want to become Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Morale boost (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with what you say, and I'd only add that it's valuable to consider what happened in 2014, where Ukraine lost Crimea without firing a shot in anger. The reason I bring this is up is because the heavily promoted axiom around the world was that Russia has a first rate military. At the beginning of the war, it was very touchy as to whether Ukraine would be able to hold it all together. Clearly, the morale boosts worked, and they managed to create their war narrative and that is keeping them going. As soon as it became clear that they can kill Russians, and keep killing Russians, and start turning them back, that instils in their minds that this is a war they can win, and worth fighting for.
The tragedy for Russia is, had they not been tested militarily, the perception of their superior military might would have remained.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, Ukraine had been fighting in Donbas the entire time, and they knew that Russia would eventually invade to try to resolve the standoff or to take more land. This is precisely why Zelenskyy was asking Trump for more Javelins.
Re:Russian arms are shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the Ukrainians were trained and equipped as part of the USSR, so they have received similar training and equipment to the Russians.
But in addition to that, most Ukrainians can understand Russian while most Russians cannot understand Ukrainian.
And many of the Ukrainians have also received additional equipment and training from the west, which the Russians do not have. So while the Ukrainians are familiar with Russian training and tactics, the Russians may not be so familiar with what Ukrainians are doing
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the first weeks it was obvious that these conscripts were out of their depth and had poor morale. Many thought they were just having exercises when they moved to the border. Then supplies don't show up. They end up stealing cars and food, and when they meet the enemy they don't really know what to do. If this was a traing wargame then Russia would have volumes of info about where they are failing and how to improve; but since it's a real war, they fire a lot of generals (the ones not killed by U
Weapons that purposely cause blinding are illegal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not allowed to purposely blind personnel in war
says who?
Re: (Score:2)
interesting, thanks.
actually, it seems that "incidentally" causing blindness is ok, as long as it isn't done with "a weapon specifically designed, as their sole combat function or one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness". that "protocol" is more concerned with the existence of such specific weapons than with actual rules of conduct when lasers of any kind are involved.
anyway ... wars can be fun when seen from an office desk.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think Russia cares what is legal or not? They have entire BTGs mass raping women and girls. They deliberately shell apartments and homes, deliberately target hospitals, including maternity hospitals, beat, torture and kill both civilians and soldiers, and the list goes on.
In all honesty, I'm surprised Zelensky hasn't sent out a confidential notice to simply kill every Russian soldier the Ukrainian military comes across. It's obvious Russia will use whatever means to destory Ukraine and the only way
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely. The Javelin is a fire and forget weapon and represents a moving target. You'd need to back that up up with some sort of radar + targeting system, and you'd need shitload of radars to adequately cover the battlefield. And you need to power that radar. Running mains back to Russia isn't plausible, so you'll be needing to bring their energy supplies along with.
Re: (Score:2)
Laser countermeasures are pretty common. Most modern militaries, including Russia, have them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Like the ones the US used in Iraq?
https://military-history.fando... [fandom.com]
Re: Weapons that purposely cause blinding are ille (Score:2)
Or ANTIFA [washingtontimes.com].
Re: Weapons that purposely cause blinding are ille (Score:2)
just an accident that there happened to be a squad of infantry stood near by all intently watching the same tank with the laser fitted.
Not a military expert here. But rather than using an enormously expensive and complex weapon the can be defeated by just looking in a different direction, why not just shoot them? Leave the lasers for use in Bond movies.
hm ... (Score:2)
the propaganda deriding propaganda is strong with this one.
at least lasers are nerdy ... sort of.
now, please tell me more about what zelenskyy or "some us official" has to say! can't wait! nerd us to oblivion!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at August 2021 trip to Washington DC [wikipedia.org] which you can also find on various news outlets reporting on his trip here.
Re: (Score:2)
the propaganda deriding propaganda is strong with this one.
at least lasers are nerdy ... sort of.
now, please tell me more about what zelenskyy or "some us official" has to say! can't wait! nerd us to oblivion!
Think of the sharks!
Floods of propaganda on all sides (Score:4, Informative)
It's war ...
"The ghost of Kyiv?" (turns out to be footage from a video game)
Brave resisters on an island telling Russians to f** off, right before they were slaughtered by the barbarians? (The f** off didn't happen, and they surrendered peacefully.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's war ...
"The ghost of Kyiv?" (turns out to be footage from a video game)
So that seems to be some mix of propaganda / fog of war. Certainly some people in the government were playing up the urban legend but it doesn't seem to have been a coordinated disinformation campaign.
Brave resisters on an island telling Russians to f** off, right before they were slaughtered by the barbarians? (The f** off didn't happen, and they surrendered peacefully.)
For this one I don't see the Ukrainians having any blame. If Russia didn't tell Ukraine the outcome then how was Ukraine to know that they had been captured not killed.
As for the "f** off" itself I haven't seen any indication that was made up.
On the other side Russia seems to still be denying that the Ukrainia
Laser Day on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Satellites with lasers. Russians with lasers. Pretty soon we'll have angry seabass.
Re: (Score:2)
Also Rheinmetall has a laser system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Permanently blinding laser weapons are prohibited by the Geneva convention since 1995. [icrc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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
If it's not specifically designed to cause blindness it's ok to use as far as Geneva conventions go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, not a Geneva convention, this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
First line of that Wikipedia article:
Re: (Score:2)
CCW is a completely separate thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Permanently blinding laser weapons are prohibited by the Geneva convention since 1995. [icrc.org]
So is raping and pillaging your way through foreign countries. But there Russia goes...
I mean,.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You need to get a more powerful laser, then. That peculiar smell of burnt fur in the morning... Once you get addicted to it, there's no way back.
--
No animals were hurt to write this comment.
Corpses or it didn't happen. (Score:2)
Good luck flying in distant commercial aircraft! (Score:2)
As high powered laser beams propagate to greater distances into skies surrounding battlefields, protected places, or warships will the systems that target them make certain that targets in the background are not harmed by beams aimed at drones or missiles nearer to the laser source?
Sneaky sharks? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Land sharks?
Wunderwaffe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know how every profession feels the world would be better if it were run by them? Businessmen think everything should be run like a business. Engineers are sure they could do a better job than managers at organizing things.
Authoritarianism is what you get when you put a politician in charge of *everything*. Like the Mad Hatter, who only applied "the very best butter" to his pocket watch, a authoritarian Great Leader applies his admittedly formidable political skills to every problem. Give him contro
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry the Hittites didn't keep better records of how effective iron was against bronze, or how great cavalry or chariots are against infantry.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think when they invented the chariot the soldiers *immediately* knew how to drive them in combat and the generals *immediately* knew how to use them?
I'm not saying weapons don't make a difference. I'm saying when you're in the sh*t, creating new super weapons usually doesn't help.
Interesting (Score:2)
5km of distance should not pose too great a problem for similar results, but it would require incredibly accurate optics and a fairly low loss path. Otherwise, I assume it would require more power.
So, a laser capable of causing a decent size beam, I figure 50mm would require about 2000 times as much power. So, about 40MW. Assuming steal that is 5mm thick, either 5 times th
Re: (Score:2)
These small drones are not made of 1mm steel either, that same laser will do considerably more damage to a small lightweight drone made of plastic. It has even been reported that small drones made of wood and cardboard have been used in some conflicts, so a reasonably powerful laser should have no trouble setting them on fire.
Weapons like this should be pretty effective against small recon drones, and much cheaper than firing expensive missiles at them.
If looks like a duck.... (Score:2)
If looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck.
And if it openly denies being a duck, then it is a russian duck.
Atomic bombs were largely US propaganda (Score:2)
A-bombs were for propaganda purposes. It doesn't mean they weren't real. Or used.
But the whole point was to terrorize a population with stories of how fearsome they were. Which population that is depends on the version of events you believe.
The end of WWII happened when the USSR could swing its full focus on Japan. They did not want to be conquered by the Soviets, so they surrendered to the US. So "Russian lasers" seem about as effective as propaganda as "American a-bombs."
Re: Atomic bombs were largely US propaganda (Score:2)
Except this "propaganda" killed thousands upon thousands of people, and left many more with horrific injuries and deformities.
It was obvious we were showing the Soviets "yeah we have nukes, don't fuck with us", and Japan was the perfect place to do this because they are so different from us.
Re: (Score:2)
Except this "propaganda" killed thousands upon thousands of people, and left many more with horrific injuries and deformities.
No. The actual human harm was real. The story about it was propaganda.
That was my point. Propaganda is not about truth or falsehood. It's not required to be grounded in reality, though it can be. Propaganda is meant to convince. That's all.
Hype (Score:2)
"We used a LASER!"
Because shooting down a drone with old fashioned guns wouldn't get the adrenaline pumping so hard.
Is it wonder? (Score:2)
Not Unrealistic (Score:2)
The Soviet Union launched a space-based laser weapon named Polyus [wikipedia.org] on the Energia rocket back in the 80s. Unfortunately, a guidance malfunction caused the payload to fail to reach orbit. Polyus was based on an airborne laser weapons system, the Beriev A-60 [wikipedia.org] that was operationally tested.
Russia is not the Soviet Union and has a much smaller military R&D budget. Nonetheless, if TKA could make a fieldable laser weapon in the 80s, it stands to reason Russia should be able to get one out today. The only quest
Re:Suddenly (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia is full of clods using cloddish technology from the 1970s. Their cars still don't have ABS and airbags. They still use UMatic and VHS and call it "CCTV". They're still on WinXP. Most of their radio stations are still on the AM band. 3G still dominates in the mobile spectrum. Many people are still on dial-up. They still haven't widely adopted the use of hi-viz in industry and construction. The government still pays fuck all.
On top of this cronyism, nepotism and corruption are rife at every level of industry and services and administration. Government and private sector. Multinationals are withdrawing en masse. Even Google allowed its subsidiary to become bankrupt. Imported goods - luxuries - are getting harder to come by and when they can be found, exorbitantly more expensive. People that have the contacts or the money are leaving too. What a shit show.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Suddenly (Score:4, Informative)
Wait. Which Russian cars don't have ABS or airbags? Are you talking about ones they build there, or ones that they import? Because I'm pretty sure they import cars with ABS and airbags.
Also as far as WinXP goes . . . I have recently been playing Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (published by OwlCat Games, a Russian publisher/developer), and it appears that they have Win10 and Win11 at their disposal.
They're incorporated in Cyprus, I think, to get around sanctions, but their offices are somewhere in Moscow.
Re:Suddenly (Score:4, Funny)
His mistake may be stemming from the recent story that Russian car manufacturers have started building cars without ABS or airbags since they are unable to get certain components due to the 1-2 punch of the pandemic and then the sanctions arising from their disastrous decision to invade Ukraine.
https://www.archyde.com/avtova... [archyde.com]
Re: (Score:2)
His mistake may be stemming from the recent story that Russian car manufacturers have started building cars without ABS or airbags since they are unable to get certain components due to the 1-2 punch of the pandemic and then the sanctions arising from their disastrous decision to invade Ukraine.
https://www.archyde.com/avtova... [archyde.com]
This.
A lot of Russian cars are foreign cars built in Russia (Renaults, Kias, VWs). Of the top 10 selling cars in Russia, only 3 are domestic designs (Lada/AvtoVAZ) and that's stretching it, the Lada Vesta and Granta are domestic platforms that received a lot of help from Renault (Nissan-Renault own, or at least owned a stake in AvtoVAZ) and the Lada Largus is a Dacia Logan built in Russia (Dacia is a Renault owned brand).
The Granta and Vesta perform poorly in European and American NCAP tests.(before t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh okay. That kind of makes sense. I knew a few people that work at a nearby auto plant that used to export token amounts of vehicles to Russia. Those exports ceased months ago. Sanctions are a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Russians often take advantage of the expensive Japanese automotive inspection process and import cars from there.
Older Soviet era mass produced cars were licensed copies of older Fiats and often lacked amenities like ABS.
Re: (Score:2)
ABS and airbags cost money, but they are standard equipment in many countries because the laws there require it.
If a country doesn't have laws requiring these features, then cheaper models of imported cars will generally be offered without even if the base models in the country of manufacture have them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. Which Russian cars don't have ABS or airbags? Are you talking about ones they build there, or ones that they import? Because I'm pretty sure they import cars with ABS and airbags.
Also as far as WinXP goes . . . I have recently been playing Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (published by OwlCat Games, a Russian publisher/developer), and it appears that they have Win10 and Win11 at their disposal.
They're incorporated in Cyprus, I think, to get around sanctions, but their offices are somewhere in Moscow.
There are still a lot of old cars on the road in Russia. Last I was there was around 10 years ago but I saw plenty of old Moskvich and Renaults in Moscow, and not in collector's condition...
Re: (Score:2)
The wealthy "elite" there still import full-featured vehicles. The only oddity about cars earmarked for Russia would be the extra features like engine block heaters, and sometimes "heavy" suspension options. And the cigarette lighters instead of 12V power outlets.
It's interesting to see which foreign markets want the cigarette lighters and which don't.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The Mythbusters did a segment on this. It is, to put it mildly, not plausible.
Re: (Score:1)
Mythbusters could be quite entertaining but they're really not on Archimedes' intellectual level.
Re:2200 years late (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is more or less why I think we are unlikely to see laser weapons any time soon: they have to be focused on their target (and on the same spot!) for so long that it becomes highly impractical. If it were up to me, I would try developing a faster gatling gun, with bullets that can accelerate even after leaving the barrel of the gun.
Re:2200 years late (Score:4, Informative)
As I remember the episode where Mythbusters tested this, their main criticism was that the reflected sun beams need to be focused on the boat the Greeks want to set on fire for a completely impractical amount of time. While it could still be done, under ideal conditions, once the war is on this weapon is useless: no enemy boat is going to stay still enough for the long time (several minutes) needed to even start making the ship timbers start smouldering.
That and the fact that the earliest mention of the mirrors legend is from the 12th century. There are no contemporary accounts describing this weapon. The Romans weren't shy about admitting that they'd gotten their ass handed to them, they usually strove to do learn from defeats and do better next timer rather than cover their defeats up. Furthermore you'd expect Rome's enemies to have taken great pleasure in recording such a monumental Roman defeat so given the spectacular nature of mirror weapon you'd expect there to be contemporary mentions of a whole Roman fleet being burned to ashes by sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
MythBusters ain't right man. Look up GreenPowerScience on youtube. That guy proves that it absolutely could be doable, at least with today's materials.
Nice, but that took several minutes and Roman warships could move.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is more or less why I think we are unlikely to see laser weapons any time soon: they have to be focused on their target (and on the same spot!) for so long that it becomes highly impractical.
It looks like 4-5s for small targets (drones, mortar rounds) at 7km range, which is right on the edge of being practical for some scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Flamebait? Seriously (Score:2, Interesting)
Was a fucking joke, get over yourselves moderators.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fiona Hill, LOL. I see your Senior Director for Europe and Russia at the United States National Security Council and raise you a Secretary of Defense. Yeah, Putin was sure to wait for Biden to arrive, b/c he knows Biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades [theatlantic.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Still if Biden was right even once then it's a better track record than Trump, who courted and flattered dictators because he was infatuated with the strong-leader image that he lacked.